Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

Program Report

95-P009

Geospatial Application:

Evaluation of Multidate Landsat

Multispectral Scanner Data

This PDF file may appear different from the printed report

because of slight variations incurred by electronic transmission.

The substance of the report remains unchanged.

September 1995
 1

Present address: Midwest Science Center, 4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri

65201

Geospatial Application:

Evaluation of Multidate Landsat Multispectral

Scanner Data for Determining Changes between

Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats on the

Upper Mississippi River System

by 

Mark Laustrup1

National Biological Service

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

September 1995
The Environmental Management Technical Center issues LTRMP Program Reports to provide Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program partners with programmatic documentation, procedures manuals, training manuals,

annual status reports, and geospatial applications.

National Biological Service

Environmental Management

Technical Center

CENTER DIRECTOR

Robert L. Delaney

SCIENCE ADVISOR

John W. Barko

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES DIRECTOR

Norman W. Hildrum

GEOSPATIAL APPLICATIONS

DIRECTOR

Frank D'Erchia

INFORMATION TRANSFER AND

MEDIA SERVICES MANAGER

Terry D'Erchia 

Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National

Biological Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

The National Biological Service . . . gathering, analyzing,

and sharing the biological information necessary to support the wise

stewardship of the Nation's natural resources.

 Printed on recycled paper 
iii

Preface

The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) was authorized under the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) as an element of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Management Program. The LTRMP is being

implemented by the Environmental Management Technical Center, an office of the National

Biological Service, in cooperation with the five Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS)

States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, with guidance and Program

responsibility provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The UMRS encompasses the

commercially navigable reaches of the Upper Mississippi River, as well as the Illinois River

and navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix, and Minnesota Rivers.

The mission of the LTRMP is to provide decision makers with information to maintain

the UMRS as a sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use character. The longterm goals of the Program are to understand the system, determine resource trends and

impacts, develop management alternatives, manage information, and develop useful

products.

This report supports Strategy 2.2.6, Monitor and Evaluate Aquatic and Floodplain

Habitat, as outlined in the LTRMP Operating Plan (USFWS 1992). 

This report was developed with funding provided by the Long Term Resource

Monitoring Program.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-

6847).

This report should be cited as:

Laustrup, M. 1995. Geospatial Application: Evaluation of multidate Landsat Multispectral

Scanner data for determining changes between aquatic and terrestrial habitats on the

Upper Mississippi River System. National Biological Service, Environmental

Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, September 1995. LTRMP

95-P009. 19 pp. + Appendixes A and B.
v

Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction .......................................................... 1

Background .......................................................... 2

Landsat MSS Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods ............................................................. 3

Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Rectification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Atmospheric Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Water Level Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Explanation of Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Open Water Gains and Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Quality Assurance .................................................. 8

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Formulae Used to Correct for Sun Angle and Atmospheric Scattering . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Great River Environmental Action Teams I, II, and III (1970s)

Land Cover/Land Use Classification List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Land Cover/Land Use - Pools 1 through 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7

Land Cover/Land Use - Pools 19, 26, and Open River Study Reach . . . . . . . . . . B-8
vi

Tables

Page

Table 1. River stage on date of acquisition ............................... 4

Table 2. Open water conditions: 1972, 1984, and 1992 ...................... 7

Table 3. Open water gains and losses: 1972 to 1984 ........................ 9

Table 4. Open water gains and losses: 1984 to 1992 ........................ 9

Table 5. Spatial coincidence between 1975 groundtruth data and 1972

satellite data, Pool 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 6. Spatial coincidence between 1982-1983 groundtruth data and 1984

satellite data, Pool 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Water gains and losses, lower Pool 8 and Pool 9: 1972, 1984, 1992 .... 6

Figure 2. Open water gains and losses: 1972 to 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Evaluation of Multidate Landsat

Multispectral Scanner Data

for Determining Changes between Aquatic and

Terrestrial Habitats on the

Upper Mississippi River System

By Mark Laustrup

Abstract

Landsat Multispectral Scanner data representing conditions in 1972, 1984, and 1992 were processed to identify

open water conditions. The study area included the Upper Mississippi River floodplain between Genoa,

Wisconsin, and south of Dubuque, Iowa. Data were analyzed to identify changes which occurred over the 20-yr

period and these changes have been combined to represent gains and losses. Gains generally equate to a loss of

aquatic plant beds and islands in the lower pools (erosion), while losses are generally restricted to off-channel

habitats and represent the effects of sedimentation. Between 1972 and 1992, gains totaled 6,959 hectares; losses

totaled 6,321 hectares.

Introduction

Beginning in the 1930s, a series of navigation

dams (35) extending from Minneapolis,

Minnesota, to St. Louis, Missouri, on the Upper

Mississippi River and from Chicago to Alton,

Illinois, on the Illinois River were constructed to

aid inland navigation. A conversion of terrestrial

environments to aquatic habitats resulted from

construction of the navigation dams and

superimposed palustrine and lacustrine habitats on

what was once a braided riverine ecosystem. This

change in water regime created vast expanses of

off-channel marsh and was extremely beneficial to

many species. Pools were formed upstream of a

dam (this definition of "pool" includes the area

between the dam and the next one upstream; e.g.,

Pool 8 is the water impounded between Lock and

Dams 7 and 8). The habitats directly below a dam

most closely represent pre-project condition,

where a series of anastomosing channels bisect

island complexes. The habitats directly above a

dam are lacustrine and have been characterized

 as shallow 

reservoirs. A transition zone occurs between the

upper and lower pools.

The portion of the Upper Mississippi River

System (UMRS) which is characterized by locks

and dams is experiencing morphological change

as the system attempts to reach an equilibrium

condition. Erosion of terrestrial island habitats is

most notable in the lower portion of a pool and

has been attributed to wind fetch and resulting

wave action. Sedimentation is thought to occur

throughout a pool but seems to be most notable

directly below the dams and in the transition zone

between the upper and lower pools. The

sedimentation process is thought to be responsible

for the conversion of aquatic habitats to terrestrial

habitats.

Researchers require low-cost, rapid methods of

assessing these changes. This investigation was

undertaken to determine the utility of using

multitemporal Landsat Multispectral Scanner

(MSS) data to evaluate changes in the spatial

distribution of land and open water on the UMRS

over a 20-yr period.
2

Background

Landsat MSS Description

Photographs acquired during the Mercury and

Gemini space missions in the 1960s provided

information which, prior to these early orbital

flights, had been unavailable to the resource

management community. Because of interest in a

space perspective, primarily by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

began design and development of a satellite-based

remote sensing system in the mid-1960s (Freden

and Gordon, Jr. 1983). In July 1972, NASA

launched Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1,

now known as Landsat 1. The successful launch

and operation of Landsat 2 followed in 1975, and

of Landsat 3 in 1978, essentially equivalent

systems to Landsat 1.

The primary sensing system aboard Landsats 1-

3 was the MSS. The MSS records the spectral

response of the Earth's surface in the green (band

4), red (band 5), and two near-infrared (near-IR)

wavelengths (bands 6 and 7) at a spatial resolution

of 79 x 79 m. Each scene covers an area

approximately 185 x 185 km. Analog signals for

each band are initially converted to a 6-bit (64-

level) digital range.

Near-IR radiation is almost totally absorbed by

water and therefore bands recording the near-IR

portion of the spectrum are well suited for

identifying water bodies. That is, water returns

relatively low radiance values in this portion of

the spectrum, whereas terrestrial features produce

relatively high radiance values. Band 7 (0.8-1.1

:m) was used in this investigation because it is

considered the optimum choice for delineating

surface water area (Salomonson 1983).

Landsat 4 (launched in 1982) and Landsat 5

(launched in 1984) each contained a secondgeneration sensor known as the Thematic Mapper

(TM). Depending on the application, substantial

cost savings occur when Landsat MSS data are

chosen over the higher resolution TM (7 bands,

30- x 30-m pixels). For example, 17 Landsat MSS

scenes (over 2 yr old) could be purchased at the

time of this writing for the cost of one Landsat

TM scene. The launch of Landsat 1 (MSS)

predated the launch of Landsat 4 (TM) by 10 yr,

facilitating long-term analysis needs.

Choosing MSS data on the basis of cost

($200/scene) results in a reduction in spatial and

spectral resolution when compared to Landsat TM

data. However, this is rapidly becoming a moot

point for some applications because pricing of the

higher resolution TM data is projected to drop

dramatically for Federal users. At the time of this

writing, TM data over 10 yr old could be

purchased for $190; TM data over 2 yr old was

priced between $300 and $500; and new

acquisitions cost $2,500 (down from $3,500).

Study Area

Three scenes were purchased from the USGS

EROS Data Center (EDC) for this pilot study.

The dates of the satellite acquisitions were August

29, 1972, September 18, 1984, and September 8,

1992. The 1984 and 1992 data were acquired by

the Landsat 5 satellite and cover the area from

north of Winona, Minnesota, to south of Dubuque,

Iowa. The 1972 data were recorded by Landsat 1,

which had different orbit characteristics than the

Landsat 5 satellite. The 1972 data cover the area

from just north of Genoa, Wisconsin (lower Pool

8), to south of Dubuque, Iowa. The area

coincident in all three time periods defines the

geographic scope of this report (lower Pool 8 to

upper Pool 12).
3

Methods

Constraints

This project was initially proposed as a method

to identify changes in the land-water boundary.

As work progressed, it became obvious that

emergent aquatic plant beds could not be

differentiated from vegetated islands and that

submergent vegetation would have to be included

in the open water category. The results, therefore,

include information on gains and losses of

emergent aquatic plant beds as well as on islands.

In addition, open water losses due to accretion

(deposition) in off-channel habitats and low

velocity channel borders are accounted for.

Rectification

The Landsat scenes were system-corrected

prior to shipment from the EDC and include

radiometric corrections which compensate for

changes in detector gain, and offset and geometric

corrections which compensate for the Earth's

rotation and variation in spacecraft altitude and

attitude. In order to compare spatial datasets

between different time periods, they must be

registered to a common projection. The Universal

Transverse Mercator (UTM) Projection was used

(Zone 15, North American Datum 27) for this

purpose. The process required identifying ground

control points (GCPs) such as road intersections,

intersections of roads and streams, and similar

features that can be identified both in the satellite

data and a map of the area. Map coordinates are

recorded for the GCPs as well as the column/row

location of the image pixel which represents the

same feature.

Atmospheric Correction

Correcting for differences in sun angle and the

additive effects of the atmosphere is especial

ly important when multitemporal comparisons are

being made (Casellis and Lopez Garcia 1989;

Lopez Garcia and Casellis 1990). A simple

procedure has been proposed to mitigate for the

atmospheric signal caused by Rayleigh

(molecular) scattering of downwelling radiation.

The formulae proposed by Trautwein (USGS,

Sioux Falls, SD, personal communication) are

included as Appendix A. The bias introduced by

sun angle and atmosphere was calculated for the

1972, 1984, and 1992 datasets using the procedure

outlined in Appendix A and subtracted from the

original band-7 files.

Water Level Elevations

Remote sensing investigations dealing with

change detection issues must address the

relationship between water level on the date of

acquisition and the information content of the

satellite scene. On the Upper Mississippi River,

water elevations are recorded at the navigation

dams (pool elevations) and directly below the

dams (tailwater elevations). Table 1 includes

water level information for the dates the satellite

scenes were collected. Using 1992 as the year of

reference, the average difference between

respective pool elevations recorded in 1972 and

1992 is -0.75 ft. The average difference between

respective tailwater elevations recorded in 1972

and 1992 is 3.74 ft. In other words, the 1972

average water level elevations directly above a

dam were 0.75 ft less than in 1992, while the 1972

average water level elevations directly below the

dams were 3.74 ft higher than in 1992. The

average water elevation differences between 1984

and 1992 elevations = -0.52 ft pool elevation and

-0.34 ft tailwater elevation. Changes mapped

immediately below the dams between 1972 and

1984 or 1992 should be viewed as suspect because

of the higher tailwater levels associated with the

1972 data.

Based on the Pool 9 data, the impact of

differences in water levels is reduced moving

downstream (i.e., Dam 9 tailwater = +3.84;

McGregor gage = +2.88; Clayton = +1.38).
4

Table 1. River stage on date of acquisition

Station River mile Year Elevation

Difference in elevation

between year of

acquisition and 1992

Dam 8 pool 679.32 1972 630.08 -0.89

1984 630.10 -0.87

1992 630.97

Dam 8 tail 679.02 1972 626.34 +3.96

1984 621.73 -0.65

1992 622.38

Lansing 662.97 1972 621.44 +0.90

1984 619.97 -0.57

1992 620.54

Dam 9 pool 648.09 1972 619.31 -0.87

1984 619.34 -0.84

1992 620.18

Dam 9 tail 647.72 1972 617.80 +3.84

1984 613.64 -0.32

1992 613.96

McGregor 633.60 1972 615.62 +2.88

1984 612.57 -0.17

1992 612.74

Clayton 628.80 1972 613.15 +1.38

1984 no data

1992 611.77

Dam 10 pool 615.20 1972 610.32 -0.85

1984 610.90 -0.27

1992 611.17

Dam 10 tail 615.00 1972 609.16 +3.85

1984 605.36 +0.05

1992 605.31

Cassville 606.30 1972 no data

1984 604.39 +0.18

1992 604.21

Spechts Ferry 592.30 1972 no data

1984 603.03 -0.14

1992 603.17

Dam 11 pool 583.10 1972 602.90 -0.38

1984 603.20 -0.08

1992 603.28

Dam 11 tail 583.00 1972 597.00 +3.32

1984 594.00 +0.32

1992 593.68

Dubuque 579.90 1972 no data

1984 593.87 +0.33

1992 593.54
5

This problem does not exist when comparing the

1984 data with the 1992 data. The changes

identified over the 20-yr period should be viewed

in the context of location within a pool and the

relationship between location and river stage for

the years in question.

Processing

Erdas Imagine software (Erdas, Atlanta, GA)

was used for digital image processing. The range

of band-7 digital numbers (DNs) describing water

and submergents was identified interactively.

Data representing each year were displayed on the

monitor as a pseudocolor (8-bit) image.

Beginning with 0 and incrementing a count at a

time, the DNs were assigned to the open water

class up to the point where streamside hill

shadows would be inappropriately identified as

the water/submergent class. To extract the

water/submergent class for 1972 data, a range of

0-9 DNs was used; for 1984 and 1992 data, the

range was 0-18. A new binary file representing

open water/submergents and a background class

(not water/submergents) was created for each year

based on these ranges.

The binary files were edited to remove all

water pixels lying outside the Mississippi River

floodplain. The water/submergent files were then

recoded to show water locations for each year,

with 1972 = 1, 1984 = 2, and 1992 = 4. Files were

then summed, creating a composite file with the

following classes:

Class value Description

1 Water only in 1972

2 Water only in 1984

3 Water in 1972 and 1984

4 Water only in 1992

5 Water in 1972 and 1992

6 Water in 1984 and 1992

7 Water in 1972, 1984, and 1992

Visual inspection of a display of this sevenclass file indicated a large number of single,

isolated pixels representing change. Based on

geometry and distribution, these changes were

identified as possibly being related to sensor noise,

misregistration of the images, or to mixed pixels

being omitted as a water class in one or two time

periods. Because the pilot study was interested in

identifying changes which could be substantiated

by referencing historical aerial photography, a

decision was made to eliminate any apparent

change unless it was represented by four or more

contiguous pixels, which equates to changes of

$2.56 hectares.

The removal of isolated pixels was

accomplished by assigning a unique identifier to

each contiguous group of pixels representing a

class. The file was then recoded as a binary image,

where groups of four or more pixels were assigned

a value of 1 and groups of one to three pixels were

assigned a value of 0. The original seven-class file

was then multiplied by this binary file to create a

seven-class file which only included changes of

$2.56 hectares. Figure 1 illustrates the results of

this process for lower Pools 8 and 9.

Results

Explanation of Classes

Figure 1 includes all seven of the

aforementioned possible combinations $2.56

hectares for the 3 yr under investigation for lower

Pools 8 and 9. Table 2 includes summary

information for the entire study area. Both the

original and modified ($2.56 hectares) statistics are

provided.

The following description of the changes which

have occurred over a 20-yr period are based on the

modified file. The class "water only in 1972"

represents areas where open water was mapped in

1972 but no open water was mapped in 1984 or

1992. These areas generally represent off-channel

habitats located midpool and above. Over 1,035

hectares of open water were lost between 1972 and

1984, presumably to sedimentation. "Water only in

1984" and "water only in 1992" represent the same
6

Figure 1. Water gains and losses, lower Pool 8 and Pool 9: 1972, 1984, 1992
7

Table 2. Open water conditions: 1972, 1984, and 1992

Class value/ Number

description of cells Hectares Percent

All changes

1 Water only in 1972 3,284 2,102 7

2 Water only in 1984 2,752 1,761 6

3 Water in 1972 and 1984 2,156 1,380 4

4 Water only in 1992 2,214 1,417 4

5 Water in 1972 and 1992 1,685 1,078 3

6 Water in 1984 and 1992 4,223 2,703 8

7 Water in 1972, 1984, and 1992 33,614 21,513 67

 Total 49,928 31,954

Changes $2.56 hectares

1 Water only in 1972 1,618 1,036 4

2 Water only in 1984 1,018 652 2

3 Water in 1972 and 1984 791 506 2

4 Water only in 1992 845 541 2

5 Water in 1972 and 1992 529 339 1

6 Water in 1984 and 1992 2,775 1,776 7

7 Water in 1972, 1984, and 1992 33,239 21,273 81

 Total 40, 815 26,123

condition for the respective year. The former

seems to represent the dynamic nature of the

system (652 hectares) while the latter indicates

additional losses of plant beds/islands between

1984 and 1992 (541 hectares) and may also

represent areas which we r e

excavated/manipulated over the 8-yr period.

"Water in 1972 and 1984" represents areas where

open water existed in both years but not in 1992

(506 hectares). Based on location within the

pools and the similarity of water levels between

1984 and 1992, this class seems to be related to

sedimentation. "Water in 1972 and 1992"

illustrates the condition where water was mapped

at the extremes of the time line but not in 1984

(339 hectares). This class again illustrates the

dynamic nature of the system. "Water in 1984 

and 1992" shows areas where plant beds/islands

existed in 1972 and were replaced by open water

in 1984 which persisted through 1992 (1,776

hectares). This class is generally restricted to the

lower pools and may represent the results of wind

fetch on plant beds and islands. "Water in 1972,

1984, and 1992" represents areas which were

mapped as open water in all three time periods

(21,273 hectares).

Open Water Gains and Losses

To simplify interpretation of the multitemporal

dataset, the seven classes represented in Figure 1

were recoded to represent open water gains and

losses between 1972 and 1984 and between 1984

and 1992. 
8

The seven classes were recoded as follows:

1 Water only in 1972 = loss between 1972 and 1984

2 Water only in 1984 = gain between 1972 and 1984

= loss between 1984 and 1992

3 Water in 1972 and 1984 = loss between 1984 and 1992

4 Water only in 1992 = gain between 1984 and 1992

5 Water in 1972 and 1992 = loss between 1972 and 1984

= gain between 1984 and 1992

6 Water in 1984 and 1992 = gain between 1972 and 1984

7 Water in 1972, 1984, and 1992 = no gain or loss

Tables 3 and 4 summarize gains and losses

between 1972 and 1984 and between 1984 and

1992, respectively. Both unmodified and

modified (changes $2.56 hectares) statistics are

provided. Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution

of these gains and losses for the study area

between 1972 and 1984 which are $2.56 hectares.

Quality Assurance

Historical color infrared aerial photography at

scales between 1:15000 and 1:24000 was

referenced in the process of defining the range of

DNs attributable to the open water/submergent

class for each time period. To evaluate the

success of the Landsat MSS in defining the open

water/submergent class, historical data for Pool 9

were evaluated. Geographic information system

vector coverages representing the land-water

boundary were available for 1975 and 1983; no

historical data were available for 1992.

The digital files representing 1975 water

classes and the 1972 Landsat water class were

compared for spatial coincidence using

ARC/INFO software (ESRI, Redlands, CA) to

convert the 1975 vector data to a raster (grid)

format. The 1975 "groundtruth" data (GREAT I

land cover; Appendix B) were converted to a

raster format with a cell size of 80 m and

compared pixel-for-pixel with the 1972 satellite

data. The 1975 land cover classes (open water,

Lemnaceae-Ceratophyllum-Potamogeton,

Lemnaceae-Ceratophyllum, and VallisneriaPotamogeton-Heteranthera) were used for the

comparison with the Landsat-derived open

water/submergents class.

The results of this analysis appear in Table 5

and indicate that 71% of the cells matched as a

water class. Errors of omission and commission

are almost identical. The high error rate is

unusual for a water class because the reflectance

of water is markedly different than the reflectance

of plants or bare surfaces. An additional test

comparing the 1972 unmodified area totals to area

totals for the 1975 digital land cover data

indicated the 1975 Pool 9 water total = 8,963

hectares, the 1972 Landsat Pool 9 water total =

8,665 hectares, and (8,665/8,963) x 100 = 97%.

Possible sources of error include (1) the

difference of 3 yr between the satellite data and

groundtruth data, (2) differences in water surface

elevation in August 1973 versus July 1975, (3) the

rules used by the photointerpreters to generate the

1975 land cover database, (4) the vector to raster

conversion, and (5) errors of omission and

commission.

The USGS 1:100,000-scale hydrography data

generated from maps which were photo-revised in

1982-1983 were used to evaluate the 1984

unmodified satellite data. The 1982-1983 USGS

hydrography data were converted to a raster

format with a cell size of 80 m. The digital files

representing the 1982-1983 water class and the

1984 Landsat water class were also compared for

spatial coincidence.
9

Table 3. Open water gains and losses: 1972 to 1984

Class value/ Number

description of cells Hectares Percent

All gains and losses

1 Water loss, 1972 to 1984 (1,5) 4,969 3,180 10

2 Water gain, 1972 to 1984 (2,6) 6,975 4,464 15

3 Water, 1972 and 1984 (3,7) 35,570 22,893 75

 Total 47,714 30,537

Gains and losses $2.56 hectares

1 Water loss, 1972 to 1984 2,147 1,374 5

2 Water gain, 1972 to 1984 3,793 2,428 9

3 Water, 1972 and 1984 34,030 21,779 85

 Total 39,970 25,581

Table 4. Open water gains and losses: 1984 to 1992

Class value/ Number

description of cells Hectares Percent

All gains and losses

1 Water loss, 1984 to 1992 (2,3) 4,908 3,141 11

2 Water gain, 1984 to 1992 (4,5) 3,899 2,495 8

3 Water, 1984 and 1992 (6,7) 37,837 24,216 81

 Total 46,644 29,852

Histogram

Gains and losses >2.56 hectares

1 Water loss, 1984 to 1992 1,809 1,158 5

2 Water gain, 1984 to 1992 1,374 879 3

3 Water, 1984 and 1992 36,014 23,049 92

 Total 39,197 25,086
10

The results of this analysis indicate that 73% of

the cells matched as a water class (Table 6).

Errors of omission and commission are very close.

The test comparing the 1984 unmodified area

totals to area totals for the 1982-1983

hydrography data indicate the 1983 USGS data

mapped as open water = 9,085 hectares, the 1984

Landsat MSS total = 9,157 hectares, and

(9,085/9,157) x 100 = 99%. Possible sources of

error include (1) the 1982-1983 photo-revision

process, (2) differences in water levels, (3) the 

USGS mapping convention for the identification

and mapping of open water, (4) the vector to

raster conversion, and (5) errors of omission and

commission.

In both instances, the first row in Tables 5 and

6 identifies errors of omission or the sum of areas

which were classified as water in the groundtruth

data but not in the satellite data. The second row

identifies errors of commission or the sum of

areas identified as water in the satellite data but

not in the groundtruth data.

Table 5. Spatial coincidence between 1975 groundtruth data and 1972 satellite data, Pool 9

Number

of cells Hectares Percent

Water in 1975 and not 1972 2,304 1,475 14

Water in 1972 and not 1975 2,367 1,515 14

Water in 1972 and 1975 11,665 7,466 71

 Total 16,336 10,456

Table 6. Spatial coincidence between 1982-1983 groundtruth data and 1984 satellite data, Pool 9

Number

of cells Hectares Percent

Water in 1983 and not 1984 1,873 1,199 12

Water in 1984 and not 1983 2,361 1,511 15

Water in 1983 and 1984 11,619 7,436 73

 Total 15,853 10,146
11

Figure 2. Open water gains and losses: 1972 to 1984
12

Conclusions

Based on the results of the pilot study,

multitemporal Landsat MSS data can provide a

low-cost method which could be applied to the

entire UMRS to aid the Environmental

Management Technical Center in the trend

analysis effort. However, a more sophisticated

digital image processing strategy is required. The

pilot study relied on using a single infrared band

which was interactively threshholded to yield a

binary mask representing water for each of the

three points in time. It was anticipated that the

difference between data values representing

terrestrial habitats, aquatic plant beds, and water

would yield satisfactory results.

The following recommendations are given for

future analyses:

1. To increase accuracy and, where

necessary, attempt to differentiate

between aquatic plant beds and more

mesic terrestrial plant communities, it is

recommended that the entire 4-band

multispectral dataset be used in

conjunction with a supervised

classification strategy.

2. Prior to ordering Landsat data, water

level elevations as well as previous and

current year climatic records should be

consulted. Historical National Weather

Service data should be purchased to

provide necessary input to a robust

atmospheric correction algorithm. In

addition, water level elevation data

should be analyzed for fluctuations

immediately prior to scene acquisition (1

week). 

3. Landsat data which represent dates where

tailwater water levels are within 1 ft

should be utilized.

4. Landsat data collected in early spring or

late fall should be obtained to reduce the

problems associated with differentiating

aquatic plant beds and terrestrial habitats.

5. Historical aerial photography should be

used exclusively for groundtruthing. A

stratified systematic sampling scheme and

traditional photogrammetric techniques

should be employed to spatially reference

sampling sites for comparison with the

satellite-derived cover classes.

6. Accuracy should be computed on

unfiltered output rather than on clusters

of four or more pixels.

References

Allen, C. W. 1973. Pages 125-126 in

Astrophysical quantities. Third Edition.

Athlone Press, London.

Casellis, V., and M. J. Lopez Garcia. 1989. An

alternative simple approach to estimate

atmospheric correction in multitemporal

studies. International Journal of Remote

Sensing 10(6):1127-1134.

Freden, S. C., and F. Gordon, Jr. 1983. Landsat

satellites. Pages 517-570 in D. S. Simonett

and F. T. Ulaby, editors. Manual of remote

sensing. Volume 1, Chapter 12. American

Society of Photogrammetry. Sheridan Press.

GREAT I. 1980. A study of the Upper

Mississippi River, volume I: main report.

Great River Environmental Action Team I,

United States Army Corps of Engineers, St.

Paul, Minnesota. Various pagings.
13

GREAT II. 1980. Main report. Great River

Environmental Action Team II, United States

Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island,

Illinois. 113 pp.

GREAT III. 1982. Final Report. Great River

Resource Management Study - 14028. United

States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis

District. 83 pp. + Appendix A.

Lopez Garcia, M. J., and V. Casellis. 1990. A

multi-temporal study of chlorophyll-a

concentration in the Albufera lagoon of

Valencia, Spain, using Thematic Mapper data.

International Journal of Remote Sensing

11(2):301-311.

Salomonson, V. V. 1983. Water resources

assessment. Pages 1497-1570 in J. E. Estes

and G. A. Thorley, editors. Manual of remote

sensing. Volume 2, Chapter 29. American

Society of Photogrammetry. Sheridan Press.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Operating

Plan for the Upper Mississippi River System

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program.

Environmental Management Technical

Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin, Revised

September 1993. EMTC 91-P002. 179 pp.

(NTIS #PB94-160199)
A-1

Appendix A

Formulae Used to Correct for Sun Angle

and Atmospheric Scattering

for MSS, band 7 is as follows: 

BMSS7 = 63.5 [1-e-0.0107 csc(")

]

where " is the elevation angle of the sun.

The following formula was used for the 1972 6-bit data:

BMSS7 = 31.5 [1-e-0.0107 csc(")

]

The scattering coefficient is derived from the following equation:

Fs = 1.04 x 105 (n-1)2/84

where n is the refractive index of air and 8 is the wavelength in micrometers (midpoint of bandpass). 

The refractive index is based on mean atmospheric conditions where t = 0 °C, p = 760 mmHg, and

water vapor pressure f = 4 mmHg (Allen 1973). 
B-1

Appendix B

Great River Environmental Action Teams I, II, and III

(1970s) Land Cover/Land Use Classification List

Version 2.05

21 January 1994

The Great River Environmental Action Teams (GREAT) of the late 1970s were comprised of individuals from:

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Ann Arbor, MI

Department of Transportation, St. Louis, MO

Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, Hudson, WI

Soil Conservation Service, Des Moines, IA

State of Illinois, Department of Conservation, Springfield, IL

State of Iowa, Iowa Conservation Commission, Des Moines, IA

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN

State of Missouri, Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, MO

State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI

Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, IL

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, MN

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, MO

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Paul, MN

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, IL

GREAT I (1980) studied the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) from St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN, to

Guttenberg, IA. GREAT II (1980) studied the UMRS from Guttenberg, IA, to Saverton, MO. GREAT III (1982)

studied the UMRS from Saverton, MO, to the confluence with the Ohio River. 

One of the main objectives of the GREAT research teams was to evaluate current resource management practices,

then develop a series of management strategies. One of the problems facing GREAT was the lack of available

information on many of the river's components. One project implemented by GREAT was the creation of a land

cover/use database derived from aerial photography.

In 1975, 1:9,600-scale color-infrared photography was collected for UMRS Pools 3 through 10, and 1:24,000-scale

color-infrared photography from Lock and Dam 10 to the confluence with the Ohio River. In 1978, 1:24,000-scale

color infrared photography was collected for Pools 1 and 2. All photographs were groundtruthed and interpreted,

then data for Pools 1 through 14 were automated. During the automation process, interpreted data were transferred

to 1:24,000-scale U.S. Geological Survey quad maps, then entered into a computer using the geographic information

system (GIS) PIOS. As the data were transferred, they were generalized to create coverages with a minimum

mapping unit of 2.5 acres. Some polygons smaller than 2.5 acres and linear features were incorporated into nearby

polygons. Others were manually enlarged so that the data contained within them would be preserved. All

generalizations were made in accordance with guidelines established for GREAT projects. Individuals working for

the GREAT projects worked extensively with the automated data. One project converted the genus-level automated

data into genus/species data. The PIOS data were then converted into ARC/INFO format by the Long Term

Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP).

The LTRMP has copies of the mylar overlays created by GREAT's photointerpreters. In 1992, the LTRMP

commissioned the National Ecology Research Center (NERC) to computerize the data for Pools 19, 26, and

LTRMP's Open River study reach. NERC transferred the data to 1:24,000-scale quadrangles, then automated them

using the GIS program ARC/INFO. 
B-2

Differences do exist between the two datasets. Coverages automated by NERC were attributed according to the

classification scheme used by the photointerpreters, not the enhanced genus/species scheme developed by the

GREAT project. A comparison listing of the two classification schemes appears at the end of this document.

Each land cover/use type has been assigned a numeric classification code. The codes relate the GREAT data to the

LTRMP classification scheme. The LTRMP utilizes a genus-level classification scheme for its aerial photography,

and has developed a 13-class generalized classification scheme for regrouping similar land cover types. An

explanation of the coding system follows.

- Each LTRMP generalized vegetation group has been assigned a number that is a multiple of 100. Example:

Open Water is 100, Submergents is 200. 

- Each vegetation type has been assigned a numeric value relating it to the 13 vegetation groups. Example:

The submergent Myriophyllum (Water Milfoil) is 202. 

- Vegetation types unique to historical coverages have been assigned values of 50 or above. Example:

Sagittaria latifolia (Broad Arrowhead) is 751. The 700 portion of the number signifies that Sagittaria

latifolia is an Emergent, while the 51 signifies that this vegetation class is not in use by LTRMP

photointerpreters. 

- A single bold asterisk (*) after a type description signifies a vegetation type utilized only within the

enhanced GREAT coverages (Pools 1-14).

- A double bold asterisk (**) after a type description signifies a vegetation type utilized only within the

GREAT coverages automated by NERC (Pools 19, 26, and the Open River study reach).

*********************************************************************************************

100 Open Water - Any unvegetated body of water. All 100-numbered water types within the 13-class land cover/land use

coverages are grouped into Open Water. Note: Industrial ponds are classified under Urban/Developed (1200's).

101 Lemnaceae - Duckweed (floating) - Duckweed has been assigned an Open Water classification because of its mobile tendencies;

Duckweed goes wherever the wind takes it. 

150 Lake** - Note: Some artificial ponds have been grouped with the Urban classes (1200's).

*********************************************************************************************

200 Submergents** - Used to classify any area with submergent vegetation whose species composition is unknown. All

200-numbered submergents within the 13-class land cover/land use coverages are grouped into Submergents. Note: The order in which

plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

201 Lemnaceae/submergents** - Duckweed/submergent vegetation mixture

250 Vallisneria/Potamoget/Heteran* - Wild Celery/Pondweed/Water Stargrass mixture

251 Ceratophyllum* - Coontail

252 Lemnaceae/Ceratophyllum* - Duckweed/Coontail mixture 

253 Lemna/Ceratophyll/Potamogeton* - Duckweed/Coontail/Pondweed mixture 

254 Potamogeton* - Pondweed
B-3

255 Vallisneria - Wild Celery - This vegetation class, while contained in the classification list for the enhanced coverages, has not been

located in any of the automated coverages.

*********************************************************************************************

300 Submerg-Rooted Floating Aqua - This class is used only to regroup 300-numbered SubmergentRooted Floating Aquatics for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT

coverages. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

350 Nelumbo/Lemna/Ceratophyllum* - American Lotus/Duckweed/Coontail mixture 

351 Nymphaea/Ceratophy/Potamogeton* - White Water Lily/Coontail/Pondweed mixture 

352 Nymph/Ceratophy/Potamog/Lemna* - White Water Lily/Coontail/Pondweed/Duckweed mixture

*********************************************************************************************

400 Submerg-Rooted Floating-Emerg - This class is used only to regroup all 400-numbered

Submergent-Rooted Floating Aquatic-Emergents for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class does not

appear in any GREAT coverages. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

450 Sag latif/Lemna/Ceratophyllum* - Broad Arrowhead/Duckweed/Coontail mixture 

*********************************************************************************************

500 Rooted Floating Aquatics - This class is used only to regroup all 500-numbered Rooted/Floating Aquatics

for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT coverages. Note: The order

in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

502 Jussiaea** - Water Primrose 

503 Nelumbo - American Lotus

504 Nelumbo/Lemnaceae** - American Lotus/Duckweed mixture 

507 Nymphaea* - White Water Lily 

*********************************************************************************************

700 Emergents - This class is used only to regroup all 700-numbered Emergents for use in the 13-class generalized land

cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT coverages. Note: The order in which plant combinations are listed

does not reflect plant dominance. 

703 Cyperus* - Flat Sedge 

709 Sagittaria** - Arrowhead 

714 Scirpus - Bulrush

717 Sedge meadow* - A very wet meadow dominated by sedges. Other emergents may be mixed within. 

718 Sparganium* - Bur Reed 

719 Typha - Cattail

722 Typha/Scirpus/Sparganium* - Cattail/Bullrush/Bur Reed mixture

724 Zizania* - Wild Rice
B-4

751 Sagittaria latifolia* - Broad Arrowhead or Duck Potato 

752 Sagittaria rigida* - Stiff Arrowhead 

753 Sag latifolia/Sag rigida* - Broad Arrowhead/Stiff Arrowhead 

754 Scirpus/Sagittaria latifolia* - Bulrush/Broad Arrowhead 

*********************************************************************************************

800 Emergents-Grasses/Forbs - This class is used only to regroup all 800-numbered Emergents-Grasses/Forbs

for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT coverages. Note: The order

in which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

811 Scirpus/Phragmites* - Bulrush/Common Reed mixture 

812 Scirpus/Polygonum* - Bulrush/Smartweed mixture 

850 Sagittaria latifolia/Phalaris* - Broad Arrowhead/Reed Canary Grass mixture 

851 Leers/Carex/Sag latifolia/Poly* - Cutgrass/Sedges/Broad Arrowhead/Smartweed mixture 

852 Scirp/Echinocyst/Xanthium/Poly* - Bulrush/Cucumber family/Cockleburr/Smartweed mixture 

*********************************************************************************************

900 Grasses/Forbs - Non-woody plants. This class is used only to regroup all 900-numbered Grasses/Forbs for use in the

13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT coverages. Note: The order in which

plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

901 Ambrosia - Ragweed - This vegetation class, while contained in the classification list for the enhanced coverages, has not been located

in any of the automated coverages.

902 Grass* - Used to delineate areas of mixed grasses. Abandoned/set-aside fields are also placed within this class. 

904 Pasture (heavily grazed areas)* - "Hay fields" regularly pastured with cattle or similar livestock. 

905 Leersia - Cutgrass

907 Meadow* - Upland areas regularly cut and baled for hay. 

908 Mixed forbs and/or grasses** - Class used to describe a mixture of many different Grasses and Forbs. 

910 Phalaris* - Reed Canary Grass 

912 Phragmites* - Common Reed 

914 Polygonum - Smartweed

916 Rdside-levee/grass/forbs/shrub - Any roadside ditch or levee. Example of a roadside: Delineation of a north/south roadway

would begin on the far west side of the western ditch and go to the far eastern side of the eastern ditch. Both ditches and the road are

included within the same polygon. 

918 Spartina* - Cord Grass 
B-5

919 Vines as dense overgrowth - Any live stem vine growing as a dense covering. Within LMIC's coverages, Echinocystis (Wild

Cucumber) and Brush covered with Echinocystis were grouped into 919. The class is utilized "as is" in the coverages automated by

NERC.

*********************************************************************************************

1000 Woody Terrestrial - All trees and shrubs. This class is used only for regrouping all the Woody Terrestrial

vegetation for the 13-class land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT coverages. Note: The order in

which plant combinations are listed does not reflect plant dominance. 

1005 Brush - Any small shrubby species

1007 Cephalanthus** - Button Bush 

1011 Plantation - Any group of planted, cultivated trees. Examples include apple orchards, Christmas tree farms, and stands of planted

pines.

1014 Salix* - Willows 

1055 >50% Cottonwd &/or Willow <20' - This class is used to classify stands of Populus and/or Salix trees under 20 feet tall which

cover at least 50% of the polygon.

1056 >50% Cottonwd &/or Willow >20' - This class is used to classify stands of Populus and/or Salix trees over 20 feet tall which

cover at least 50% of the polygon.

1057 >50% Lowland Hardwoods <20' - This class is used to classify stands of Mesic hardwood under 20 feet tall which cover at

least 50% of the polygon.

1058 >50% Lowlnd Hardwds >20'-grass - This class is used to classify stands of Mesic hardwood over 20 feet tall which cover at

least 50% of the polygon and have an understory of grasses.

1059 >50% Lowland Hardwoods >20' - This class is used to classify stands of Mesic hardwood over 20 feet tall which cover at least

50% of the polygon.

1060 Sagittaria latifolia/Salix* - Broad Arrowhead/Willow mixture

*********************************************************************************************

1100 Agriculture - Any cultivated field that is either turned with a plow or worked with a disk. Crops include corn,

soybeans, and oats. LMIC's class Cropland-Farmstand has been assigned to Agriculture.

*********************************************************************************************

1200 Urban/Developed- Any area "developed" by humans. This class is used only to regroup all 1200-numbered

Urban classes for use in the 13-class generalized land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any GREAT coverages.

1201 Developed** - Shopping malls, industrial parks, military depots, farmsteads, storage facilities, and isolated industrial sites (built in

the middle of a rural area) are considered Developed. 

1202 Developed parks** - City and state parks are included in this category but only those areas actively used by humans. Examples are

picnic areas, campgrounds, administrative buildings, and interpretive complexes. 

1203 Industrial pond - Examples of industrial ponds are water coolant ponds and fish ponds actively managed for industrial or research

use (i.e., fish farms and hatcheries).

1204 Urban* - Residential areas, including schools. 

1250 Farm Pond 
B-6

1251 Residential**

*********************************************************************************************

1300 Sand/Mud - This class is used only to regroup all 1300-numbered Sand/Mud classes for use in the 13-class generalized

land cover/land use coverages. This class does not appear in any of the GREAT coverages. 

1301 Mud - Mud

1303 Sand - Sand

*********************************************************************************************

1450 Unknown - Polygons whose attributes were either lost or indecipherable. 
B-7

Land Cover/Land Use - Pools 1 through 14

- Created from interpreted photos, then modified by the GREAT program -

Descriptions appear as listed within the coverages

 Brush 

 Ceratophyllum (Coontail) 

 Cottonwood and/or Tree Willow (ave. ht. > 20 ft.) 

 Cottonwood and/or Willow (ave. ht. < 20 ft.) 

 Cropland-Farmsteads 

 Cyperus (Nut Grass) 

 Echinocystis (Wild Cucumber)

 Farm Pond

 Grassland 

 Improved-Pasture 

 Industrial Pond

 Leersia (Rice Cutgrass)

 Leersia-Carex-Sagittaria latifolia-Polygonum

 Lemnaceae (Duckweed)

 Lemnaceae-Ceratophyllum 

 Lemnaceae-Ceratophyllum-Potamogeton 

 Mixed Lowland Hardwood (ave. ht. > 20 ft.)

 Mixed Lowland Hardwoods (ave. ht. < 20 ft.)

 Mud

 Nelumbo (American Lotus)

 Nelumbo-Lemnaceae-Ceratophyllum

 Nymphaea (Waterlily)

 Nymphaea-Ceratophyllum-Potamogeton

 Nymphaea-Ceratophyllum-Potamogeton-Lemnaceae

 Open Water

 Open stand of Mixed Hardwoods with Grass Understory

 Phalaris (Reed Canary Grass)

 Phragmites (Reed Grass)

 Polygonum (Smartweed)

 Potamogeton (Pondweed)

 Roadside Levee Grass and Brush

 Sagittaria latifolia (Broadleaf Arrohead)

 Sagittaria latifolia - Phalaris 

 Sagittaria latifolia - S. rigida

 Sagittaria latifolia - Salix 

 Sagittaria latifolia-Lemnaceae-Ceratophyllum

 Sagittaria rigida (Bur Arrowhead)

 Salix Willow 

 Sand ( > 90% bare sand)

 Scirpus (Bulrush)

 Scirpus-Echinocystis-Xanthium-Polygonum 

 Scirpus-Phragmites

 Scirpus-Polygonum

 Scirpus-Sagittaria-latifolia

 Sedge Meadow

 Sparganium (Bur-reed)

 Spartina (Cord Grass)

 Tree Farm

 Type 35 covered by Echinocystis 

 Typha (Cattail)

 Typha - Scirpus - Sparganium 

 Unknown

 Upland Meadow

 Urban

 Vallisnaria-Potamogeton-Heteranthra

 Zizania (Wild Rice)
B-8

Land Cover/Land Use - Pools 19, 26, and Open River Study Reach

- Created from interpreted photos -

Descriptions appear as listed within the coverages

 >50% Cottonwd &/or Willow <20'

 >50% Cottonwd &/or Willow >20'

 >50% Lowland Hardwoods <20'

 >50% Lowland Hardwoods >20'

 Agriculture 

 Brush 

 Cephalanthus 

 Developed

 Developed park

 Farm Pond

 Grasses/Forbs

 Industrial pond

 Jussiaea

 Lake

 Leersia

 Lemnaceae

 Lemnaceae/Submergents

 Lemnaceae/submergents

 Mixed forbs and/or grasses

 Mud 

 Nelumbo 

 Nelumbo/Lemnaceae

 Plantation 

 Polygonum

 Potamogeton

 Rdside-levee/grass/forbs/shrub

 Residential

 Sagittaria

 Sand 

 Scirpus

 Submergents

 Typha

 Unknown 

 Vines as dense overgrowth

 Water 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188),

Washington, D.C. 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

September 1995

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Evaluation of Multidate Landsat Multispectral Scanner Data for Determining Changes between Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitats

on the Upper Mississippi River System

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

Mark Laustrup1

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

National Biological Service

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

1

Present address: Midwest Science Center, 4200 New Haven Road, Columbia, Missouri 65201

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Biological Service 

Environmental Management Technical Center

575 Lester Avenue

Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

95-P009

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Release unlimited. Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-

800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650)

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Landsat Multispectral Scanner data representing conditions in 1972, 1984, and 1992 were processed to identify open water conditions. The study area included the Upper

Mississippi River floodplain between Genoa, Wisconsin, and south of Dubuque, Iowa. Data were analyzed to identify changes which occurred over the 20-yr period and

these changes have been combined to represent gains and losses. Gains generally equate to a loss of aquatic plant beds and islands in the lower pools (erosion), while losses

are generally restricted to off-channel habitats and represent the effects of sedimentation. Between 1972 and 1992, gains totaled 6,959 hectares; losses totaled 6,321 hectares.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Landsat Multispectral Scanner, remote sensing, GIS, Upper Mississippi River, change detection, aquatic habitat

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

19 pp. + Appendixes A and B

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
The Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the Upper

Mississippi River System was authorized under the Water Resources

Development Act of 1986 as an element of the Environmental

Management Program. The mission of the LTRMP is to provide river

managers with information to maintain the Upper Mississippi River

System as a sustainable large river ecosystem given its multiple-use 

character. The LTRMP is a cooperative effort by the National Biological 

Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the States of Illinois, 

Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.