USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · ofr20091028

A Review of Land-Cover Mapping Activities in Coastal Alabama and Mississippi

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Land-use and land-cover (LULC) data provide important information for environmental management. Data pertaining to land-cover and land-management activities are a common requirement for spatial analyses, such as watershed modeling, climate change, and hazard assessment. In coastal areas, land development, storms, and shoreline modification amplify the need for frequent and detailed land-cover datasets. The northern Gulf of Mexico coastal area is no exception. The impact of severe storms, increases in urban area, dramatic changes in land cover, and loss of coastal-wetland habitat all indicate a vital need for reliable and comparable land-cover data. Four main attributes define a land-cover dataset: the date/time of data collection, the spatial resolution, the type of classification, and the source data. The source data are the foundation dataset used to generate LULC classification and are typically remotely sensed data, such as aerial photography or satellite imagery. These source data have a large influence on the final LULC data product, so much so that one can classify LULC datasets into two general groups: LULC data derived from aerial photography and LULC data derived from satellite imagery. The final LULC data can be converted from one format to another (for instance, vector LULC data can be converted into raster data for analysis purposes, and vice versa), but each subsequent dataset maintains the imprint of the source medium within its spatial accuracy and data features. The source data will also influence the spatial and temporal resolution, as well as the type of classification. The intended application of the LULC data typically defines the type of source data and methodology, with satellite imagery being selected for large landscapes (state-wide, national data products) and repeatability (environmental monitoring and change analysis). The coarse spatial scale and lack of refined land-use categories are typical drawbacks to satellite-based land-use classifications. Aerial photography is typically selected for smaller landscapes (watershed-basin scale), for greater definition of the land-use categories, and for increased spatial resolution. Disadvantages of using photography include time-consuming digitization, high costs for imagery collection, and lack of seasonal data. Recently, the availability of high-resolution satellite imagery has generated a new category of LULC data product. These new datasets have similar strengths to the aerial-photo-based LULC in that they possess the potential for refined definition of land-use categories and increased spatial resolution but also have the benefit of satellite-based classifications, such as repeatability for change analysis. LULC classification based on high-resolution satellite imagery is still in the early stages of development but merits greater attention because environmental-monitoring and landscape-modeling programs rely heavily on LULC data. This publication summarizes land-use and land-cover mapping activities for Alabama and Mississippi coastal areas within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM) Ecosystem Change and Hazard Susceptibility Project boundaries. Existing LULC datasets will be described, as well as imagery data sources and ancillary data that may provide ground-truth or satellite training data for a forthcoming land-cover classification. Finally, potential areas for a high-resolution land-cover classification in the Alabama-Mississippi region will be identified.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 29.666666666666668° to 31.416666666666668° latitude; -90.33333333333333° to -87° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kathryn E. L. Smith, Amar Nayegandhi, John Brock. 2010. A Review of Land-Cover Mapping Activities in Coastal Alabama and Mississippi. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20091028

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗