DisMOSH, Cost, MOSHShoreline: Distance to foraging areas for piping plovers (foraging shoreline, cost mask, and least-cost path distance): Cedar Island, VA, 2012–2013

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

Frequently anticipated questions:


What does this data set describe?

Title:
DisMOSH, Cost, MOSHShoreline: Distance to foraging areas for piping plovers (foraging shoreline, cost mask, and least-cost path distance): Cedar Island, VA, 2012–2013
Abstract:
Understanding how sea-level rise will affect coastal landforms and the species and habitats they support is critical for crafting approaches that balance the needs of humans and native species. Given this increasing need to forecast sea-level rise effects on barrier islands in the near and long terms, we are developing Bayesian networks to evaluate and to forecast the cascading effects of sea-level rise on shoreline change, barrier island state, and piping plover habitat availability. We use publicly available data products, such as lidar, orthophotography, and geomorphic feature sets derived from those, to extract metrics of barrier island characteristics at consistent sampling distances. The metrics are then incorporated into predictive models and the training data used to parameterize those models. This data release contains the extracted metrics of barrier island geomorphology and spatial data layers of habitat characteristics that are input to Bayesian networks for piping plover habitat availability and barrier island geomorphology. These datasets and models are being developed for sites along the northeastern coast of the United States. This work is one component of a larger research and management program that seeks to understand and sustain the ecological value, ecosystem services, and habitat suitability of beaches in the face of storm impacts, climate change, and sea-level rise.
Supplemental_Information:
This metadata file describes three related datasets. For additional information on processing and use of this geospatial dataset, see the USGS Open-File report by Zeigler and others (2019).
  1. How might this data set be cited?
    Zeigler, Sara L., Sturdivant, Emily J., and Gutierrez, Benjamin T., 2019, DisMOSH, Cost, MOSHShoreline: Distance to foraging areas for piping plovers (foraging shoreline, cost mask, and least-cost path distance): Cedar Island, VA, 2012–2013: data release DOI:10.5066/P944FPA4, U.S. Geological Survey, Coastal and Marine Geology Program, Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center, Woods Hole, MA.

    Online Links:

    This is part of the following larger work.

    Sturdivant, Emily J., Zeigler, Sara L., Gutierrez, Benjamin T., and Weber, Kathryn M., 2019, Barrier island geomorphology and shorebird habitat metrics—Four sites in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, 2010–2014: data release DOI:10.5066/P944FPA4, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Suggested citation: Sturdivant, E.J., Zeigler, S.L., Gutierrez, B.T., and Weber, K.M., 2019, Barrier island geomorphology and shorebird habitat metrics—Four sites in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, 2010–2014: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P944FPA4.
  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?
    West_Bounding_Coordinate: -75.64117637
    East_Bounding_Coordinate: -75.58500313
    North_Bounding_Coordinate: 37.58001334
    South_Bounding_Coordinate: 37.69202748
  3. What does it look like?
    https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/file/get/5d0bc8dbe4b0941bde4fc5a0/?name=CeI_DisMOSH_Cost_MOSHShoreline_browse.png (PNG)
    Example of the movement cost (resistance) layer and the least-cost path distance to low-energy foraging areas used by piping plovers on Cedar Island, Virginia. The foraging shoreline is displayed in orange overlaid on both layers.
  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?
    Calendar_Date: 2012
    Currentness_Reference:
    Ground condition measured by source data.
  5. What is the general form of this data set?
    Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital dataset
  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?
    1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?
    2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?
      Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal Transverse Mercator
      Universal_Transverse_Mercator:
      UTM_Zone_Number: 18
      Transverse_Mercator:
      Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.9996
      Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -75.0
      Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 0.0
      False_Easting: 500000.0
      False_Northing: 0.0
      Planar coordinates are encoded using row and column
      Abscissae (x-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 5.0
      Ordinates (y-coordinates) are specified to the nearest 5.0
      Planar coordinates are specified in Meter
      The horizontal datum used is D_North_American_1983.
      The ellipsoid used is GRS_1980.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378137.0.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/298.257222101.
  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?
    CeI12_DisMOSH.tif
    The distance to foraging layer (CeI12_DisMOSH.tif) is a 2565 x 1160 pixel raster layer, where the value of every 5x5 m cell is the least-cost path distance from the center of that cell to the nearest foraging area with moist substrate used by piping plovers. This distance assumes that, for a piping plover chick to reach a foraging area, it would need to take a path that avoids areas of moderate to dense vegetation and human development. (Source: Producer defined)
    Value
    Least-cost path distance (m) from the cell centroid to the nearest point on a foraging shoreline used by piping plovers. A value of '99999' indicates no access to foraging from the cell due to movement barrier(s). NoData value of ‘-9999’ indicates cells outside the study area extent. (Source: Producer defined)
    ValueDefinition
    99999No access to foraging from the cell due to movement barrier(s)
    Range of values
    Minimum:0
    Maximum:1601.31
    Units:meters
    CeI12_Cost values attribute table
    Values attribute table (CeI12_Cost.tif.vat.dbf), which indicates movement barriers for piping plover chicks at every cell in the raster (CeI12_Cost.tif; 2565 x 1160 pixels). Raster cells containing movement barriers—which include areas containing water, moderate or dense vegetation, and development—have a NoData value of '-9999'. Raster cells that lack movement barriers have a value of '1'. (Source: Producer defined)
    OID
    Internal identifier (Source: Esri) Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.
    VALUE
    Binary value (1) indicating the absence of a movement barrier for piping plover chicks. NoData (-9999) indicates a movement barrier. (Source: Producer defined)
    ValueDefinition
    1No barrier to piping plover chick movement.
    COUNT
    Number of 5x5 m cells in the raster coverage that do not contain a barrier to piping plover movement. (Source: Producer defined)
    Range of values
    Minimum:631909
    Maximum:631909
    Units:grid cells
    DESCRIPTIO
    Definition of binary value indicating the absence of a movement barrier for piping plover chicks. (Source: Producer defined)
    ValueDefinition
    No movement cost (not a barrier)Definition of binary value (1) indicating the absence of a movement barrier for piping plover chicks.
    CeI12_MOSHShoreline attribute table
    Attribute values for polylines delineating foraging shoreline for piping plovers (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp). Here, foraging shorelines are defined as low-energy and could include the shorelines of sound- or bay-side beaches, interior ponds, and ephemeral pools. Ocean shorelines were not considered low-energy foraging shorelines. (Source: Producer defined)
    FID
    Internal feature number (Source: Esri) Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.
    Shape
    Feature geometry. (Source: Esri) Coordinates defining the features.
    ID
    Binary value indicating the presence (1) of a section of foraging shoreline for piping plovers (Source: Producer defined)
    ValueDefinition
    1Indicates the presence of a section of foraging shoreline for piping plovers. Here, foraging shorelines are defined as low-energy and could include the shorelines of sound- or bay-side beaches, interior ponds, and ephemeral pools. Ocean shorelines were not considered low-energy foraging shorelines.
    Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
    This section provides a separate detailed entity and attribute information section for each dataset described in these metadata. These datasets comprise two individual raster files in GeoTiff format, which each have an associated values attribute table with discrete attribute values for each 5x5 m cell. The values attribute file is a necessary component of the dataset. A polyline shapefile of foraging shoreline is also included. For the raster files, a fill value of ‘99999’ indicates cells within the study area without access to foraging. NoData value of ‘-9999’ indicates cells outside the study area extent.
    Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation: Methods Open-File Report by Zeigler and others (2019)

Who produced the data set?

  1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)
    • Sara L. Zeigler
    • Emily J. Sturdivant
    • Benjamin T. Gutierrez
  2. Who also contributed to the data set?
  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Attn: Sara L. Zeigler
    384 Woods Hole Road
    Woods Hole, MA
    US

    508-548-8700 x2290 (voice)
    508-457-2310 (FAX)
    szeigler@usgs.gov

Why was the data set created?

The distance to foraging layer (CeI12_DisMOSH.tif) identifies the least-cost path distance for a piping plover chick to travel from the center of each 5x5 m grid cell to low-energy foraging areas with moist substrates. The distance to foraging data was used within a Bayesian network to model the probability that a specific set of landscape characteristics would be associated with piping plover habitat.
The movement cost layer (CeI12_Cost.tif) identifies barriers to the movement of piping plover chicks, with barriers including water, human development, and moderate to dense vegetation. A value of 1 indicates possibility of movement and 99,999 indicates a barrier to movement. Barriers were identified using orthoimagery captured in 2013 (see data sources below). The movement cost layer was used to calculate the least-cost path distance (CeI12_DisMOSH.tif) to the nearest foraging area (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp).
The foraging shorelines shapefile (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp) delineates foraging shorelines with moist substrates for piping plovers. Foraging areas were determined from elevations measured in 2012 and orthoimagery captured in 2013. Here, foraging shorelines are defined as low-energy and could include the shorelines of sound- or bay-side beaches, interior ponds, and ephemeral pools. Ocean shorelines were not considered low-energy foraging shorelines. See Zeigler and others (2019) for additional details.

How was the data set created?

  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?
    Orthoimage (source 1 of 1)
    Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), 20131031, VBMP 2013 Ortho Imagery SP South 12 inch: Virginia Base Map Program 2013, Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN), Richmond, VA.

    Online Links:

    Type_of_Source_Media: digital data
    Source_Contribution:
    Imagery was used to visually inspect the full island shoreline and remove components from the present dataset that were not associated with low-energy, sandy beaches. Source data were distributed at 0.3048 m pixel resolution, in horizontal datum NAD83 (HARN). Downloaded on 2/15/2016. Data were projected to UTM Zone 18N (EPSG:26918) using the ‘Project Raster’ tool in ArcToolbox (version 10.4.1).
  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?
    Date: 2018 (process 1 of 4)
    CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp
    This vector file delineates foraging shorelines with moist substrates for piping plovers and their chicks. These are areas where piping plovers and their chicks could forage for terrestrial arthropods, invertebrates, marine worms, and other foods. Foraging shorelines are defined as low-energy and could include the shorelines of sound- or bay-side beaches, interior ponds, and ephemeral pools. Ocean shorelines are not considered low-energy foraging shorelines.
    Full methods are provided in the associated Open-File Report (Zeigler and others, 2019). All processing was performed in ArcGIS version 10.4.1.
    We converted the shoreline polygon file (cei12_shoreline.shp in larger work) to polyline format using the 'Polygon to Line' tool in ArcGIS. We overlaid the output shoreline polylines on the orthoimage and - in an Edit session - manually removed sections of the lines that did not correspond to inlets, ponds, ephemeral water bodies, or back-barrier sandy beaches. This included removing the ocean-facing shoreline. These features were identified based on visual inspection of the orthoimage.
    Also during this Edit session, we hand-digitized the boundaries of low-energy shorelines that were not included as part of the shoreline polygon (cei12_shoreline.shp). These included the boundaries of ephemeral pools, inland ponds, and the interior edges of marsh channels. The determination of landscape type was based on visual inspection of the orthoimage.
    Date: 2018 (process 2 of 4)
    CeI12_Cost.tif
    This spatial coverage was created to establish boundaries to the movements of piping plover chicks (which are unable to fly pre-fledging). Development, moderate to dense vegetation, and persistent water are considered barriers to movement of plover chicks. We assumed that adults and chicks might be able to walk across temporarily exposed portions of the beach at low tide.
    Full methods and additional figures are provided in the associated Open-File Report (Zeigler and others, 2019). Input classification layers (CeI12_GeoSet.tif, CeI12_SubType.tif, CeI12_VegType.tif, and CeI12_VegDen.tif) are published in the larger work. All processing was performed in ArcGIS version 10.4.1.
    We used the ‘Combine’ tool in ArcToolbox to merge the input categorical landcover layers—geomorphic setting, substrate type, vegetation type, and vegetation density—into a single raster with a values attribute table.
    We added an additional column ‘Cost’ to the attribute table of this combined layer. We manually assigned a cost value of 10 to every row that contained:
    - ‘Development’ (substrate type, vegetation type, and vegetation density); - ‘Moderate’, ‘Dense’, or ‘Moderate or Dense’ (vegetation density); or - ‘Water’ (for substrate type; unless geomorphic setting was also 'Beach').
    All remaining combinations in the attribute table were assigned a cost value of 0, indicating that there is no cost or resistance to movement through these raster cells. The cost value of 10 indicates a high cost of—or resistance to—movement. The values of 10 and 0 are arbitrary and do not impact data quality. In cases where the substrate type, vegetation type, or vegetation density were unknown (and the remaining known habitat variables did not contain a movement barrier), we allowed for movement so as not to preclude what could be a movement corridor.
    We converted the Cost column into a new raster layer using the ‘Lookup’ tool in ArcToolbox. In the resulting layer, cell values were equivalent to those in the ‘Cost’ column in the attribute table of the combined raster layer.
    We reclassified this layer such that every cell with a value of 10 was assigned NoData (-9999) and every cell with a value of 0 was assigned 1 (Reclassify tool). The output extent of the reclassification was set to that of the study area in geoprocessing settings. Thus the final Movement Cost layer indicates barriers to movement with a NoData value (-9999) and possibility of movement with value of 1.
    Date: 2018 (process 3 of 4)
    CeI12_DisMOSH.tif
    We calculated the least-cost path distance from the center of every 5x5 m raster cell to the nearest low-energy foraging area with moist substrates using the ‘Path Distance’ tool in ArcGIS (version 10.4.1). The foraging shoreline vector layer (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp) was considered the ‘Source data’ and the movement cost layer (CeI12_Cost.tif) was considered the ‘Input cost layer’. This tool calculates the least accumulative cost distance for each cell to the nearest source (foraging shoreline) while accounting for surface distance and horizontal cost factors (movement cost). The output extent was set to a custom boundary that spans the entire coverage of the Cedar Island site relevant to the broader research program (see Zeigler and others, 2019 for more details). The extent of this custom boundary does not affect the data quality of the distance to foraging layer.
    We then reclassified this path distance layer using 'Reclassify'. Cells previously coded as NoData within the study area boundaries were converted to a fill value of 99,999, which denoted ‘No Access’ while cells outside the study area retained the NoData designation (-9999). We assumed that cells marked as movement barriers in the movement cost layer had no access to foraging areas. Those cells received a fill value.
    Please review the individual attribute descriptions as well as Zeigler and others (2019) for detailed information and example figures.
    Date: 10-Aug-2020 (process 4 of 4)
    Added keywords section with USGS persistent identifier as theme keyword. Person who carried out this activity:
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Attn: VeeAnn A. Cross
    Marine Geologist
    384 Woods Hole Road
    Woods Hole, MA

    508-548-8700 x2251 (voice)
    508-457-2310 (FAX)
    vatnipp@usgs.gov
  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?
    Zeigler, Sara L., Sturdivant, Emily J., and Gutierrez, Benjamin T., 2019, Evaluating barrier island characteristics and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) habitat availability along the U.S. Atlantic coast—Geospatial approaches and methodology: Open-File Report 2019–1071, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Details the methods used to process these data for use in barrier island and piping plover habitat modeling.

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

  1. How well have the observations been checked?
  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?
    The distance to foraging dataset (CeI12_DisMOSH.tif) was created directly from the foraging shoreline and movement cost layer (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp and CeI12_Cost.tif). We estimate the accuracy of the distance to foraging dataset within 5 m horizontally.
    The location of movement barriers indicated in CeI12_Cost.tif are assumed to be accurate within 5 m. Horizontal accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of the inputs. The movement cost layer was produced using categorical landcover maps published in the larger work (CeI12_SupClas.tif, CeI12_GeoSet.tif, etc.). We estimate that all four landcover layers are accurate within 5 m.
    We estimate the accuracy of the foraging shoreline (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp) to be within 25 m horizontally. No formal accuracy assessments were conducted on these data. The dataset inherits the horizontal accuracy of the source data: the shoreline file in the larger work and the orthoimage.
    No further formal accuracy assessments of the horizontal positional information in these datasets have been conducted.
  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?
  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?
    These datasets are clipped to a custom boundary and may not include the entire spatial extent of the original source datasets as they are published in original form. However, the custom boundary spans the entire coverage of the Cedar Island barrier island relevant to the broader research program (see Zeigler and others, 2019 for more details). The movement barriers are derived from a combination of four layers released in the larger work (see process description below) and are a complete combination of the inputs. This dataset is considered complete for the information presented as described in the abstract section. Users are advised to read the rest of the metadata record carefully for additional details.
  5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?
    These files consist of polyline and raster data produced from aerial imagery and a digital elevation model (DEM) through a semi-automated process described below. The foraging shoreline file consists of a polyline vector dataset manually clipped from the shoreline polygons in the larger work. The full island shoreline was QA/QC'd in ArcMap. No further logical accuracy tests were conducted on the present dataset.

How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?
Access_Constraints: none
Use_Constraints:
Public domain data from the U.S. Government are freely redistributable with proper metadata and source attribution. Please recognize the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the source of this information.
  1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)
    U.S. Geological Survey - ScienceBase
    Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302
    Denver, CO
    USA

    1-888-275-8747 (voice)
    sciencebase@usgs.gov
  2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set? This dataset contains three individual datasets: distance to foraging data are available as a 32-bit GeoTIFF with continuous cost distance values; the movement cost data is provided as an 8-bit GeoTIFF with value attribute table (CeI12_Cost.tif and CeI12_Cost.tif.vat.dbf) with discrete attribute values for each 5x5 m cell; and foraging shoreline are as an Esri shapefile (CeI12_MOSHShoreline.shp and associated shapefile components). Additionally, the CSDGM FGDC metadata in XML format (CeI12_DisMOSH_Cost_MOSHShoreline_meta.xml) and the browse graphic (EF_DisMOSH_Cost_MOSHShoreline_browse.png) are included. These datasets can be downloaded individually or packaged on-demand in a zip file (see the Digital Transfer Option section).
  3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?
    Neither the U.S. Government, the Department of the Interior, nor the USGS, nor any of their employees, contractors, or subcontractors, make any warranty, express or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, nor represent that its use would not infringe on privately owned rights. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the USGS in the use of these data or related materials. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and have been processed successfully on a computer system at the USGS, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The USGS or the U.S. Government shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
  4. How can I download or order the data?
  5. What hardware or software do I need in order to use the data set?
    To utilize these data, the user must have software capable of reading shapefile format, and 32-bit GeoTIFF with associated values attribute table.

Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:
Last modified: 10-Aug-2020
Metadata author:
Sara L. Zeigler
U.S. Geological Survey
384 Woods Hole Road
Woods Hole, MA
United States

508-548-8700 x2290 (voice)
szeigler@usgs.gov
Metadata standard:
FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)

This page is <https://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov/catalog/whcmsc/SB_data_release/DR_P944FPA4/CeI12_DisMOSH_Cost_MOSHShoreline_meta.faq.html>
Generated by mp version 2.9.50 on Tue Sep 21 18:18:59 2021