THE EARTH SCIENCE GEOINQUIRY COLLECTION

http://www.esri.com/geoinquiries

To support Esri’s involvement in the White House ConnectED Initiative, GeoInquiry instructional materials using ArcGIS Online for Earth Science education are now freely available.

The Earth Science GeoInquiry collection contains 15 free, web-mapping activities that correspond and extend map-based concepts in leading middle school Earth science textbooks. The activities use a standard inquiry-based instructional model, require only 15 minutes for a teacher to deliver, and are device agnostic. The activities harmonize with the Next Generation Science Standards. Activity topics include:

Teachers, GeoMentors, and administrators can learn more at http://www.esri.com/geoinquiries

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It supplies LCMS Change classes for each year that are a refinement of the modeled LCMS Change classes (Slow Loss, Fast Loss, and Gain) and provide information on the cause of landscape change. See additional information about Change in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

ArcGIS provides a wealth of Imagery & RS capabilities, from free data sources and services, to high-volume transaction image management, advanced analytics and sophisticated visualization capabilities. We will explore a few of these options that you can take advantage of today.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands” from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Offshore of Point Conception map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are available from the CSMP Video and Photograph Portal at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J1015K. The “seafloor character” data layer shows classifications of the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. The “potential habitats” polygons are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Representative seismic-reflection profile data from the map area is also include and provides information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. The distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the past about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) is interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data. The geologic polygons merge onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery seafloor-sediment and rock samplesdigital camera and video imagery, and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog has a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file. The ArcGIS REST service and OGC WMS service include all Offshore of Point Conception map area data layers. Data layers are symbolized as shown on the associated map sheets.

Geographic Information System (GIS) Software Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global Geographic Information System (GIS) Software market size reached USD 11.6 billion in 2024, reflecting a robust demand for spatial data analytics and location-based services across various industries. The market is experiencing a significant growth trajectory, driven by a CAGR of 12.4% from 2025 to 2033. By the end of 2033, the GIS Software market is forecasted to attain a value of USD 33.5 billion. This remarkable expansion is primarily attributed to the integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, IoT, and cloud computing, which are enhancing the capabilities and accessibility of GIS platforms.

One of the major growth factors propelling the GIS Software market is the increasing adoption of location-based services across urban planning, transportation, and utilities management. Governments and private organizations are leveraging GIS solutions to optimize infrastructure development, streamline resource allocation, and improve emergency response times. The proliferation of smart city initiatives worldwide has further fueled the demand for GIS tools, as urban planners and municipal authorities require accurate spatial data for effective decision-making. Additionally, the evolution of 3D GIS and real-time mapping technologies is enabling more sophisticated modeling and simulation, expanding the scope of GIS applications beyond traditional mapping to include predictive analytics and scenario planning.

Another significant driver for the GIS Software market is the rapid digitization of industries such as agriculture, mining, and oil & gas. Precision agriculture, for example, relies heavily on GIS platforms to monitor crop health, manage irrigation, and enhance yield forecasting. Similarly, the mining sector uses GIS for exploration, environmental impact assessment, and asset management. The integration of remote sensing data with GIS software is providing stakeholders with actionable insights, leading to higher efficiency and reduced operational risks. Furthermore, the growing emphasis on environmental sustainability and regulatory compliance is prompting organizations to invest in advanced GIS solutions for monitoring land use, tracking deforestation, and managing natural resources.

The evolution of 3D GIS is revolutionizing the way spatial data is visualized and analyzed, offering a more immersive and detailed perspective of geographic information. This technology allows for the creation of three-dimensional models that provide a realistic representation of urban landscapes, infrastructure, and natural environments. By integrating 3D GIS with real-time data feeds, organizations can enhance their spatial analysis capabilities, enabling more accurate simulations and predictions. This advancement is particularly beneficial for urban planners and architects who require detailed visualizations to assess the impact of new developments and infrastructure projects. Moreover, 3D GIS is facilitating better communication and collaboration among stakeholders by providing a common platform for visualizing complex spatial data.

The expanding use of cloud-based GIS solutions is also a key factor driving market growth. Cloud deployment offers scalability, cost-effectiveness, and remote accessibility, making GIS tools more accessible to small and medium enterprises as well as large organizations. The cloud model supports real-time data sharing and collaboration, which is particularly valuable for disaster management and emergency response teams. As organizations increasingly prioritize digital transformation, the demand for cloud-native GIS platforms is expected to rise, supported by advancements in data security, interoperability, and integration with other enterprise systems.

Regionally, North America remains the largest market for GIS Software, accounting for a significant share of global revenues. This leadership is underpinned by substantial investments in smart infrastructure, advanced transportation systems, and environmental monitoring programs. The Asia Pacific region, however, is witnessing the fastest growth, driven by rapid urbanization, government-led digital initiatives, and the expansion of the utility and agriculture sectors. Europe continues to demonstrate steady adoption, particularly in environmental manage

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It supplies LCMS Change classes for each year that are a refinement of the modeled LCMS Change classes (Slow Loss, Fast Loss, and Gain) and provide information on the cause of landscape change. See additional information about Change in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Cover classes for each year. See additional information about Land Cover in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It supplies LCMS Change classes for each year that are a refinement of the modeled LCMS Change classes (Slow Loss, Fast Loss, and Gain) and provide information on the cause of landscape change. See additional information about Change in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands” from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Point Sur to Point Arguello map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are available from the CSMP Video and Photograph Portal at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J1015K. The “seafloor character” data layer shows classifications of the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. The “potential habitats” polygons are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Representative seismic-reflection profile data from the map area is also include and provides information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. The distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the past about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) is interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data. The geologic polygons merge onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery seafloor-sediment and rock samplesdigital camera and video imagery, and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog has a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file. The ArcGIS REST service and OGC WMS service include all Point Sur to Point Arguello map area data layers. Data layers are symbolized as shown on the associated map sheets.

Five miles west of Osa, Washington a landslide occured after two weeks of heavy rainfall, where the hills above the rural development gave way, sending a torrent of rock, mud, and debris through the town. Forty-nine homes were destroyed and 43 lives were lost, covered in over a square mile of hillside debris. This map tells part of the story of Osa.

THE EARTH SCIENCE GEOINQUIRY COLLECTION

http://www.esri.com/geoinquiries

To support Esri’s involvement in the White House ConnectED Initiative, GeoInquiry instructional materials using ArcGIS Online for Earth Science education are now freely available.

The Earth Science GeoInquiry collection contains 15 free, web-mapping activities that correspond and extend map-based concepts in leading middle school Earth science textbooks. The activities use a standard inquiry-based instructional model, require only 15 minutes for a teacher to deliver, and are device agnostic. The activities harmonize with the Next Generation Science Standards. Activity topics include:

•
Topographic maps

•
Remote sensing

•
Minerals / Mining

•
Rock Types

•
Landforms

•
Plate tectonics

•
Earthquakes

•
Volcanoes

•
Mountain building

•
Fresh water

•
Ocean features

•
Ground wind and temperature patterns

•
Weather

•
Storms

•
Climate change

Teachers, GeoMentors, and administrators can learn more at http://www.esri.com/geoinquiries

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Use classes for each year. See additional information about Land Use in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

This product is part of the Landscape Change Monitoring System (LCMS) data suite. It shows LCMS modeled Land Cover classes for each year. See additional information about Land Cover in the Entity_and_Attribute_Information or Fields section below.LCMS is a remote sensing-based system for mapping and monitoring landscape change across the United States. Its objective is to develop a consistent approach using the latest technology and advancements in change detection to produce a "best available" map of landscape change. Because no algorithm performs best in all situations, LCMS uses an ensemble of models as predictors, which improves map accuracy across a range of ecosystems and change processes (Healey et al., 2018). The resulting suite of LCMS Change, Land Cover, and Land Use maps offer a holistic depiction of landscape change across the United States over the past four decades.Predictor layers for the LCMS model include outputs from the LandTrendr and CCDC change detection algorithms and terrain information. These components are all accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine (Gorelick et al., 2017). To produce annual composites, the cFmask (Zhu and Woodcock, 2012), cloudScore, Cloud Score + (Pasquarella et al., 2023), and TDOM (Chastain et al., 2019) cloud and cloud shadow masking methods are applied to Landsat Tier 1 and Sentinel 2a and 2b Level-1C top of atmosphere reflectance data. The annual medoid is then computed to summarize each year into a single composite. The composite time series is temporally segmented using LandTrendr (Kennedy et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2018). All cloud and cloud shadow free values are also temporally segmented using the CCDC algorithm (Zhu and Woodcock, 2014). LandTrendr, CCDC and terrain predictors can be used as independent predictor variables in a Random Forest (Breiman, 2001) model. LandTrendr predictor variables include fitted values, pair-wise differences, segment duration, change magnitude, and slope. CCDC predictor variables include CCDC sine and cosine coefficients (first 3 harmonics), fitted values, and pairwise differences from the Julian Day of each pixel used in the annual composites and LandTrendr. Terrain predictor variables include elevation, slope, sine of aspect, cosine of aspect, and topographic position indices (Weiss, 2001) from the USGS 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). Reference data are collected using TimeSync, a web-based tool that helps analysts visualize and interpret the Landsat data record from 1984-present (Cohen et al., 2010).Outputs fall into three categories: Change, Land Cover, and Land Use. At its foundation, Change maps areas of Disturbance, Vegetation Successional Growth, and Stable landscape. More detailed levels of Change products are available and are intended to address needs centered around monitoring causes and types of variations in vegetation cover, water extent, or snow/ice extent that may or may not result in a transition of land cover and/or land use. Change, Land Cover, and Land Use are predicted for each year of the time series and serve as the foundational products for LCMS. References: Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. In Machine Learning (Vol. 45, pp. 5-32). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324Chastain, R., Housman, I., Goldstein, J., Finco, M., and Tenneson, K. (2019). Empirical cross sensor comparison of Sentinel-2A and 2B MSI, Landsat-8 OLI, and Landsat-7 ETM top of atmosphere spectral characteristics over the conterminous United States. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 221, pp. 274-285). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.012Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., and Kennedy, R. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 2. TimeSync - Tools for calibration and validation. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2911-2924). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.010Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Healey, S. P., Kennedy, R. E., and Gorelick, N. (2018). A LandTrendr multispectral ensemble for forest disturbance detection. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 205, pp. 131-140). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.015Foga, S., Scaramuzza, P.L., Guo, S., Zhu, Z., Dilley, R.D., Beckmann, T., Schmidt, G.L., Dwyer, J.L., Hughes, M.J., Laue, B. (2017). Cloud detection algorithm comparison and validation for operational Landsat data products. Remote Sensing of Environment, 194, 379-390. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.026Gorelick, N., Hancher, M., Dixon, M., Ilyushchenko, S., Thau, D., and Moore, R. (2017). Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 202, pp. 18-27). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031Healey, S. P., Cohen, W. B., Yang, Z., Kenneth Brewer, C., Brooks, E. B., Gorelick, N., Hernandez, A. J., Huang, C., Joseph Hughes, M., Kennedy, R. E., Loveland, T. R., Moisen, G. G., Schroeder, T. A., Stehman, S. V., Vogelmann, J. E., Woodcock, C. E., Yang, L., and Zhu, Z. (2018). Mapping forest change using stacked generalization: An ensemble approach. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 204, pp. 717-728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.029Helmer, E. H., Ramos, O., del MLopez, T., Quinonez, M., and Diaz, W. (2002). Mapping the forest type and Land Cover of Puerto Rico, a component of the Caribbean biodiversity hotspot. Caribbean Journal of Science, (Vol. 38, Issue 3/4, pp. 165-183)Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z., and Cohen, W. B. (2010). Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - Temporal segmentation algorithms. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 114, Issue 12, pp. 2897-2910). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008Kennedy, R., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W., and Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. In Remote Sensing (Vol. 10, Issue 5, p. 691). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., and Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 148, pp. 42-57). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015Pasquarella, V. J., Brown, C. F., Czerwinski, W., and Rucklidge, W. J. (2023). Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Optical Satellite Imagery Using Weakly Supervised Video Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 2124-2134)Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M. and Duchesnay, E. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. In Journal of Machine Learning Research (Vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830).Pengra, B. W., Stehman, S. V., Horton, J. A., Dockter, D. J., Schroeder, T. A., Yang, Z., Cohen, W. B., Healey, S. P., and Loveland, T. R. (2020). Quality control and assessment of interpreter consistency of annual Land Cover reference data in an operational national monitoring program. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 238, p. 111261). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111261Pesaresi, M. and Politis P. (2023): GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030). European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea doi:10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EAStehman, S.V. (2014). Estimating area and map accuracy for stratified random sampling when the strata are different from the map classes. In International Journal of Remote Sensing (Vol. 35, pp. 4923-4939). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2014.930207USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer (2023). Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed 2024). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC.U.S. Geological Survey (2019). USGS 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model, accessed August 2022 at https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/USGS_3DEP_10mU.S. Geological Survey (2023). Landsat Collection 2 Known Issues, accessed March 2023 at https://www.usgs.gov/landsat-missions/landsat-collection-2-known-issuesWeiss, A.D. (2001). Topographic position and landforms analysis Poster Presentation, ESRI Users Conference, San Diego, CAYang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Gass, L., Case, A., Costello, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Funk, M., Grannemann, B., Rigge, M., and Xian, G. (2018). A New Generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, Research Priorities, Design, and Implementation Strategies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092427161830251X), (pp. 108-123)Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2012). Object-based cloud and cloud shadow detection in Landsat imagery. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 118, pp. 83-94). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.028Zhu, Z., and Woodcock, C. E. (2014). Continuous change detection and classification of Land Cover using all available Landsat data. In Remote Sensing of Environment (Vol. 144, pp. 152-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 This record was taken from the USDA Enterprise Data Inventory that feeds into the https://data.gov catalog. Data for this record includes the following resources: ISO-19139 metadata ArcGIS Hub Dataset ArcGIS GeoService For complete information, please visit https://data.gov.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands” from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Offshore Fort Ross map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are available from the CSMP Video and Photograph Portal at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J1015K. The “seafloor character” data layer shows classifications of the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. The “potential habitats” polygons are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Representative seismic-reflection profile data from the map area is also include and provides information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. The distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the past about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) is interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data. The geologic polygons merge onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery seafloor-sediment and rock samplesdigital camera and video imagery, and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog has a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file. The ArcGIS REST service and OGC WMS service include all Offshore Fort Ross map area data layers. Data layers are symbolized as shown on the associated map sheets.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands” from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Santa Barbara Channel map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are available from the CSMP Video and Photograph Portal at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J1015K. The “seafloor character” data layer shows classifications of the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. The “potential habitats” polygons are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Representative seismic-reflection profile data from the map area is also include and provides information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. The distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the past about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) is interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data. The geologic polygons merge onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery seafloor-sediment and rock samplesdigital camera and video imagery, and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog has a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file. The ArcGIS REST service and OGC WMS service include all Santa Barbara Channel map area data layers. Data layers are symbolized as shown on the associated map sheets.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands†from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Salt Point to Drakes Bay map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and p... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/9929d745-2cfc-48d1-9d23-4b80ff2aeaed for complete metadata about this dataset.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands†from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Offshore Pigeon Point map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and phot... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/088c0a16-0aaf-4d48-b5c1-d7c38118883e for complete metadata about this dataset.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands” from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Punta Gorda to Point Arena map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are available from the CSMP Video and Photograph Portal at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J1015K. The “seafloor character” data layer shows classifications of the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. The “potential habitats” polygons are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Representative seismic-reflection profile data from the map area is also include and provides information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. The distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the past about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) is interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data. The geologic polygons merge onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery seafloor-sediment and rock samplesdigital camera and video imagery, and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog has a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file. The ArcGIS REST service and OGC WMS service include all Punta Gorda to Point Arena map area data layers. Data layers are symbolized as shown on the associated map sheets.

GIS professionals can search for, analyze, store, and visualize large amounts of geospatial data in one platform. Aerial imagery such as Landsat is available through this interface. EOS Platform allows data users access to data, including aerial imagery such as Landsat, and the ability to perform online image processing in a web browser. It is a set of mutually integrated cloud products for searching, analyzing, storing, and visualizing geospatial data. GIS professionals can search for, analyze, store, and visualize large amounts of geospatial data in one platform. GIS users have access to an ecosystem of four mutually integrated EOS products, which together provide a powerful toolset for geospatial analysts. Image data is stored in cloud-based storage and is available for image processing or remote sensing analysis at any time; this can be a raw user file, an imagery obtained from their LandViewer data portal, or an output file from their online EOS Processing tools. The EOS Platform is currently available for free during an open Beta. The LandViewer tool has been freely available for some time and will continue to be.

NOTICE TO PROVISIONAL 2023 LAND USE DATA USERS: Please note that on December 6, 2024 the Department of Water Resources (DWR) published the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset. The link for the shapefile format of the data mistakenly linked to the wrong dataset. The link was updated with the appropriate data on January 27, 2025. If you downloaded the Provisional 2023 Statewide Crop Mapping dataset in shapefile format between December 6, 2024 and January 27, we encourage you to redownload the data. The Map Service and Geodatabase formats were correct as posted on December 06, 2024.

Thank you for your interest in DWR land use datasets.

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been collecting land use data throughout the state and using it to develop agricultural water use estimates for statewide and regional planning purposes, including water use projections, water use efficiency evaluations, groundwater model developments, climate change mitigation and adaptations, and water transfers. These data are essential for regional analysis and decision making, which has become increasingly important as DWR and other state agencies seek to address resource management issues, regulatory compliances, environmental impacts, ecosystem services, urban and economic development, and other issues. Increased availability of digital satellite imagery, aerial photography, and new analytical tools make remote sensing-based land use surveys possible at a field scale that is comparable to that of DWR’s historical on the ground field surveys. Current technologies allow accurate large-scale crop and land use identifications to be performed at desired time increments and make possible more frequent and comprehensive statewide land use information. Responding to this need, DWR sought expertise and support for identifying crop types and other land uses and quantifying crop acreages statewide using remotely sensed imagery and associated analytical techniques. Currently, Statewide Crop Maps are available for the Water Years 2014, 2016, 2018- 2022 and PROVISIONALLY for 2023.

Historic County Land Use Surveys spanning 1986 - 2015 may also be accessed using the CADWR Land Use Data Viewer: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer.

For Regional Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/region-land-use-surveys.

For County Land Use Surveys follow: https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/county-land-use-surveys.

For a collection of ArcGIS Web Applications that provide information on the DWR Land Use Program and our data products in various formats, visit the DWR Land Use Gallery: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/dd14ceff7d754e85ab9c7ec84fb8790a.

Recommended citation for DWR land use data: California Department of Water Resources. (Water Year for the data). Statewide Crop Mapping—California Natural Resources Agency Open Data. Retrieved “Month Day, YEAR,” from https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/statewide-crop-mapping.

In 2007, the California Ocean Protection Council initiated the California Seafloor Mapping Program (CSMP), designed to create a comprehensive seafloor map of high-resolution bathymetry, marine benthic habitats, and geology within California’s State Waters. The program supports a large number of coastal-zone- and ocean-management issues, including the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008), which requires information about the distribution of ecosystems as part of the design and proposal process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. A focus of CSMP is to map California’s State Waters with consistent methods at a consistent scale. The CSMP approach is to create highly detailed seafloor maps through collection, integration, interpretation, and visualization of swath sonar data (the undersea equivalent of satellite remote-sensing data in terrestrial mapping), acoustic backscatter, seafloor video, seafloor photography, high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles, and bottom-sediment sampling data. The map products display seafloor morphology and character, identify potential marine benthic habitats, and illustrate both the surficial seafloor geology and shallow (to about 100 m) subsurface geology. It is emphasized that the more interpretive habitat and geology data rely on the integration of multiple, new high-resolution datasets and that mapping at small scales would not be possible without such data. This approach and CSMP planning is based in part on recommendations of the Marine Mapping Planning Workshop (Kvitek and others, 2006), attended by coastal and marine managers and scientists from around the state. That workshop established geographic priorities for a coastal mapping project and identified the need for coverage of “lands” from the shore strand line (defined as Mean Higher High Water; MHHW) out to the 3-nautical-mile (5.6-km) limit of California’s State Waters. Unfortunately, surveying the zone from MHHW out to 10-m water depth is not consistently possible using ship-based surveying methods, owing to sea state (for example, waves, wind, or currents), kelp coverage, and shallow rock outcrops. Accordingly, some of the data presented in this series commonly do not cover the zone from the shore out to 10-m depth. This data is part of a series of online U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications, each of which includes several map sheets, some explanatory text, and a descriptive pamphlet. Each map sheet is published as a PDF file. Geographic information system (GIS) files that contain both ESRI ArcGIS raster grids (for example, bathymetry, seafloor character) and geotiffs (for example, shaded relief) are also included for each publication. For those who do not own the full suite of ESRI GIS and mapping software, the data can be read using ESRI ArcReader, a free viewer that is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcreader/index.html (last accessed September 20, 2013). The California Seafloor Mapping Program is a collaborative venture between numerous different federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector. CSMP partners include the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Ocean Protection Council, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Geological Survey, California State University at Monterey Bay’s Seafloor Mapping Lab, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Center for Habitat Studies, Fugro Pelagos, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, including National Ocean Service–Office of Coast Surveys, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Marine Fisheries Service), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. These web services for the Offshore of Salt Point map area includes data layers that are associated to GIS and map sheets available from the USGS CSMP web page at https://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/mapping/csmp/index.html. Each published CSMP map area includes a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files; map sheets that contain explanatory text; and an associated descriptive pamphlet. This web service represents the available data layers for this map area. Data was combined from different sonar surveys to generate a comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic including exposed bedrock outcrops, large fields of sand waves, as well as many human impacts on the seafloor. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are available from the CSMP Video and Photograph Portal at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J1015K. The “seafloor character” data layer shows classifications of the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. The “potential habitats” polygons are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Representative seismic-reflection profile data from the map area is also include and provides information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. The distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the past about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) is interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data. The geologic polygons merge onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery seafloor-sediment and rock samplesdigital camera and video imagery, and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog has a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues. Web services were created using an ArcGIS service definition file. The ArcGIS REST service and OGC WMS service include all Offshore of Salt Point map area data layers. Data layers are symbolized as shown on the associated map sheets.