General Disclaimer

One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document

This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the 

organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as 

much information as possible.

This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was 

furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy 

available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, 

which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.

Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some 

of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original 

submission.

Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI)
Contract No. NAS5-264613

Phase III - Final Report

February 1982 - December 1982

yc .

^+ w 

Research Publication 113

.,V DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA MANAGEMENT FROh!T-END FOR USE

WITH A LANDSAT-BASED INFORMATION SYSTEM

Brian J. Turner

Office for Remote Sensing of Earth Resources

and

School of Forest Resources

College of Agriculture

Prepared for

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, Maryland 20771

L18ab;

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA

(1,ASA-C:it-175151) - .VELCJ:Mi:b! CF A DATA 54-11418

MAnAG-"MENT F1%0N 'I-h.1D kUh L: ; E kiTA D

LAYUSA 1 -BA3ED 1hFLL41AT14-N SYbIlM Clilai

heport, Feb. - Jec. 15d1 (J ot;nsyivauia State tJuc:as

JI11V.) 4.. F' UC: A t W 1 CSCL 05b GJ/82 113"1

.. . -Ae... - - - . --
RESEARCH PUBLICATION 113

DEVELOPMENT OF A DATA MANAGEMENT

FRONT-END FOR USE WITH A

LANDSAT-BASED INFORMATION SYSTEM

` Brian J. Turner

Office for Remote Sensing of Earth Resources

The Pennsylvania State University

Land and Water Research Building

University Park, PA 16802

Contract No. NAS5-26468

Phase III - Final Report

February 1982 - December 1982

Prepared for

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt, MD 20771
ABSTRACT

As the final phase of a three-year NASA-supported project to develop

an operational system for satellite-based monitoring of statewide forest

defoliation, the Office for Remote Sensing of Earth Resources (ORSER) at

The Pennsylf .vania State University was required to develop and implement a

data management front-end system for use with a Landsat based information

system and to facilitate the processing of both Landsat and ancillary data

using this system. The final tasks, reported on here, involved: (a) the

implementation of the VICAR image processing software system at Penn State

and the development of a user-friendly front-end for this system; (b) the

implementation. of JPL-developed software based on VICAR, for mosaicking

Landsat scenes; (c) the creation and storage of a mosaic of 1981 summer

Landsat data for the entire state of Pennsylvania; (d) demo--rations of

the defoliation ai3sessment procedure for Perry and Centre Counties, and

presentation of the results at the 1982 National Gypsy Moth Review Meeting;

and (e) the training of Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry personnel in the

use of the defoliation analysis system.

_'i^ .ice
i

INTRODUCTION

The Division of Forest Pest Management (DFPM) of the Pennsylvania

Bureau of Forestry has the responsibility for conducting annual surveys of 

the State's forest lands to accurately detect, map, and appraise forest

insect infestations. Using current methods, which primarily consist of

aerial sketch mapping and ground observations, this has proven to be an

overwhelming and impractical task. Nevertheless, these surveys are vital to

provide the spatial information needed to plan, organize, direct, and carry

c,,ut control %ieasures. These measures include the optimum use and allocation

of pesticides and the introduction of natural predators.

A standardi,;ed, timely, and cost-effective method of accurately survey

ing forests and their condition should enhance the probability of suppressing 

i 

infestations. The repetitive and synoptic coverage provided by Landsat

(formerly ERTS) makes such satellite-derived data potentially attractive as 

a survey medium for monitoring forest insect damage over large areas. Division of Forest Pest Management personnel have expressed keen interest in

Landsat data and have informally cooperated with NASA/Goddard Space Flight

Center (GSFC) since 1976 in the development of techniques to facilitate

their use. The results of this work indicated that it might be feasible to 

use Landsat digital data to conduct annual surveys of insect defoliation

of hardwood forests.

Since the first Landsat data for Pennsylvania became available in 1972,

it has been apparent that large contiguous areas of heavy gypsy moth defoliation could be identified and mapped from satellite passes made in late June

or early July. In fact, Mr. Darrel Williams, working with the Office for 

Remote Sensing of Earth Resources (ORSER) was granted a Master of Science 

degree at The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) in 1974 with a thesis,

r
2

"Computer Analysis and Mapping of Gypsy Moth Defoliation Levels in Pennsylvania Using ERTS-1 Data." Further research by Mr. Williams at GSFC and by

Dr. Brian Turner at ORSER indicated, however, that if this technology was

to reach an operational stage where the whole state could be scanned for

accurate identification of defoliated areas, considerable gains in efficiency

of computer processing and reductions in cost would be necessary.

A three-stage, three-year project was thus instituted by NASA.: to see

whether these gains could be achieved. The specific objectives of this

project were as follows:

1. To demonstrate the feasibility of conducting automated, annual

assessments of the acreage and severity of insect defoliation of 

hardwood forests using Landsat digital data.

2. To evaluate the accuracy, timeliness and cost-effectiveness of

using the automated, Landsat-based survey approach, and to

compare these methods with current survey techniques.

3. To provide DFPM personnel with training and experience in the 

analysis of remote sensing data.

4. To assist ORSER in the development and implementation of computer

software to facilitate:

a) ingestion and analysis of entire Landsat scenes, and

b) summarization of classification results for any given

shape or size polygon (i.e., county or district 

boundaries) within a scene.

The project was conducted in three phases:

I. A preliminary testing, training, and development phase

conducted within at least two county-wide study areas.

II. A quasi-operational testing phase, operating within the

framework of entire Landsat scenes.

^..^ .AW.•^
3

III. A functional technology transfer phase.

Phase I, the preliminary test phase, was designed to demonstrate the

practicality and accuracy of estimating the acreage and severity of defoliation using LQ:zdsat digital data and computer processing techniques. The

primary objectives of Phase I were as follows:

1. To evaluate the accuracy, timeliness and cost effectiveness of

assessing defoliation damage using Landsat data in comparison

to the survey techniques currently used by the DFPM. 

:!. To define the Landsat-baed analysis techniques to meet DFPM

requirements.

3. To provide training to DFPM personnel relative to the digital

analysis of remote sensing data. 

4. To initiate the development and implementation of computer software on the PSU computers in order to upgrade the ORSER digital

image analysis package to all.)w both the processing of entire

Landsat scenes and the tabulation of classification results for

any irregular-shaped polygonal area within a scene.

Under a previous contract with GSFC (NAS5-26166), ORSER implemented the

fourth objective of Phase I. The requirements of this contract were as

follows:

1. To initiate the development and implementation of computer

software on the PSU computers in order to upgrade the ORSER

digital image analysis package to allow both the processing

of entire Landsat scenes and the tabulation of classification

results for any irregular-shaped polygon within that scene. 

2. To examine the feasibility of developing a data base/information

system to incorporate Landsat and ancillary data covering the

entire state of Pennsylvania.
4

Under this contract and subsequent to it, almost all the programs in the

ORSER system were modified to process full Landsat scenes in one pass.

Through the development of a system for digitizing polygons, editing them

and converting them to raster form, and the use of the existing MAPCOMP

program, the ORSER system can r,ov tabulate classification statistics for any

irregularly-shaped polygon within a scene.

Also t,,nder this contract, the feasibility of developing a data base/

information systen, to incorporate Landsat data and ancillary data for the

entire state of Pennsylvania was examined. This resulted in the conceptualization of an interface between the ORSER system and general purpose geographic d&.ta analysis systems. It was demonstrated that such a data base/

information system was feasible, and no major hindrances to its development

in the next phase of this project were foreseen.

Phase II was designed to expand upon the Phase 1 effort by operating

within the framework of entire Landsat scenes. 'rhe primary objectives of

Phase II were as follows:

1. To test and evaluate the computer software which was developed by

ORSER d-ring Phase I.

2. To initiate th( development of a data base/information system to

handle Landsat data for the entire state of Pennsylvania.

3. To conduct a quasi-operatiotLal assessment of gypsy moth defoliation damage using Landsat data.

4. To provide additional training to DFPM personnel relative to

digital analysis of remote sensing data.

Initial Phase II activities were to include the testing and evaluation

of ORSER computer software to provide efficient methods of:

a) processing the large amounts of data associated with an

entire Landsat scene;

AW
5

b) digitizing, entering, and registering to Landsat data,

the boundaries for all Pennsylvan{a counties and/or DFPM

districts located wholly or partially within a Landsat

scene; and

c) summarizing classification results, such as tota?, forested

acreage or the location, amount, and severity of defoliation, by county or district.

During Phase II, GSFC acquired imagery and computer-compatible tapes for

the most recent, nondefoliated, and relatively cloud-free Landsat coverage of

the entire state of Pennsylvania. These data were classified to create a

forest/nonforest data base for the entire state.

Classification of Landsat data covering an area as extensive as Pennsylvania requires convenient methods for handling large data sets. Therefore,

the development of a data base/information system was initiated to facilitate

the forest/nonforest classification of Pennsylvania. This system included

scene-to-scene registration, sampling methods to select areas for intensive

study, and methods of data reduction. In addition, the data base contained

DFPM boundaries and county boundaries. The total requirements of such a

data base/information system were to be determined jointly by DFPM, NASA and

OFSER personnel. The development and implementation of the data base/information system was carried out by ORSER, with NASA,'s assistance.

Specifically, under NASA contract NAS5-26468, ORSER was required to

initiate the development and implementation of a data management front-end

system on the PSU computers for use wi th a Landsat-based information system

and to facilitate the processing of both Landsat and ancillary data using

this system.
6

These tasks were completed as required during 1981-82. Software was

developed to adapt existing ORSER programs to the peculiar needs of the

Landsat mosaic data base supplied by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

Archival and retrieval techniques were developed to efficiently handle this

data base and make it compatible with the requirements of the Pennsylvania

Bureau of Forestry. A user-friendly front-end was constructed to facilitate

access to the data base. These results are described in detail in the

Phase II, Final Report (Res. Publ. No. 110 of the Institute for Research on

Land and Water Resources).

Phase III was designed to effectively transfer the technology developed

in earlier phases to DFPM. Specifically, several objectives were to be met:

1. Complete the data bast information system.

2. Assist DFPM in the selection of a terminal and access ro ORSER.

3. Conduct a symposium related to defoliation studies.

4. Produce final documentation.

v -
7

PHASE IIZ OBJECTIVE AND SPECIFIC TASKS

The objective of the contract between GSFC and ORSER was to initiate

the development and implementation of a data management front-end system on

the PSU computers for use with a Lanosaf based information system and to

facilitate the proem ing of both Landsat and ancillary data using this

system. Under Modification No. 3 to the contract, four additional tasks

were included. These tasks, reported on here, constitute Phase III of

ORSER's participation in this project.

The first task required that ORSER consult with personnel from JPL to

integrate the Landsat-based information system with the data management

front-end system developed in Phase II. To fulfill this task, computer

compatible tapes containing the Landsat digital mosaic of Pennsylvania, the

Landsat-derived forest resources map, and digitized county and forest

district boundaries would be supplied by GSFC. ORSER would be responsible

for generating a data base from these tapes that would be compatible with 

the data management front-end system being developed under the existing

contract.

In the second task, ORSEit would ensure that additional Landsat and 

ancillary data could be input and registered to the data base on a routine

basis. This would require that ORSER have registration rnd mosaic capebilities. Rather than developing these capabilities, ORSER was required to

interact with the JPL and obtain mosaic software from them on a no-cost

basis. JPL had already developed the software and had consented to work

with ORSER. However, implementation of the JPL mosaic software necessitated

that ORSER have on-line Video Image Communications and Retrieval (VICAR)

software. Therefore, ORSER was required to purchase and implement this

VICAR software.
8

For the third task, in order to ensure that the data base ^avd the

registration and mosaic software were operational, ORSER was required to

create a Landsat digital mosaic of the eastern half of the state of Pennsylvania (UTM Zone 18) and to register this mosaic to the Landsat based

information system. ORSER was to i.ntexact with JPL during this task.

In the fourth task, ORSER would demonstrate the capabiliO,es of the

data management front-end system and the data base by completing a Landsatderived gypsy moth defoliation assessment over a selected county-wide

study area. This assessment would require the following activities:

1. Registration of a 1982 Landsat image to the data base. (If

a 1982 scene was not avii1able, an appropriate 1981 image

would be selected.)

2. Use of the front-end system to process the data, including

extraction of Landsat and forest map data, image analysis, and

summarization of results.

Finally, ORSER was to be responsible for training a maximum of three

DFPM personnel in the use of the data base and the data management front-end

system Lor image analysis and defoliation assessments.
9

0

ACCOMPLISHED TASKS

A. Im lementation of VICAR

The VICAR image processing software system was obtained from COSMIC at

the University of Georgia on a 10-year lease. This software package

consists of approximately 300 programs that perform *carious operations on

image and associated files. These programs are controlled by a master

program, called VMAST, which performs all input-output operations and passes

parameters to the individual programs, The individual programs are, written

mostly in FORTRAN, but the VMAST routine is written in IBM 360 ASSEMBLER

language and needed slight modification to be compatible with PSU's operat

't

ing system. This modification was accomplished with the help of A. L.

Williams and H. D. Knoble, of the Computer Center's staff. Loading of the

F" modules from tape was accomplished with the help of Raymon Masters, also of

the Computer Center's staff

Running a VICAR image processing job actually consists of two separate

computer jobs. The first, often called the VTRAN job, consists of taking

the VICAR control statements and generating the job control language (JCL)

statements necessary to describe the data sets and to provide proper linkage

of the programs that will be used. This caused several problems, since the

JCL used at PSU has been modified from the IBM standard. An EXECUTE file

was written by Fred Luce and George Baumer which makes most of the changes

needed before the second job, called the "X-,SOB" can be submitted. Currently,

the running of this job is left up to the user. In the original version of

VICAR, the second job is submitted automatically to the computer. So far,

this has been impossible to do at PSU, but the inconveniency: to the user

has been minimal.
10

Another potential problem is that standard labelled tapes cannot be

used. (This option was never incorporated into the VMAST routine which does

all inpt, t-output operations for VICAR.) The potential thus exists for the

routine to access the wrong tape, necessitating the rerun of an expensive

job and causing a good deal of frustration to the user, We suspect that

this has happened on more than one occasion during the mosaicking process.

B. Implementation of Mosaicking Software

Following the su.::. essful implementation of the standard VICAR package,

JPL provided a tape containing the additional programs necessary for

mosaicking entire Landsat scenes and registration to an existing dat:m base.

The implementation and testing of these modules was assisted by Ron McLeod

of JPL, Mr. McLeod also supplied us with the procedures used to do the

actual mosaic, and an attempt was made to mosaic two Landsat scenes from the

eaaL;Prn, vcl f of Pennsylvania, using summer 1981 data. Although this attempt

f^^y,rtrct because o f subsequently discovered errors in the JPL -supplied procedures, it gave us experience and exposure to the mosaicking process,

C. Creation of Eastern Pennsylvania 1981 Mosaic

To ensure that ORSLR would have the capability to create digital

Landsat mosaics, we were required to create such a mosaic from the six

Landsat scenes of 1981 data covering the eastern half of Pennsylvania, i.e.,

the portion of the state in UTM Zone 18. In the process of carrying out

this task, the minor errors which had given us difficulty in the first

mosaicking attempt were corrected and a mosaic of 1981 data registered to

the original data base of 1976-79 data was created for eastern Pennsylvania.

(The procedures are given in Appendix A.) Meanwhile, JPL was creating a

similar mosaic for western Pennsylvania ( U114 Zone 17). This data set was

subsequently supplied to ORSER on tape.
11

D. Extension of Front-Fnd for VICAR

In order to facilitate the use of the VICAR software at PSU, the EXEC

file o f INTERACT, previously developed under this contract as a front-end

to both the ORSER system and the Pennsylvania Data Base, was extended to be

a front-end to the VICAR system. This front-end can be used to interactively set up a run file for the VTRAN program, which then has to execute

successfully before the "X-JOB" (set up by that program) can be run. An

exampla of the use of the VICAR portion of the ORSER front-end system is

shown in Appendix B.

E. Defoliation Assessment Demonstration - Perry County

As a demonstration of MSER's ability to use the data management frontend and the data base, an assessment was conducted of the 1981 defoliation

of Perry County, Pennsylvania. In the process, the following steps were

taken:

1. Landsat data for Perry County were subset from the 1981 digital

mosaic using the digitized county boundary information to mask

out all data outside the county. This was done using the SUBDB

program, which sets to zero all data outside the county boundary.

2. The forest/nonforest digital mask for Perry County was similarly

subset from the forest/nonforest mask mosaic formed from the

1976-79 data base. This mask is not a 0-1 dataset but a quantization of the estimated probability of a pixel being "forest."

Thus, the critical value hae, to be determined by sampling of the

area, and comparing trial values with ground truth. In this case,

the critical value had been supplied by NASA personnel who had

done extensive ground truthing in part of this county. Then the

HSTRETCH2 program was used to convert this dataset into a 0-1 mask.
12

3. A data set of the ratio of band 7 to band 5 was next form •: d, using

the VICAR program F2. This dataset was then multiplied by the

0-1 mask, to produce a dataset where all nonforest pixels were Zeros.

4. Finally, a classified map was produced using the VICAR HSTRETCH2

program, by setting breakpoints on the ratio values for delineating

Heavy Defoliation, Moderate Defoliation, and Light-No Defoliation.

These breakpoint values were also s4pplied by NASA personnel and

were based on ground-checking done at the time of defoliation.

Area statistics ( acres by defoliation classes) were output by the

HIST program.

5. The classified map was output on the electrostatic plotter and also

as a tape for printing out on the film recorder at GSFC. An

example of such an electrostatic-plottea map is shown in Fig. 1.

A print from the film recordc,- is shown in Fig. 2.

6. In order to determine representative computer costs for a defoliation assessment, the same procedure was followed for Centre County,

and the computing costs were compared with those for the Perry

County assessment. Since Centre County is split between UTM 17 and

18, essentially two assessments had to be done, and costs were

almost double those for Perry County (Table 1).

Nevertheless, these costs are negligible compared to the costs of

preparing mosaii!ked data bases and the costs of analyst time and

ground truthing.

A computer printout of the Interact session required to perform a county

analysis is shown in Appendix C.
OR.'GSNAL !''A ;F. 13

OF POOR ?UALI',Y

Yr Y l

K.

13

>^ v

y L

C oC C

w U.

0. m

^ v

r c

U I+

L C

a^V

C t7 C

O y

M tp u

ro 

u

M 

y

w 

o

yw .Q

'C

.c v

ro

>. o

y 

w

C. CI

cC

.. a O u C, M n•r t w 3

O y c m

roE

O

'O .0

v y u

u y

Q M

C_ u

Vi

^+ O

ro 

w

u

M •^

u ^

ro 

u

u ro

y M

O '-1O

u 

w

u 

v

v •n

W ^

.-rvO

00 M

ca,
ORSCINAL PACE it

OF POOR QUALI.1Y

Figure 2. Film Recorder output of classification map of

1981 gypsy moth defoliation in Perry County,

Pennsylvania. Und2foliated forest is shown as

green, defoliated forest as yellow, non-forest

as browns.

PRECEDING PA:'d BLANK NOT PIT MED

15
Table 1

COMPUTER COST FOR PROCESSING CENTRE COUNTY

(Totals for both halves)

(CPU) (Total Job Cost)

SUBDB 309 sec. $ 9.18

VTRAN 14 sec. .42

X-JAB 186 sec. 5.58

GENERATE TAPE 366 sec. 10.98

TERMINAL CONNECT 60 min. 2.40 TIME (Appro )

VERSATEC PRINT 19.00

$47.56

----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPUTER COST FOR PROCESSING PERRY COUNTY

(CPU) (Total Job Cost)

SUBDB 159 sec. $ 3.68

VTRAN 7 sec. .49

X-JOB (ANALYSIS) 194 sec. 5.82

GENERATE TAPE 183 sec. 5.49

TERMINAL CONNECT

TIME (Approx.) 30 sec. 1.20

VERSATEC PRINT

(Approx.) 9.50

$26.18

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: CPU costs are calculated at the deferred rate.

VERSATEC costs are approximate due to variable size of the plot.

TAPE costs are for generating a film recorder tape.

PRECEDING PAGE BLAND NOT FILMED'

17
1B

F. Annual National Gypsy Moth 'Review Meeting

On 7 December 1982, ORSER personnel cooperated with GSFC and DFPM

personnel in presenting an all-day workshop on "Monitoring Gypsy Moth

Defoliation Using Landsat," at the Annual National Gypsy Moth Review Meeting

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This presentation represented the culmination

of the NASA gypsy moth project, and was considered to be a final project 

review for all involved parties. The Perry County demonstration formed the

nucleus of this technology transfer program. The two-projector presentation

was well received by the several hundred participants in the meeting. (A

copy of the meeting program and an outline of the presentation are shown in

Appendix D.) In an informal evening session, the defoliation analysis

procedure was demonstrated online, using several remote terminals connected

by phone to the PSU Computation Center.

G. Training of Bureau of Forestry Personnel

Two peYsons from DFPM (Messrs. Quimby and Heilman) and two from the 

Division of Forest Advisory Services (Messrs. Hickok and Sterner) spent

approximately two days being trained in the use of defoliation analysis

system and discussing how the Bureau of Forestry could most efficiently

use the procedure. 

It was generally agreed that the best arrangement would be one whereby

Bureau of Forestry personnel would monitor weather conditions and defoliation 

conditions on Landsat overpass days. If desirable conditions exist, ORSER

would acquire the data sets, register them to the data base, and mosaic them

(if more than one contiguous image/data set were acquired). The actual

defoliation analysis will be carried out by DFPM personnel at ORSER (at least

initially). Contractual arrangements will be made with the Bureau of

Forestry for purchase of the analysis on a Landsat-scene basis, even though

the actual analysis may be carried out in terms of other geographic units.
1.9

CONCLUSION

The additional tasks required under Modification No. 3 to NASA Contract

NAS5-26468 have been completed as follows:

1. In consultation with personnel at JPL and GSPC, the Landsat-based

information system has been integrated with the data-management

front-end system developed earlier. ORSER now has in place the

Landsat digital mosaic of Pennsylvania, the Landsat-derived forest

resources map, digitized country and forest district boundaries,

and the software to make these easily accessible.

2. With assistance from Mr. Ron McLeod of JPL, ORSER has acquired and

implemented the VICAR software system and the additional modules

required to perform mosaicking of Landsat scenes.

3. To ensure that the data base and the registration and mosaic software were operational, ORSER personnel created a digital mosaic of

1981 Landsat data for the eastern half of Pennsylvania and registered this mosaic to the Landsat-based information system.

4. ORSER demonstrated the capabilities of the data management frontend system and the data base by completing a Landsat-derived

gypsy moth defoliation assessment for Centre and Perry Counties

using 1981 data.

5. ORSER has trained two people from the Pennsylvania DFPM in the use

of the data base and the data management front-end system for

image analysis and defoliation assessments.
APPENDIX A: Mosaic Sequence
MOSAIC SEQUENCE

1. Reformat all bands of all frames to be used to VICAR format.

2. Log all tapes in project document.

3. Stretch and display all bands of all frames to be sure that all data

are present and to inspect for problems (i.e., banding or missing data).

If data problems exist, they should be corrected before proceeding.

4. Select and measure three control points for each frame. This involves

six blowups for each frame, so that the control points can be measured

accurately. Band 7 is usually used. Each control point, or tie-aint,

is identified by a "from" ;line number, a "from" element number, a "to"

line number, and a "to" element number; where "from" refers to the

update frame and "to" refers to the data base. Also, each control point

has the band 7 grey scale values of the pixel for both the update frame

and the data base. At different steps in the processing, a correlation

value may be associated with each control point as well as with a pair

of residual values. The residual values are the differences between

the "to" points and the predicted "to" values, as given by a regression

model involving all points.

5. Allocate permanent disk data sets that will be used for storing control

point information. This involves one data set for each frame and one

data set for each pair of frames that overlap.

6. Allocate a temporary tiepoint file and a master tiepoint file that will

be used for all tiepoints.

7. Run a VICAR procedure called PICREG2 for each frame, that will generate

a set of control points for that frame given the three points from step

4. Auto correlation techniques are used. A grid is defined over the

update frame that gives starting locations for the procedure to use in

looking for the tiepoints.

AW
8. Manually inspect the points generated in step 7 and delete those that

are "unreliable." Unreliable points are those that Have a too-lor,►

correlation value or have residuals that are vastly different from their

neighbors. It was found that the point at which a correlation value

would be declared "too-low" varied for each frame. A guess was made for

each frame by looking at all of the correlation values along with their

associated residuals and trying to pick a value for "too-low" that

would eliminate all tiepoints with residuals that were "too-different"

from their neighbors. Some points also had to be deleted that had high

correlation points but also large residuals--this indicates that a good

match was found but it was the wrong one.

9. ?define a "cut file" for each frame. This "cut file" is a polygon .along

which each frame will be "trimmed" before being mosaicked in step 19.

The "cut file" must lie in the area of overlap of adjacent scenes.

Therefore, for scenes that are in the same path, there is not much

choice; but for scenes in the same row, there is a relatively large

choice of where the cut should be made. The "cut files" determine where

the seams will be in the final mosaic.

10. Run a procedure called PICREG for each pair of frames that overlap.

Input to this program is the "cut file" described in step 9 and the 2

frames. Output is a set of control points "between " the two frames.

Again, auto correlation techniques are used.

11. Repeat step 8 for the points generated in step 10. (Here correlation

values were found to be very high in frames that were in the same path

and from the same day. Correlation values for frames in the same row

are not as high. This is due partly to differences in overall brightness.)
12. Check the spatial "distribution" of the points obtained so far. It is

important that all large areas have control points and that the distribution of points is somewhat uniform.

13. Check that all jobs run so far have run properly and that no errors

were committed.

14. Compile all the tiepoints into IBIS format (using procedure PEN1) and

repeat step 8 using all of the control points. As in steps 8 and 11,

residuals and correlation values of all tiepoints must be inspected and

decisions made as to whether the residuals are outliers and/or the

correlations too low for the point to be acceptable.

15. Run procedure PENSET2 which transforms the edge-matching points from

local line sample to the reference grid.

16. Run procedure PEN3 which subtracts user-suppled offsets from all of 

the "to" tiepoint values for each frame. This keeps the output data

sets from the final step from being too large, with a large area of

missing data in the upper and left areas. (Vicar files must start at

1,1.)

17. Once again, edit and review tiepoints and check for errors.

18. Use the PEN4 procedure to geometrically correct one band of each frame.

The "cut-file" is used again here. All data outside of the cut file

boundary are set to zero. 

19. Use the FASTMOS program to mosaic the corrected frames into one dataset.

The priority of overlay of scenes is determined by the order in which

the corrected frames are given to the FASTMOS program.

20. Visually inspect for errors. This involves producing one small-scale

Versatec print for both the new mosaic and the database. A light table

is used to visually check the registration. Blow-ups of several areas

can be made to provide a more accurate check. If problems exist and
they can be localized, those points can be checked and edited and the

process redone from step 18. Once a satisfactory mosaic has been formed,

steps 18 and 19 are ruin for the other bands.

21. The UBGEN program is run to reformat the data from VICAkE format to the

OR5ER data base format. The data set is then ready for access by county,

forest district, quad or us.:r-defined area, throuUh the ORSER SUBAB

program.
APPENDIX B: Use of the OR5ER/VICAR Execute File 
USE OF THE ORSER/VICAR EXECUTE FILE

The following is a smaple session using the ORSER/VICAR execute file. Data are Vead

from a Landsat tape in VICAR format, a uniform contrast stretch is performed on a

subset of the data, text is added, and a border is put around the 4ta set.

1 ; comment -- execute the orser exec file

? exec fro men.u41000.Xmb.1ib/orsergo on cat cle

WELCOME TO THE ORSER SYSTEM

HELLO --- THIS IS AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE ORSER

EXECUTE FILE. PLEASE CALL 863-3532 IF YOU ENCOUNTER

ANY PROBLEMS. ENJOY11

OK TO CLEAR ACTIVE FILE 1 ok

ENTER PROGRAM NAME (OR HIT RETURN FOR MORE INFORMATION)

--> vicar 

WELCOME TO THE VICAR EXEC FILE

THE VICAR MANUALS ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR

USE IN THE ORSER LIBRARY.

ENTER THE DATA SET NAME FOR SAVING THE VTRAN STEM (OR HIT RETURN

FOR A DEFAULT OF NEN.P39100.FCL.VTRAN)

- - >MEN.P39100.FCL.v.test1

ENTER THE OUTPUT DATA SET NAME FOR THE VTRAN JOB (OR HIT RETURN

FOR A DEFAULT OF MEN.P39100.FCL.XJOB)

- - >MEN.,P39100.FCL.x.test1

ENTER THE VICAR CONTROL CARDS (TYPE 'EnJ' WHEN FINISHED)

-->tape,*,vic004,a,6

-->note,vicOO4 is a landsat tape that covers central pa. 

-->note,reserve temporary disk space

--> reserve ,3,(500,10000),500,+,(b,c,d)

- - >noto,create space for the final output Image data set

-- >aave,l,(600,18000),700,vo1005,men.u41000.pub.teitl.data,e

-- > exec,sar,(ee/02),b,(300,500,500,500)

- >note, the above exec statement copies 500 lines and elements

- - >note, from the second file of'A'which is the vic004 tape

-->note, now the data will be stretched, text added, and the

-- >note, border put on.
40 ORIGINAL PAG"; VOF POOR QUALITY,

>exac,astrtch2,b,c „ smooth

-->exec,textad,c,d „ par

-->p,par

-> backsrnd,255

-> larBe,black

-> text,250,250,'hawk run pao'

-->exec,ma6k76,d,e

-->end

ENTER THE JOB CATEGORY (CI-CAT 1)

ENTER THE JOB SERVICE (N-NORMAL,E-EXPEDITE,D-DEFER;CR-DEFER)

OK TO SUSNIT VTRAN JOB (CR-NO)? ok

JOB 0509 MNIFCL75 AW JCL CONVERSION

V.TEST1 SAVED ON VOL005

THE JOB STEM IS IN YOUR FILE CALLED 'ACTIVE'. THr. FIRST JOB STEM HAS

RP"N SAVED AS 'V.TESTI'. TYPE 'EXEC' WHEN NOTIFIED THAT THE VTRAN JOB

IS FINISHED. THE SECOND JOB STEM WILL BE COLLECTED IN YOUR FILE 'ACTIVE'.

-> EXE PAUSE

? list ; the active file

1. //MNIXXXXX JOB

2. /*JP V-D

3. //VICAR PROC CLASS-B,DISr-OLD,PRGM-VTRAN

4. //TTM EXEC PGM-TTMSA,PARM-'/<EVIL2>'

5. //STEPLIB DD DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.IPLI.SDSRUN,DISP-SHR

6. //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT-A

7. //SYSPUNCH DD DSN-&EVILTMP,UNIT-SYSDA,SPACE-(60,(500,11".iO)),

B. // DISP-(NEW,PASS), DC19(RECFNwFBS,LRECL-80,BLKSIZE-6400)

9. //SYSLIB DD DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.IPLI.TTMLIb,DISP-SHR

•10.' //VTR EXEC PGM-APRGM,PARM-'CLASS-iCLASS,&DISP'

11. //STEPLIB DD DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.IPLI.SDSRUN,DISP-SHR

12. //FTO1F001 DD UNIT-SYSDA,SPACE n (2880,(12,6)),

13. // DCB-(RECFM-FB,LRECL-72,BLKSIZE-2880.)

14. //FT02F001 DD UNIT-SYSDA,SPACE-(72,500),DCB-OPTCD-C

15. //FT03F001 DD UNIT-SYSDA,DSN-6VICSORCE,SPACE-(80,(500,100)},

16. // DCB-(RECFM-FBS,LRECL-80,BLKSIZE-6400),DISP-(NEW,PASS)

17. //FTOSFO01 DD DSN-iEVILTMP,DISP-(OLD,DELETE)

18. //FT06F001 DO SYSOUT-A

19. //FT08F001 DD DUMMY

20. //FT10F001 DD DUMMY

21. //FT10F002 DD DUMMY

22. //FT10F003 DD DUMMY

23. //SUBMIT EXEC PGM-IEBGENER,COND-(O,LT,VTR)

24. //SYSPRINT DD DUMMY

25. //SYSUTI DD DSN-AVICSORCE,DISP-(OLD,DELETE)

26. // DD DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.IPLI.PROCLIB(SLSHASTR),DISP-SHR

27. //SYSUT2 DD UNIT-DISK,VOL-REP-MEN.P39100.FCL.LIB,

28. // DSN-MEN.P39100.FCL.X.TESTI,DISP•(NEW,KEEP),SPACE-(TRK,(1,1),RLSE)

29. //SYSIN DD DUMMY 
ORIGINAL PACE 19

OF POOR QUALITY

30. // PEND

31. // EXEC VICAR

32. TAPE,*,VI0004,A,6

33. NOTE,VI0004 IA A LANDSAT TAPE THAT COVERS CENTRAL PA.

34. NOTE,RESERVE TEMPORARY DISK SPACE

35. RESERVE,3,(500,10000),500,*,(B,C,D)

36. NOTE,CREATE SPACE FOR THE FINAL OUTPUT IMAGE DATA SET

37. SAVE,1,(600,18000),700,VOL005,MEN.U41000.PUB.TESTI.DATA,E

38. EXEC,SAR,(*A/02),B,(300,500,500,500)

39. NOTE, THE ABOVE EXEC STATEMENT COPIES 500 LINES AND ELEMENTS

40. NOTE, FROM THE SECOND FILE OF 'A' WHICH IS THE VIC004 TAPE

41. NOTE, NOW THE DATA WILL BE STRETCHED, TEXT ADDED, AND THE

42. NOTE, BORDER PUT ON.

43. EXEC,ASTRTCH2,5,C „ SMOOTH

44. EXEC,TEXTAD,C,D „PAR

45. P,PAR

46. LARGE,BLACK,BACKGRD,255

47. TEXT,250,250,'--- HAWK RUN, PA.'

48. EXEC,MASK76,D,E

49. END

50. /*

51. // EXEC PGM-UMSG,P.ARM-(INTERACT,'TO FCL VTRAN JOB FINISHED')

FROM OPR (OPERATOR): ( MN1FCL75) VTRAN JOB FINISHED

Y exe

READY FOR THE X-JOB

17. '//VSYS01 DD LABEL-(,BLP),DISP- (OLD,KEEP),UNIT-TAPE,

DO YOU NEED TO ADD A TAPE CARD (YES/NO;CR w NO)? yes

ENTER TAPE NAME -->vicOO4

READ OR WRITE (R/W)? r

DO YOU NEED ANOTHER TAPE CARD (YES/NO;CR-NO)?

ENTER THE JOB CATEGORY (CR-CAT 1).

ENTER THE JOB SERVICE (N-NORMAL,E- EXPEDITE D-DEFER;CR-DEFER)

OK TO SUBMIT VTRAN JOB (CR-NO)? ok

JOB 0529 MNIFCL76 IN JCL CONVERSION

YOUR FILE 'ACTIVE' NOW CONTAINS THE SECOND JOB STEM.

THE ' X-JOB' STEM WILL BE SAVED AS 'X.TEST1.'

X.TESTl REPLACED ON VOL005

END OF VICAR EXEC FILE

? list; the active file

1. / /MNIXXXXX JOB MSCLEVEL-(1,1)

2. /*TAPE VIC004,R

3. /* JP V-DEFER

4. /* JP FULLSKIPS

5. //JOBLIS DO DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.ORLIB,DISP-SHR

6. // DO DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.IPLI.JPLMODS,DIS'P-SHR

7. // DO DSN-MEN.P92250.PUB.IPLl.SDSRUN,DISP*SHR

8. //STEP1 EXEC PGM-VMAST

9. / /MSP DO DUMMY ,DISP-SHR

10. / /SYSOUT DO SYSOUT-A,DCB-BLKSIZE -141
OF POOR QUALITY

11. //FT06F001 DD SYSOUT-A

12. //FT07FOO1 DD SYSOUT-B

13. //VIDEOPDA DD DUMMY ,DISP-SHR

14. //VHISTORY DD DS`7-MEN.P92250 . PUB.IPLI.VHISTORY , DISP-SHR

15. //VSYS00 DD VOL - SER n VOL005 , UNIT - DISK , SPACE-(TRK,2),

16. // DCB-( .RECFM- U,LRECL - 7200,BLKSIZE - 7200,OPTCD-C),

17. // DISP= ( NEW,PASS) , DSN-66TEMP

18. //VSYSOI DD LABEL-( , BLP),DISP- ( OLD,KEEP) , UNIT-TAPE,

19. // VOL - SER-VIC004,

20. // DCB- ( BLKSIZE - 00000 , LRECL n 00000,DEN n 3)

21. //VSYS02 DD DCB-(BLKSIZE - 10000 , 1,RECL-00500),DSN -66.B,

22, // SPACE- ( 10000, ( 00025 , 00006)) , SEP-VSYSOO , UNIT-SYSDA

23. //VSYS03 DD DCB-(BLKSIZE-10000 , LRECL-00500),DSN-66C,

24^ // SPACE-(10000,(00025,00006)),SEP-VSYS02,UNIT-SYSDA

25. //VSYSO4 DD DCB-(BLKSIZE n I0000,LRECL- 00500),DSN-66D,

26. // SPACE-(10000, ( 00025,00000)) , SEP-VSYS03,UNIT-SYSDA

27. //VSYS05 DD UNIT - SYSDA , DISP-(NEW,KEEP),

28. // DSN - MEN.U41000 . PUB.TESTI.DATA,

29. // VOL - SER-VOL005,

30. // DCB- ( BLKSIZE - 18000,•LRECL - 00600),

31. // SPACE-(1800.0,(00024,00005))

32. //SYSIN DD *,DCB- ( BLKSIZE-80)

33. ****,► ******,► *********

34.

35. MNIFC1.8X * VICAR VERSION 6 - 3 * STEP 1

36.

37. ***k***#********k****

38. TAPE, *, VI0004,A,6

39. NOTE,VIC004 IA A LANDSAT TAPE THAT COVERS CENTRAL PA.

40. NOTE , RESERVE TEMPORARY DISK SPACE

41. RESERVE , 3,(500,10000) , 500,*,(B,C,D)

42. NOTE,CREATE SPACE FOR THE FINAL OUTPUT IMAGE DATA SET

43. SAVE , 1,(600,18OnD),700 , VOL005,MEN.U41000 . PUB.TESTI . DATA,E

44. EXEC,SAR,(*A/02),B,(300,500,500,500)

45. NOTE, THE ABOVE EXEC STATEMENT COPIES 500 LINES AND ELEMENTS

46. NOTE, FROM THE SECOND FILE OF 'A' WHICH IS THE VIC004 TAPE

47. NOTE, NOW THE DATA WILL BE STRETCHED, TEXT ADDED, AND THE

48. NOTE, BORDER PUT ON.

49. EXEC,ASTRTCH2 , B,C„SMOOTH

50. EXEC , TEXTAD,C,D„PAR

51. EXEC,MASK76,D,E

52. END

53. P, PAR

54. LARGE,BLACK,BACKGRD,255

55. TEXT,250,250,'--- HAWK RUN, PA.'

56. VIC004 IA A LANDSAT TAPE THAT COVERS CENTRAL PA.

57. RESERVE TEMPORARY DISK SPACE

58. CREATE SPACE FOR THE FINAL OUTPUT IMAGE DATA SET

59. A FILE 2 1

60. 1 SAR MNIFCL8X 300 500 500 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 61.

62. THE ABOVE EXEC STATEMENT COPIES 500 LINES AND ELEMENTS

63. FROM THE SECOND FILE OF 'A' WHICH IS THE VIC004 TAPE

64. NOW THE DATA WILL BE-STRETCHED, TEXT ADDED, AND THE

65. BORDER PUT ON.

66. 2 ASTRTCH2 MNIFCL8X 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

67. SMOOTH

68.

69. 3 TEXTAD MNIFCL8X 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 •0 0

70. LARGE , BLACK , BACKGRD,25'5

71. TEXT , 250,250,'--- HAWK RUN, PA.'

72.

%. 4 MASK76 MNIFCLSX 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
M

MN r

74.

75. /* OF P()G1;`)

76. /*

77. // EXEC PGM w UMSG,PARM-(INTERACT,'TO FCL X — JOB FINISHED')

78. /*EOF

? locate

JOB 0529 MNIFCL76 EXEC 

JOB 0509 MNIFCL75 AW FETCH

? locate

JOB 0529 MNIFCL76 EXEC

JOB 0509 MNIFCL75 AW FETCH

? F// 

FROM OPR (OPERATOR): (MNIFCL76) X-JOB FINISHED

? ; comment -- Look at the output; check to see if it ran correctly

? fet * fil u 11 unn fil o

95. - LAST LINE.

********************* N

,. * N

MNIFCL7X * VICAR VERSION 6-3 * STEP 1 N

* * N

w******************** N

TAPE,*,VIC004,A,6 N

c' NOTE,VICO04 IS A LANDSAT TAPE THAT COVERS CENTRAL PA. N

NOTE,RESERVE TEMPORARY DISK SPACE N

RESERVE,3,(500,10000),500,*,(B,C,D) N

NOTE,CREATE SPACE FOR THE FINAL OUTPUT IMAGE DATA SET N

SAVE,1,(600,18000),700,VOL005,MEN.U41000.PUB.TESTI.DATA,E N

EXEC,SAR,(*A/02),B,(300,500,500,500) N

NOTE, THE ABOVE EXEC STATEMENT COPIES 500 LF.NES AND ELEMENTS W

NOTE, FROM THE SECOND FILE OF A WHICH IS THE VI0004 TAPE N

NOTE, NOW THE DATA WILL BE STRETCHED, TEXT ADDED, AND THE N

NOTE, BORDER PUT ON. N

EXEC,ASTRTCH2,B ,C„SMOOTH N

EXEC,TEXTAD,C ,D„PAR N

EXEC,MASK76,D,E N

END N

P, PAR N

BACKGRND,255 N

LARGE,BLACK N

TEXT,250,250,-HAWK RUN PA N

-' VI0004 IS A LANDSAT TAPE THAT COVERS CENTRAL PA. N

RESERVE TEMPORARY DISK SPACE N

CREATE SPACE FOR THE FINAL OUTPUT IMAGE DATA SET N

A FILE 2 1 F

004042 1 SAR MNIFCL7X 300 500 500 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7

INPUT NL- 2983 NS w3596

22381-15090 30JUL1981 S.C./ALTOONA EC

a' PATH 17 - ROW 32 BAND 7 *IR2* LANDSAT - 2 EL 

OUTPUT SL- 300 SS- 500 NL- 500 NS- 500

LABELS SAME AS INPUT 

THE ABOVE EXEC STATEMENT COPIES 500 LINES AND ELEMENTS N

FROM THE SECOND FILE Off' A WHICH IS THE VI0004 TAPE N

NOW THE DATA WILL BE STRETCHED, TEXT ADDED, AND THE N

BORDER PUT ON. N

004231 2 ASTRTCH2 MNIFCL7X 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 T

INPUT NL- 500 NS- 500

SMOOTH P
ORIGINAL PAGE IS

OF POOR QUALITY

22381 - 15090 30JUL1981 S.C./ALTOONA EC PATH 17 - ROW 32 BAND 7 *IR2* LA NDSAT - 2 EL OUTPUT SL- I SS- 1 NL- 500 NS- 500

LABELS SAME AS INPUT

BEFORE EXCLUSION . . .

MEAN n . 6261E 2

SIGMA - . 1328E 2

AFTER EXCLUSION. .

MEAN - . 6261E 2

SIGMA - . 1328E 2

T R A N S F 0 R N A T I 0 N

IN 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OUT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1

IN 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

OUT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3

IN 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

OUT 6.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 16.0 17.0 19

IN 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

OUT 30.0 32.0 35.0 37.0 40.0 41.0 46.0 48.0 54.0 57

IN bO 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

OUT 93.0 96.0 111.0 115.0 124.0 135.0 141.0 155.0 156.0 • 173

IN 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

OUT 219.0 230.0 231.0 237.0 240.0 242.0 247.0 248.0 251.0 25)

IN 255

OUT 255.0

** RAMP CDF TABLE STRETCH GENERATED.

*** INPUT TRANSFER TABLE MODE

*** STRETCH RUN COMPLETED

004237 3 TEXTAD MNlFCL7X 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 T

INPUT NL- 500 NS- 500

BACKGRND,255 P

22381-15090 30JUL1981 S.C./ALTOONA EC

PATH 17 - ROW 32 BAND 7 *IR2* LA NDSAT - 2 EC

RAMP CDF STRETCH HL

OUTPUT SL- 1 SS- 1 NL- 500 NS- 500

LABELS SAME AS INPUT

LARGE,BLACK P

TEXT,250,250,'HAWK RUN -PA.' P

*** TEXTAD EKO

004242 4 MASK76 MNIFCL7X 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 7

INPUT NL- 500 NS- 500

22381-15090 30JUL1981 S.C./ALTOONA EC

PATH 17 - ROW 32 BAND 7 *IR2* LA NDSAT - 2 EC

RAMP CDF STRETCH - TEXTAD HL

OUTPUT SL- 1 SS- 1 NL- 500 NS- 500

LABELS SAME AS INPUT

** NO ACCOUNTING DATA WAS AVAILABLE

** 661 OUTPUT LINES - 524 ELEMENTS PER LINE - OUTPUT TO DISK

004246 VICAR RETURNING TO SYSTEM

ACTIVE TAPE FILES PROCESSED

VI0004 002

? ; comment -- note that the. final output vas 661 lines by 524 elements
APPENDIX C: National Gypsy Moth Review Meeting Program

and Outline of Presentation

AW
NATIONAL GYPSY MOTH REVIEW AND NASA WORKSHOP ON

MONITORING GYPSY MOTH DEFOLIATION

December 7-9 0 1982

Host Inn, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Tuesday, December 7

8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Registration

8:30 a . m. - 9:30 a.m. Boardroom - National Gypsy Moth Management Board Business

Meeting - Don Kludy, Chairman

10:00 a.m. Ballroom - Welcome - Don Kludy, Chairman, NGMMB

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NASA WORKSHOP

MONITORING GYPSY MOTH DEFOLIATION USING LANDSAT

A Technology Transfer Program Presented by NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center in 

Cooperation with the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry and The Pennsylvania State

University.

Program Moderator - Ross Nelson - NASA

10:05 a.m. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Calabrese, Program

Manager, Renewable Resources

Branch, NASA Hdq. Washington 

10;15 a.m. Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . .John Quimby, PA Bureau

of Forestry

Systems Overview

10:45 a.m. -The Landsat System: Multispectral

Scanner Data. . . . . . . Darrel Williams, NASA

11:30 a.m. LUNCH

1:00 P.M. -Basic Classification Procedure: The

Ratio Vegetation Index. . . . . . . . . . Ross Nelson, NASA

1:25 p. m. -Pennsylvania Data Base. . Brian Turner, PA State 

University

1;45 p. m. Analysis and Evaluation. . . . . . . . . George Baumer, PA State

University

2:30 p.m. BREAK

2:45 p.m. Accuracy of Digital Products . .Mark Stauffer, Computer

Science Corp.

3:15 p . m. Data Products: Users 6 Costs. . . . . . .John Quimby, PA Bureau of

Forestry & Darrel Williams,

r

; NASA

3:40 p.m. Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . .Ross Nelson, NASA

4:10 p.m. Interactive Terminal Display/Demo. All Participants

5:00 p.m. Adjourn for the Day

i

a. ..e ^ ,^••. ^JI.^I i^ . ^./) e'/^' / S

..^ ^ .u.^^.M.a+w r.. _ ..
OUTLINE

Gypsy Moth Review Board Workshop

December 7, 1982

I. Introduction

A. Purposes of meeting: report on the development and use of an

automated defoliation assessment system which uses satellite data to

detect forest canopy disturbance.

B. System overview:

1. Speed and capacity of the computer, and the synoptic coverage

afforded by the satellite data provide a means to monitor gypsy

moth defoliation on a yearly basis.

2. Historical records are maintained in a magnetic tape archive,

data storage and retrieval capabilities enhanced.

C. Workshop will report on how the computerized forest assessment

system is used to produce results of interest to the field forester

or entomologist. Workshop agenda to accomplish this objective.

1. Historical perspective: pre-satellite data collection and

storage.

2. Automated Defoliation Assessment System components

- The Landsat multispectral scanner (MSS) satellite system.

- The classification procedure used to locate defoliated forest.

- The data base used to maintain satellite data and thematic

information.

' 3. Using the Automated Defoliation Assessment System. The Penn State

front-end system.

4. Assessing the accuracy of the data products

5. Using the data products

6. Summary, Discussion.

II. Historical Perspective: pre-Landsat defoliation assessment

A. Pur pose of damage assessment

1. Locate candidate areas for protection (spray)

2. Locate areas of extensive mortality, salvage operations.

B. Current approach to statewide damage assessment - aerial•sketchmapping

over forested areas.

1. Pilot, 2 observers - light, wing-over aircraft such as a Cessna

172.

2. Observers have 7-112' topo maps upon which they sketch damage

on either side of the plane. Each observer responsible for

1 mile swath on one side of plane. Pilot flies parallel flightlines

2 miles apart.

3. Aerial coverage: 1970-1979: 100% of forested area of state;

1980-1981: approximately 50% of forested areas sketchmapped.
C. Sketchmapping results forwarded to county to help pinpoint problem

areas for following years programs. Information also entered into

Division of Forest Pest Managements' Forest Pest Locator Grid (FPLG).

FPLG maintains historical records of defoliated areas - latitude

longitude grid system.

D. Aerial sketchmapping considerations

1. Time necessary to fly all or a portion of forests in state

2. Cost per acre

3. Accuracy of product. Aerial sketchmaps subject to gross plsitional

inaccuracies inherent in approach, and defoliated assessment is

observer-dependent.

E. Application of satellite technology seems appropriate to overcome

aerial sketchmapping problems. To this end, the Automated Defoliation

Assessment System was developed.

III. The Automated Defoliation Assessment System

A. The Landsat multispectral scanner (MSS)

1. Ottains digital data in four wavelength bands

green band, 0.5 - 0.6 .um

red band, 0.6 - 0.7 kLm

first near infrared 0.7 - 0.8 ,ctm

second near infrared 0.8 - 1.1,um

2. Reflectance in the four wavelength bands measured over contiguous

57 meter square picture elements-pixels.

3. - 7.5 million pixels/Landsat scene

- 4 brightness measurements/pixel; 0 - dark in the given wavelength,

no detectable light, 128 - scanner saturation, very bright in 

the given wavelength.

- data from one Landsat MSS scene collected in 25 seconds.

4. Different covertypes have different spectral responses:

- vegetation typically lower in red wavelengths due to chlorophyll

absorption, and high in near infrared.

- soil higher than vegetation in visible, lower in infrared

- water low in visible, lower in infrared.

5. Can use these spectral relationships for land cover identification

using computer-aided analysis techniques.

B. Classification procedure to delineate gypsy moth defoliation

I. Defoliated forest is spectrally similar to certain non-forested

agricultural areas. Remove this source of confusion by using a

forest/non-forest mask. All non-forest data zeroed out, not considered

in subsequent classification steps.

a. Use healthy Landsat data set to construct forest/non-forest

mask.

b. apply mask to defoliated data set.

2. Use relationship of red wavelength to near infrared wavelength to

determine which forested areas have been defoliated.

.........

__ .
{. Reductions in forest canopy co',er result in decrease in band 7

(near infrared) response, increase in the band 5 (red) response.

Hence a reduction in canopy density result in smaller 7/5 ratio.

4. "Slice" the 7/5 response into defoliation cateog4res:

healthy forest 0-30% canopy removed

moderate defoliation 30-60% canopy removed

heavy defoliation 60-100% canopy removed

5. Principles above form basis for analysis procedures used in

conjunction with the statewide data base.

C. The Pennsylvania Digital Data Base: Layers of digital information.

All layers registered to UTM grid.

1. Digital layers

2nd date 1981 - Landsat data

1st date 1976 - 1979 - Landsat data

forest district boundaries

county boundaries

2. Data base maintained on Penn State University computer-magnetic

tape - Computer is IBM 3033.

D. Use of the data base

The Penn State Front-End

Pennsylvania _ System: user friendly Output

Data Base access to data base ano Products

image processing

Subsequent sections detail the use of the PSU Front-End System and

report un the accuracy and uses of the data products.

IV. The Penn State Front-End System

Interacting with the Landsat data base to manufacture products useful to

natural resource personnel.

A. The Front-End System is a complex computer command file (i.e., clist,

exec, macro) which allows the user to specify the area of interest and

the type of image processing needed.

1. Front-End asks user questions concerning area of interest, processing

requirements, output product format.

2. when queries are satisfied, Front-End produces a job stem which is

submitted to the main frame for execution.

3. User friendly system, if user does not understand question or is

not sure of choice of answers to a question, he may request help.

Front-End will explain question more fully and direct user to

additional sources of inf,.-rmation.

B. Areas accessed through the Front-End

1. County (by name)

2. Forest District (by number)

3. 7-1/2 minute `opographic map (by name)

4. User chosen data base subsection in terms of lines and columns

of data.

ate- _,.,,,,,,,,; ,,^► i.,.. -. ^ ^ +: ^ -.^ . ^.; .^ .. 
C. Interaction of user with the computer to produce information for

regions of interest. Best method of explaining analysis sequence

is actual example. Perry County classification demonstration.

1. Workshop packet: example of interactive session, produce

results for Perry County.

2. Output products supplied: versatec (grey scale) map output,

tabular summaries.

D. Analysis sequence is a series of steps:

1. Select area of interest (in this case Perry County).

Submit job to copy area to another tape.

Result: Masked Landsat data copied to tape. Will have Landsat

data (4 bands) in county area, zeros - no data - in non-county

area.

2. Mask non-forest areas within county using forest/non-forest

mask.

3. Generate 7/5 ratio image

4. Density slice 7/5 response to delineate healthy forest, moderate

defoliation, and heavy defoliation.

5. Generate output products

a. Tabular summaries

b. graphics, versatec maps

E. Capability must exist to add layers to data base. Software is in 

place to update data base with most current Landsat MSS data. Data

base additions may be transparent to user, PSU personnel maintain

data base.

V. Accuracy of the Digital Products

A. Types of error considered

1. Classification error: how closely do Landsat product(s) and 

actual conditions on ground agree.

a. forest vs. non-forest

b. healthy vs. defoliated forest

2. Positional error: displacement of pixels relative to the UTM

map projection. Data base layers do not exactly_ lay atop one

another.

B. Accuracy of the forest/non-forest mask - statewide

Landsat

Forest Nonforest

Airphoto Forest 94% 6%

interpretation Nonforest 20% 80%

Overall Accuracy (per pixel): 90%

NOTE: Accuracies reflect use of nonborder test pixels in

ground reference data.

i° Y
C. Accuracy of delineating defoliated forest from relatively healthy

forest. Comparison of Landsat ,results and aerial skethmapping to

airphotointerpretation (ground reference) information, Doubling

Gap, Pennsylvania.

Landsat Aerial Sketchmmae in

HeavZ Real th&Mod Heavy 'Real t y- od

Airphoto Heavy Def. 77.94 22.1 91,43 8.6

interpetation Healthy-Mod 22.48 77.5 43,46 56.6

Average Acc. 77.7 Average Acc. 74.0

Overall Acc, 77.7 Overall Acc. 70.1

Neither approach (Landsat analysis nor aerial sketchmapping) accurately

delineates healthy forest from moderate defoliation. Both cover types

spectrally very similar, reliable separation extremely difficult

spectrally.

D. Positional Inaccuracies: Misregistration errors

UTM Avg. M^isre2i strat ion Error Worst Case

Zone Quad Line ff' uo umn Line ­ To 1 umn

17 1 0.65 0.67 1.7 1.3

2 0.46 0.89 1.2 2.3

3 0.92 1.64 2.1 2.7

4 0.86 3.16 2.5 10.6

18 5 1.0.8 1.13 3.2 w4.7

6 1.23 3.26 6.0 9.8

7 0.65 0.63 2.7 1.6

8 0.97 1.40 3.6 7.2

E. Constraints on use of data due to accuracy figures cited above.

1. If healthy forest, moderate defoliation, and heavy defoliation

cover types identified, healthy-moderate confusion will be high,

reliability of these cover types low.

2. Registration problem forces user to consider larger cell block

sizes to overcome inability to exactly locate oneself on ground.

VI. Data Products: Use and Cost

A. Results of Landsat data analysis essentially replace aerial sketchmapping

as remote sensing tool.

B. Division of Forest Pest Management uses results to update their Forest

Pest Locator Grid - historical data, tabular format, registered to

Latitude Longitude grid.

C. Results of Landsat data analysis will be supplied to the counties

in lieu of aeria l sketchmapping products.

D. Use results to more accurately delineate areas of mortality - salvage

operations.
E. Data base not limited to forest uses. Additional layers of information

may be added.

I. Thematic Data:

a. Watershed boundaries

b. Additional political boundaries such as land ownership.

c. Land cover identities, such as USGS 1:250,000 land cover

maps of Pennsylvania.

2. Additional digital data sources

a. Thematic Mapper data - degraded to a 57 meter cell.

b. Topographic data, OEM or DMA elevation tapes, ralculate

slope, aspect information.

F. Cost considerations - Any cost assessment is dependent on the situation

of the prospective user. Best and worst case costs given; actual costs

fall in between.

1. Best Case: assumes all equipment, software, and personnel in place

and readily available to user.

a. Costs of assessing defoliation for Centre County - cost of

running gobs via front end.

b. Equivalent figures for Perry County.

2. Worst Case: no equipment, software, and personnel available.

a. Cost of computer (IBM 3081) $5 million. This computer is

configured to service 55,000 users for research and education.

* Such a system for individual state needs is questionable. A

mini computer for under $1 million is a very real possibility.

b. Yearly maintenance and operating cost.

c. VICAR software (leased for 10 years through cosmic): $2400.

d. OCCULT (ORSER) software: $2180.

e. Data base analyst, responsible for updating data base and

handling software problems - $40,000.

f. Possibility exists to set up state data base on PSU computer,

charge, 3 x normal processing cost (SO.21/CPU second vs.

$0.07/CPU see normal).

G. Cost comparisons should be done with multip l e-purpose outlook. Data

base provides capability to assess current defoliation situation.

Archival capability serves as a historical data base, uniform format.

Various Department of Environmental Resource agencies may be interested

in supporting such a data base since uses are not restricted to forest

applications.

VII. Summary and Discussion

A. User friendly interactive system. Remote sensing background helpful

but not manditory..

B. Cost effectiveness - compare costs involved with new and old methods

of assessing gypsy moth damage.

C. Landsat analysis techniques more accurate when heavy defoliation

delineated from other forest cover types.
D. Data base is dynamic, constant updates of current years MSS data.

Thematic information may also be added. Address problems of cloud

cover.

E. Landsat data availability - Landsat 4 MSS and TM provide continuity

and an additional, potentially rewarding data source, respectively.

F. Registration problems may be rectified by remosaicking data using

soley Landsat-4 MSS data, hence possibility exists to improve

registration inaccuracies.

AW