Florida Vegetation and Land Cover Data Derived from 2003 Landsat ETM+ Imagery 

Beth Stys, Randy Kautz, David Reed, Melodie Kertis, Robert Kawula, 

Cherie Keller, and Anastasia Davis 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

620 South Meridian Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 

March 17, 2004

Introduction 

In 1990, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) completed a project to 

map Florida vegetation and land cover using 1985-89 Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite 

imagery (Kautz et al. 1993). The resulting digital database contained 17 natural and semi-natural 

land cover types, 4 land cover types indicative of human disturbance, and 1 water class. Over 

the last decade, this digital database has been put to many uses. For example, staff of many state 

and local programs who make decisions concerning the Florida environment often have used the 

FWC vegetation and land cover data as indicative of current conditions on the ground. In 

addition, FWC staff used the vegetation data to create potential habitat models for over 130 rare 

and imperiled species of wildlife (Cox et al. 1994, Cox and Kautz 2000). In turn, the potential 

habitat models of rare and imperiled wildlife formed the basic information set used to identify 

strategic habitats for biodiversity conservation in Florida (Cox et al. 1994, Kautz and Cox 2001). 

The results of the FWC strategic habitat modeling project have been widely used in Florida to 

help guide land acquisition, land use planning, development regulation, and land management 

programs. 

However, over time, the 1985-89 vegetation and land cover data set became increasingly out of 

date. Since completion of the earlier data set, Florida’s resident and tourist populations have 

continued to grow, converting both natural and disturbed areas of the Florida landscape to 

human uses. By 2003 (the year of the imagery used in this project), the earlier data set 

(comprised mostly of 1986-87 imagery) was about 16-17 years old, and could no longer be 

considered current. Not only was the earlier vegetation and land cover data set becoming out of 

date, but so were the wildlife and strategic habitat models that were based on that data. In order 

to keep our vegetation, land cover, and wildlife habitat models current, FWC staff realized the 

need to develop a new, updated vegetation and land cover map for Florida. 

Objective 

The purpose of this project was to create an updated digital vegetation and land cover data set for 

Florida derived from 2003 Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper satellite imagery. 

Methods 

Fourteen Landsat scenes cover the state of Florida (Figure 1). We mapped one Landsat scene at 

a time using a series of iterative steps and ancillary data sets for this project. Ancillary data sets 

included 1995 land use/land cover data created by Florida’s water management districts and the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 
2

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) digital boundaries of Florida wetlands, detailed digital soils 

(SSURGO) data sets, the FWC 1985-89 land cover map (Kautz et al. 1993), and 1999 digital 

orthographic quarter quadrangle (DOQQ) aerial photography. The following is a general 

description of the steps taken to create the updated vegetation and land cover data set. 

Preparation of Landsat Imagery 

Raw Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper+ imagery with a pixel size of 30 m was purchased 

from the U. S. Geological Survey’s EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota 

(http://edc.usgs.gov/). The following steps were taken to prepare the imagery for classification. 

1. Raw Landsat ETM+ imagery was projected to Albers HPGN using ERDAS Imagine 

v.8.6 image processing software. 

2. The projected imagery was geo-referenced to U. S. Census Bureau 

(http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/) TIGER road files using the Image Analysis 

extension of ArcView GIS v.3.3. All scenes were geo-referenced with at least 20 control 

points to a root-mean-square (RMS) positional accuracy of <0.5 pixel (<15m). 

3. The imagery was then clipped along the coastlines, if necessary, to reduce file size and 

increase effectiveness of classifications. 

Classification

All classification was conducted in ArcView GIS v.3.3 using the Image Analysis extension. 

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) ratio bands were created for each scene. The 

NDVI provided a measure of vegetation density that was used to aid in class discrimination. 

Image classification proceeded according to the following general steps: 

1. Unsupervised classifications were performed on each entire Landsat scene. Initial 

classifications were performed on all six 30 m pixel spectral bands. The number of 

resultant spectral classes was typically set to 75-100. 

2. The 75-100 spectral classes resulting from Step 1 were reviewed individually. Each 

spectral class was visually checked against the Landsat imagery as well as the ancillary 

data. If any of the spectral classes consistently identified a specific target land cover type 

(e.g., mangrove swamp, pine forest, coastal strand), those spectral classes were labeled 

according to the vegetation or land cover type they represented, and those classes were 

considered final and were excluded from further analyses. 

3. All unlabeled pixels remaining after Step 2 were then subjected to additional 

unsupervised classifications. Differing band combinations (i.e., subsets) often were used 

to group similar areas to a distinct cover type. Resultant spectral classes varied from a 

few to over 50. At this point the process became iterative, and these steps were repeated 

until all pixels fell into a specific land cover type or into a larger, temporary grouping 
3

(e.g., disturbed). Additionally, areas with unique features or areas resulting in 

classification “confusion” would be clipped from the scene. Unsupervised classification 

would then be performed only on the clipped areas. 

4. The data sets resulting from Step 3 that consistently represented a specific natural land 

cover type were assigned the appropriate label, were added to the final data set, and were 

excluded from further analyses. 

5. Agricultural and urban land use classes from the 1995 digital data set of statewide land 

use/land cover were then used as an overlay. Spectral classes that had been identified as 

disturbed and that fell within the agricultural or urban land use class overlay were 

isolated. Unsupervised classification was performed on these areas to spectrally isolate 

agricultural areas from urban areas. 

6. By comparing the spectral classes resulting from Step 5 with the ancillary data sets (i.e., 

1995 land use/land cover, 1999 DOQQs), disturbed spectral classes were categorized into 

six agricultural land use classes (i.e., improved pasture, unimproved pasture, sugar cane, 

citrus, row and field crops, other agriculture), two urban classes (i.e., high density urban, 

low density urban), and extractive (i.e., mining). All pixels in these classes were added 

to the final data set and were excluded from further analyses. Visual interpretation of the 

spectral classes and the Landsat imagery was often required in areas where there was new 

urban growth and where agricultural lands were in a bare soil state, creating a false urban 

signature. Very often it was necessary to isolate these areas individually and assign the 

appropriate label. Areas that classified as disturbed but were not within the agricultural 

and urban lands overlay were checked visually against the Landsat imagery and other 

ancillary data layers. Often these disturbed areas were new areas of agriculture or urban 

lands, or they represented recent land clearings due to silvicultural practices or other 

unknown causes. 

7. Once an entire scene had been analyzed in the above manner, the biologist then examined 

specific geographic areas of similar physiographic features (e.g., coastal wetlands, xeric 

ridges), and, if necessary, performed additional unsupervised classifications on any 

remaining classes of pixels that could not be separated based on spectral information 

developed at the level of the entire Landsat scene. Any classes that consistently 

represented a specific land cover type were assigned the appropriate land cover label, 

added to the final data set, and excluded from further analyses. 

8. Any remaining areas that did not have a specific land cover label were visually reviewed 

in relationship to the Landsat imagery, land use/land cover data, and DOQQs. If 

possible, unlabeled groups of pixels were assigned to appropriate land cover types by 

hand, and were added to the final data set and excluded from further analyses. 

9. Once all pixels within a Landsat scene had been classified, labeled, and added to the final 

data set comprising the updated vegetation and land cover map, specific areas of the map 

were visited in the field for ground-truthing. Any mistakes discovered in the ground-
4

truthing process were then corrected to create a final draft vegetation map covering the 

entire Landsat scene. 

10. The final draft vegetation and land cover map for each scene was then reviewed by the 

project manager. The project manager compared each draft map against ancillary data 

sets and identified specific problem areas that either needed checking for accuracy or 

correction. Project manager recommendations were then returned to staff to make 

corrections needed to produce a final vegetation and land cover data set for each Landsat 

scene. 

11. Early in the project, a number of the Landsat scenes purchased from EROS Data Center 

were from 2000-2002, and final drafts of vegetation and land cover for these scenes were 

based on these earlier dates. However, as luck would have it, 2003 was a good year for 

cloud-free satellite imagery in Florida. Thus, not only were the later scenes in the project 

mapped using only 2003 imagery, but also new 2003 Landsat ETM+ imagery was 

purchased for the entire state, and the new imagery was used to update disturbed areas of 

all earlier scenes to 2003 according to the following procedure (Table 1). 

a. Unsupervised classifications were conducted for an entire 2003 scene. 

b. Spectral classes representing sparsely vegetated areas (e.g., disturbed areas) were 

isolated. 

c. Disturbed areas from the 2003 imagery that were classified as natural vegetation 

in the earlier imagery (2000-2002) were isolated and further examined. 

d. The areas of new disturbance were then classified into appropriate categories. 

e. Additionally, other changes between the two scenes were examined and updated 

if necessary. 

f. All changes and updates between the two scene dates were then incorporated into 

the previously classified map to produce a new vegetation and land cover data set 

for each scene that reflected conditions in 2003. 

12. Once a scene was complete and updated, if necessary it was edge-matched and merged 

with adjacent scenes that had previously been completed. Upon completion of last scene, 

all scenes were then merged, forming a single statewide map. 

Final 2003 Vegetation and Land Cover Data Set

The final 2003 digital data set covering all of Florida (Figure 2) contained 43 vegetation and land 

cover types, as compared to the 22 types appearing in the earlier data set (Kautz et al. 1993). 

The new map contained 26 natural and semi-natural vegetation types, 16 types of disturbed lands 

(e.g., agriculture, urban, mining), and 1 water class (Table 2). 
5

Acknowledgements 

Funding for this project was provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Foundation of Florida. The 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory provided staffing assistance. Reviews and comments on interim 

map products were generously provided by Mike Allen, Cyndi Gates, Bill Lemke, Frank 

Sargent, and several anonymous reviewers. Additional ancillary vegetation and land cover data 

sets and maps were provided by Rick Conover, Ken Rutchey, Wendy Castor, Brady Harrison, 

and Keith Singleton. 

Literature Cited 

Cox, J. R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife 

habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 

Cox, J. A., and R. S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife in 

Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. 

Kautz, R. S., D. T. Gilbert, and G. M. Mauldin. 1993. Vegetative cover in Florida based on 

1985-1989 Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery. Florida Scientist 56:135-154. 

Kautz, R. S., and J. A. Cox. 2001. Strategic habitats for biodiversity conservation in Florida. 

Conservation Biology 15(1):55-77. 
6

Table 1. Landsat ETM+ scenes and dates used to map Florida vegetation and land cover. 

Path Row 1999-2002 

Image Date 

2003 Image 

Date 

15 41 01/06/01 02/13/03

15 42 02/05/00 02/13/03

15 43 02/13/03

16 39 03/24/03

16 40 04/03/01 03/24/03

16 41 04/03/01 03/24/03

16 42 12/26/99 01/19/03

16 43 02/04/03

17 39 02/05/01 03/31/03

17 40 03/28/02 03/31/03

17 41 02/24/02 03/31/03

18 39 10/26/01 03/22/03

19 39 01/08/03

20 39 01/15/03
7

Table 2. Class values and names for the 2003 and 1985-89 Florida vegetation and land cover 

data sets. 

2003 Class 

Value 2003 - Class Name 1985-89 Class Value 1985-89 – Class Name 

1 Coastal strand 1 Coastal strand 

2 Sand/beach 22 Urban/barren 

3 Xeric oak scrub 6 Xeric oak scrub 

4 Sand pine scrub 4 Sand pine scrub 

5 Sandhill 5 Sandhill 

6 Dry prairie 2 Dry prairie 

7 Mixed hardwood-pine forest 7 Mixed hardwood-pine forest 

8 Hardwood hammocks and forests 8 Hardwood hammocks and forests 

9 Pinelands 3 Pinelands 

10 Cabbage palm-live oak hammock 8 Hardwood hammocks and forests 

11 Tropical hardwood hammock 9 Tropical hardwood hammock 

12 Freshwater marsh and wet prairie 11 Freshwater marsh and wet prairie 

13 Sawgrass marsh 11 Freshwater marsh and wet prairie 

14 Cattail marsh 11 Freshwater marsh and wet prairie 

15 Shrub swamp 15 Shrub swamp 

16 Bay swamp 14 Bay swamp 

17 Cypress swamp 12 Cypress swamp 

18 Cypress/pine/cabbage palm 12 Cypress swamp 

19 Mixed wetland forest 13 Mixed hardwood swamp 

20 Hardwood swamp 13 Mixed hardwood swamp 

21 Hydric hammock 8 Hardwood hammocks and forests 

22 Bottomland hardwood forest 17 Bottomland hardwood forest 

23 Salt marsh 10 Salt marsh 

24 Mangrove swamp 16 Mangrove swamp 

25 Scrub mangrove 16 Mangrove swamp 

26 Tidal flats 10 Salt marsh 

27 Open water 18 Open water 

28 Shrub and brushland 20 Shrub and brushland 

29 Grassland 19 Grassland 

30 Bare soil/clearcut 22 Urban/barren 

31 Improved pasture 19 Grassland 

32 Unimproved pasture 19 Grassland 

33 Sugarcane 19 Grassland 

34 Citrus 19 Grassland 

35 Row and field crops 19 Grassland 

36 Other agriculture 19 Grassland 

37 Exotic plants 21 Exotic plants 

38 Australian pine 21 Exotic plants 

39 Melaleuca 21 Exotic plants 

40 Brazilian pepper 21 Exotic plants 

41 High impact urban 22 Urban/barren 

42 Low impact urban 22 Urban/barren 

43 Extractive 22 Urban/barren 
8

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Landsat Vegetation Map Update Project

Landsat TM Scenes and Dates 

Path 20 19 18 17 16 15 

10/26/2001 2/5/2001 

Row 3/22/2003 3/31/2003 3/24/2003 39

1/15/2003 1/8/2003 

4/3/2001 

3/24/2003 

3/28/2002 40 

3/31/2003

1/6/2001

4/3/2001 2/13/2003 Staff: 

Randy Kautz, Project Manager 

Beth Stys, Biological Scientist 

Robert Kawula, Biological Scientist 

Dave Reed, Image Processing Specialist 

Melodie Kertis, Image Processing Specialist 

Stacie Davis, Image Processing Specialist 

Cherie Keller, Ph. D. Candidate, USF

2/24/2002 41

3/24/2003 3/31/2003 

2/5/2000 

2/13/2003

12/26/1999

1/19/2003

42

Cooperators: 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Wildlife Foundation of Florida 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory

43 2/4/2003 2/13/2003 

Figure 1. Locations and dates of Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper scenes used to map 

Florida vegetation and land cover to 2003.