Assessment of fisheries habitat tasks II and III : final report for contract period 10/1/85 thru [sic] 9/30/86

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

CIO& 6 ..1 '
' fL ol 31 hi

ASSESSMENT OF FISHERIES HABITAT

TASKS II AND III

FINAL REPORT
for contract period 10/1/85 thru 9/30/86

Kenneth Haddad, Barbara Hoffman, Kristie Killam, and Randall Hochberg
Florida Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Marine Research
St. Petersburg, Florida

SH
329
.H33
1986

property of CSC Libs"71 U. S 3. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
TASK 11 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
Marine Resource Geobased Information System

LANDSAT data have been acquired to provide coverage of

estuarine resources for the entire state. The raw data have been

processed and enhanced with a parallel-piped statistical

analysis. Seagrass delineation has not been completed in several

areas due to the delays in receiving map products from existing

state and federal projects. Every attempt has been made to avoid

duplication of effort in mapping submerged vegetation. Areas

where new data are becoming available are Indian River Lagoon

(CZM), Apalachicola (U.S. Army Corp), and the Everglades National

Park. These are in the final stages of completion by the

respective agencies and the data will be digitized directly into

the MRGIS database. The Miami area has not been completed but

the data are available and considered low priority because of the

excellent graphics produced by Dade County and the availability

to the general public.

Several new steps were added to the image processing in

order to make the products easier to disseminate. The first step

was to reorganize the data into geographic partitions on 300

megabyte removable disk packs. This allows rapid access to the

data without having to use data transfer on the slow 9-track

computer tapes. Currently, about one third of the state has been

reorganized into this format. The second step has been a re-

georeferencing of the raw data. Previous analyses used a

nearest-neighbor interpolation on the final classified data set.

We have determined that a bilinear interpolation of the raw data

Im-~ ~prior to classifying produces a much more resolved final image
/y)

and reduces image blockiness. This is important when using the

inkjet printer (see TASK III).

With the online capability of the inkjet printer, we have

I ~initiated a major effort to complete Aquatic Preserve maps and to

i ~respond to an unprecedented number of requests for information

from regional and local interests (Table 1). The need for

accomplishing the above data restructuring is paramount to

maintain our high level of production in accomplishing our stated

I ~goals of the habitat assessment program. The data restructuring

is expected to continue through April, 1987. At that time, we

expect to produce an atlas of vegetated marine fisheries habitat

for limited distribution.

Trend analyses have been completed for four areas between

Tarpon Springs and Pensacola. The areas are a 15 km length of

coast near Hernando Beach, the western half of Choctawhatchee

H ~Bay, Big Lagoon of Pensacola Bay, and the mouth of Perdido Bay.

* ~Reprint l describes the results as presented at the Gulf of

Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. Trend analyses for the Keys

have not been completed. Review of aerial photography depicted

change but the complexity of the change and some of the

I ~difficulties in photointerpretation of the historical photographs

* ~precluded our ability to produce an assessment of change with a

satisfactory level of error. As our techniques are refined, this

* ~area will be reassessed for trend analysis.

Trend analyses for the entire Tampa Bay region has been

U ~completed in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5 ~and the results of the 1950/1952, 1970, and 1982 analyses are

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2

stored in rastor format on the MRGIS (See Map 1). Methods for

updating these data with LANDSAT TM data have been developed and

I ~will be presented at Coastal Zone 87 (Reprint 2).

Ancillary data have been digitized into a layered database

for a portion of the Tampa Bay area. The layers of data consist

of 1) fisheries habitat, 2) open/closed shellfish beds, 3)

sediment types, 4) wading bird rookeries, 5) brown pelican

I ~rookeries, 6) shorebird rookeries, 7) manatee sanctuaries, 8)

oyster leases, and 9) Aquatic Preserve boundaries. Several GIS

queries were asked of the database by simple logic algorithm

software programs. The results became new files containing a

compilation of the query. An example is: "Depict those areas

I ~which contain seagrass and mangrove, are over sandy sediment, and

are within 3 kilometers of wading bird rookeries." We assumed

that all areas which met this condition and which were not within

* ~an Aquatic Preserve needed special protection measures because

this habitat is important to wading birds as feeding areas during

the nesting season. This is a simple example, but much was

learned during the entire process of data entry and analysis. A

publication describing the concepts of coastal geographic
databases as developed on the MRGIS is found in Reprint 3.

A detailed study of Cockroach Bay was implemented to

determine the cell size limits of the MRGIS. Tests were

conducted at 30 and 15 meter cell sizes. Attempts at 7.5 meter

I ~~(1/16 acre) cell size proved fruitless because no databases

existed at this resolution. If a 7.5 meter cell size were used,

creating the database would have been a prohibitively time

consuming process. This resolution could be used for localized

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3

details in separate files but could not be overlayed effectively

* ~with TM data.

The 15 meter cell size (1/8 acre) can be ef fective in many

I ~applications. if the data being entered is 1:24,000 (7.5 minute

USGS quad), TM data (normally 30 meter) can be resampled to 15

meters and the acreage accuracies of digitized data can be

increased from 90% to 99%. This accuracy is not necessary, in

many cases, since the increases in accuracy often exceed map

I ~accuracies. We maintain the MRGIS database at 30 meter cell size

as a standard, unless we are calculating digitized map data

acreages for small areas. This is proving the most effective and
efficient approach to database maintenance at this time. Also,

reducing the cell size to 15 meters doubles the data storage

3 ~requirements. When new mass storage devices become available,

working with smaller cell sizes may become the norm, but this

I ~will have to be reevaluated as the technology improves.

The development of a carrying capacity model was initiated

for Cockroach Bay. In order to begin this modelling effort,

* ~various sampling gears and techniques need to be evaluated to

determine which device best quantifies habitat usage. The

I ~initial habitat under study is seagrass.

Drop Net Sampling in Cockroach Bay

Cockroach Bay is located on the east coast of Tampa Bay,

north of Port Manatee and south of the Little Manatee River.
Cockroach Bay is a shallow estuarine system with mangroves

distributed throughout the shoreline and on the numerous islands

within the system. Seagrasses are abundant throughout the Bay

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

except along the deeper (>1.5 in) portions of natural channels.

The bay is undeveloped and contains no dredged areas. For

I ~sampling purposes, Cockroach Bay was divided into three sections:

the inner-bay, mid-bay, and outer-bay.

Carrying capacity, particularly of juvenile stages of fish

3 ~and age at entry into the fishery, is presently unknown for most

habitat types, i.e., seagrasses, mangroves, etc. If carrying

I ~capacity of a particular system could be modelled and quantified,

3 ~then habitat loss or degradation could be correlated with yield

and stocking capacities (this relates to the DNR five-year plan).

I ~~Shallow estuarine areas are important nursery areas for many
commercial and recreational fish and invertebrates (Lindall,

I ~1973, 1977). A quantitative sampling method is necessary to

determine community structure and constituents.

Hartman (1985) evaluated seven gear types used for sampling

fishes and crustaceans in a shallow estuarine marsh area. He

found otter trawls were easiest to use, but the fewest fish and

I ~the lowest density of organisms of all but a few species were

captured. The haul seine captured the most species and generally

the most individuals, while the throw trap revealed the highest
3 ~density of all methods. Gilmore et al. (1978) reported that the

drop net captured fewer individuals and species than the seine,

3 ~and most small demersal and semide-mersal forms. However, the

total fish density and biomass values of drop net samples

I ~surpassed seine sample values per sample area. This has been

3 ~demonstrated in previous studies as well (Gilmore et al. 1978,

Kjelson and Johnson 1973, Kjelson et al. 1975).

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5

Kushlan (1981) compared two sizes of throw nets (1 m2 and

2.25 m2) and a drop net and determined that the 1 m2 throw net

required a reasonable number of samples in most cases. In three

tests, the accuracies of the 1 m2 trap for estimating density

were similar, encouraging confidence in applying a correction

factor for determining standing stock.

Drop nets quickly enclose a known area of seagrass or sand

bottom and may be used to quantitatively sample shallow (<1.5 in)

estuarine areas. Since most other methods provide unquantified

results, drop nets were the best sampling devices for Cockroach

Bay.

Sampling Methods

Field sampling began in July, 1986, is ongoing, and occurs

three to four times monthly. Two I m2 drop nets are suspended

from a boom and mast system which extends 5 m off the bow of a

17' Boston whaler. The boom and mast are constructed from

galvanized steel and aluminum inserted into PVC pipes and can be

dismantled for traveling (Figures 1 and 2). The mast is held

inside an aluminum bowpiece which is attached to the front of the

boat (Figure 3).

Each drop net is composed of an upper float frame (2.5 cm,

schedule 160, PVC pipe) and a lower sink frame (stainless steel

sheet metal, 2.5 x .32 cm). The frames are connected with 3.2 mm

cm mesh, nylon ace netting, which allows the nets to expand to a

depth of 1.5 m (Figures 4 and 5).

The drop nets are released over seagrass in three different

areas of the inner bay, mid-bay, and outer bay. To avoid

disturbing a sample site, the boat motor is turned off, allowing

the boat to drift to the sample site. Release pins, attached to

lines leading into the boat, are pulled, releasing both drop nets

simultaneously over the sample site. After releasing the nets,

the lower frames are inspected; samples from drops on unlevel

surfaces will not be collected since organisms may have escaped.

The lower frames are then pressed into the sediment to anchor the

nets and prevent escape of organisms. One end of an internal

seine (.99 m x .99 m, .32 cm mesh) is scraped along the bottom of

the sample area until organisms are no longer captured. Fish,

macroinvertebrates, and macroalgae are placed into zip-lock bags

and iced, then frozen upon arrival at the lab. Density and

species of seagrass and algae, salinity, temperature, dissolved

oxygen, turbidity, wind direction and velocity, tidal period,

water depth, lunar phase, and cloud cover are recorded at each

station.

At the lab, standard length for all fish, carapace width of

crabs, and carapace length of shrimp are recorded. Wet weights

are recorded for all fish and invertebrates. Macroalage are

weighed wet and dry. All data are entered and analyzed using

SAS (Statistical Analysis System) programs.

Results

The drop nets captured 25 different species of fish (Table

2) during the months of August and September, 1986. Fish density

and biomass values for the inner, middle, and outer Cockroach Bay

were calculated (Table 3). These values were also determined for

the seagrass species (Thalassia, Syringodium, and Halodule;

Table 4). The same type data were calculated for fish and

macroinvertebrates combined (Tables 5 and 6).

Most of the fish captured were demersal species such as gulf

pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli), code goby (Gobisoma robustum),

clown goby (Microgobius gulosus), lined sole (Achirus lineatus),

and the blackcheek tongue fish (Symphurus plagiusa). Semi-

demersal predators also made up a large percentage of captured

species, including pinfish (Lagoadon rhomboides), gulf toadfish

(Opsanus beta), silver perch (Bairdella crysura), spotted

seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus),

and sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus). These results are

similar to those of Gilmore et al. (1978) who found mostly small

demersal and semidemersal forms.

Conclusion

Drop nets appear to provide valuable quantitative data and

may be used as the control sampling method to test other

varieties of sampling devices. During the coming year various

gears will be designed, constructed, and field tested. Roller

rigged shrimp trawls attached to a 17' Boston whaler will be

utilized as a semi-quantitative sampling device in the seagrasses

of Cockroach Bay. The estimates obtained from the trawl data

will be compared with the drop nets to assess the efficiency of

each device at capturing different species of fish and

macroinvertebrates. Also, stationary drop nets one, two, and

four m2, suspended from a tripod, will be constructed and tested

to provide another estimate of fish and macroinvertebrate density

and biomass.

I ~~~To test the application of the above quantitative data an

attempt was made to apply a recruitment value to spotted seatrout

in the standard Beverton Holt population model. Rudimentary
estimates of juvenile populations of seatrout were computed based

on average density of seatrout/m2 multiplied by acreage of

seagrass in Cockroach Bay. The Beverton Holt model considers a

growth model, mortality estimates, and time parameters in its

I ~basic calculations. It also separates male and female

populations, and considers recruitment as constant and the actual

value as relative. in addition, the recruitment value must

remain the same for the life of the model which uses a 6-8 year

simulation. This means that yearly variation in recruitment

I ~cannot be accounted for in the model. This model has been

temporarily discarded for the above reasons. An existing model

which can utilize real values and account for yearly variations

in recruitment is currently being sought. if such a model in

fisheries population dynamics does not exist, then a hybrid will

I ~be developed.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I ~~~~~~~~~TASK III

Geographic Information Dissemination

As the MRGIS has been developed, the need to assess

techniques to disseminate data has readily become apparent. Four

approaches to dissemination have been assessed.

1. Small format photographic images. A flat screen

photographic system was acquired with the original MRGIS

I ~acquisition. This system has the capability of reproducing the

image on the display screen onto 35 mm tranparencies, 411x5"1

instaprints, or negatives. These output products are inexpensive

and very good for slide presentation and hard-copy filing of an

image. The negatives can be printed and enlarged for journal or

I ~other publications. These products are not practical in the

I ~field or for utilization as data by the resource manager. in

addition, since only a 512x512 pixel output is possible, a data

set that is, for example, 1024x1024 pixels cannot be

photographically captured without removing data in order to fit

I ~the entire image on the screen.

2. High resolution images. An alternative to small format

photography is the output from digital, laser optical systems.

image data, on nine track computer tape, were transferred to this

high resolution device for photographic hard copy reproduction.

I ~~Since the system is capable of high resolution output, the need

to remove data for entire file reproduction is eliminated. The

resulting output product is larger, and since reproduction is not

from a CRT, no scan lines are present. The results of this

process is an outstanding reproduction of the data. Review of

* ~this type of product by the resource manager has received an

* ~~~~~~~~~~~10

overwhelming positive response for its visual acuity. This type

3 ~~of output is not good for field work but can be util1ized by the

resource manager for geographical reviews and for presentation at

I ~meetings where this type of product can be used to demonstrate a

regional concept with enough detail for local application. A
major drawback to this method of data dissemination is the

I ~expense of reproduction. The process is not available within

State government and would be costly to initiate. Outside

I ~contracts are required with costs ranging from $350 to $1000 per

individual photographic output. only under special circumstances

would this type of product be recommended for purchase.
3. Inkjet printer images. An inkjet printer has been

interfaced to the MRGIS for paper hardcopy generation. A desktop

3 ~Tektronix 4696 color printer was chosen as part of a combined

software/hardware purchase. The printer interfaces to an IBM AT

I ~which is interfaced to the MRGIS (Fig. 6); this was the most

cost-effective approach. Data to be printed are downloaded from

the MRGIS mainframe to the IBM for printout. The printer has a

software driven pallet of 4096 colors and is quite capable of

reproducing the color output of the MRGIS. Examples of this

I ~product are Maps 1, 2, and 3. The printer uses rolls of paper

with a print width of 8.5 inches and is capable of printing

approximately 256 pixels across. If the data file is 1024 pixels

wide, for example, the printer would automatically print four

panels, each containing 256 pixels. The panels can then be

I ~manually joined to form the entire image. The data can be output

I ~~in di fferent scales (i.e., 1:24000, etc.) and can have the map

* ~~~~~~~~~~~11

coordinate system plotted directly on the hard copy. This

product is inexpensive to produce, can be accomplished in-house,

and can be used in the field and in the office. It has been used

succesfully in producing Resource Protection maps for Aquatic

Preserve Management Plans (Map 1). The drawback is the time

required for a map to be printed. A 512x512 image (approx. i~xlO

miles at full 30 m resolution) takes approximately 20 minutes to

print. Limited mass production would be possible but not optimal

for mass distribution. Production cost for the above product

would be approximately $2 per copy.

4. Digitally formatted images. Conceptually, the most

efficient and utilizable data output is in digital format. This

would allow the resource manager to computer-access the data and

use it in more than simple map analyses by incorporating the data

into a geographic information system (GIS). our definition of a

GIS and its conceptual applications in coastal resource

management are found in Reprint 3 as published in a technical

conf erence proceedings.

To take the applications beyond the conceptual stage, the

technological capabilities of downloading data from the MRGIS to

a microcomputer were tested. Figures 6, 7, and 8 depict the
current MRGIS configuration and Figure 9 describes the flow of

data from the MRGIS to a microcomputer at the Lab. Essentially

the LANDSAT data are processed an the MRGIS, downloaded via an

RS232 serial interface to an IBM AT, and reformatted for

distribution. Special software interfaces were required for

proper data transfer. One of the problems of dissemination of

these of data is the large volume. Files often exceed 5

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~12

megabytes and standard floppy disk transfer is not possible. A

file-oriented PC 1/4 inch tape back-up unit was chosen as the

transfer media from the IBM AT located at the lab to a

1 ~microcomputer GIS outside the lab. These cartridges carry up to

1 ~60 megabytes of data and are easily mailed.

Two micro-GIS systems have been installed outside the

laboratory, one at the East Central Florida Regional Planning

Council and the other at the DNR Cape Romano and Ten Thousand

I ~Islands Aquatic Preserve. The installation at the planning

council was accomplished through another DER/CZM grant with our

cooperation and advice. Their use of the system is described in

* ~their final report and should be reviewed in conjunction with

this report. in summary, DNR downloaded wetlands data for

I ~Brevard County and GIS analyses were used to target those wetland

* ~areas that will be subject to future development pressure

relative to population projections.

The Aquatic Preserve GIS system has been installed and

LANDSAT data successfully downloaded for their use to build an

I ~Aquatic Preserve database for the large Cape Romano and Ten

Thousand Islands area. Both management and research data are

entered as data overlays to implement the GIS concept.

Prior to the recommendation of which type of microcomputer

equipment to install at these facilities, a number of commercial

systems were evaluated. The criteria for evaluation were based

on user-friendliness, GIS functions, type of graphics display,

I ~and various specifics that would allow the technical link

3 ~necessary to use the data format which we output from the MRGIS.

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~13

I ~The evaluation narrowed the possible choice to two systems and

the respective vendors were visited on-site to fully understand

their product. This process eliminated one vendor because they
were unable to display through three image planes. The ERDAS,

Inc. GIS system was recommended as the only commercially

3 ~available micro-GIS which would meet the overall goals of the

project. Since then a number of additional commercial products

I ~have become available and previously existing companies have

3 ~upgraded their products. Prior to any further recommended

purchases, these new products should be evaluated.

3 ~~~Microcomputer versions of the MRGIS ELAS software are now

available but since this software is not user-friendly, it would

I ~not fit easily into management applications because of the

I ~necessity for simplicity in data query.

Management Assessment

I ~~~A good overall management assessment for a GIS has been

3 ~accomplished by East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

and that CZM Final Report will not be duplicated in this

3 ~document. The technological transfer process, data redisplay,

and data manipulation have been successfully accomplished, but

I ~the acceptance by management has yet to be tested beyond the

I ~present demonstrations. Careful selection of the initial

installation sites and an unusual collection of abilities and

3 ~commitments by the persons involved are responsible for the

success of the project. However, the GIS concept is not

I ~completely guaranteed to be accepted or incorporated into

3 ~management structure.

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~14

I ~~~Some observations which are pertinent to the success of a

GIS and to the potential failure of a GIS are as follows:

1. Personnel with a biological background are imperative to

guide the creation of the database. They must be dedicated to

attaining the greatest database accuracy possible and must be

I ~able to evaluate that accuracy. This requires understanding

* ~biological concepts and factors influencing the resources being

input into the database.

3 ~~~2. Management must 'make a commitment to the long-term

development of the GIS. A GIS database, by its nature, is

continually changing. If a method for incorporating those

changes into the database is not scheduled and budgeted, the

I ~overall database becomes obsolete.

3 ~~~3. The greatest potential for the failure of a GIS lies

within the management structure and the misconceptions that a GIB

3 ~database is produced out of thin air once the GIS hardware is

purchased and turned on. This will be the most difficult

I ~obstacle to overcome and is tied into commitment by management to

3 ~build a GIS. Management is generally starved for decision-making

information but is unwilling to commit funds for database

3 ~creation and access.

4. Once a GIS database is created, the next major obstacle

I ~is getting management to use it. Using the database requires

3 ~some level of training which management often has neither the

time nor inclination to accomplish.

3 ~~~5. The GIS must be very simple to use by the manager. This

requires a menu-driven component of the GIS to be available on a

I ~desk-top computer with a minimal amount of choices for data

3 ~~~~~~~~~~~15

access and manipulation.
6. Any GIS development should be instituted on a small-
scale pilot project and involve all levels of management.
I ~~~7. Serious in-house evaluation of the data that comprise
the overlays in the GIS structure must be implemented. This
should include an evaluation of existing databases. Under no
* ~circumstances should the existence and applicability of an
existing database be assumed.

I~~~~~~~~~~~1

Table 1. Examples of some requests to CZM for assistance,
cooperative projects, and presentations during the
1985-1986 grant period.

1. Pam Muller, University of South Florida Department of Marine
Science: MRGIS use in NSF grant proposal to look at ocean
foraminifera distribution.

2. Larry Doyle, University of South Florida Department of
Marine Science: Cooperative project through SeaGrant to use
TM data to assess sand transport distribution as a result of
Hurricane Elena. Presented with co-authorship at the
American Geological Society annual conference.

3. Norm Blake, University of South Florida Department of Marine
Science: Cooperative investigator to look at scallop
recruitment on the Florida east coast, SeaGrant proposal.

4. Nelson May, Louisiana State University Center for Wetland
Resources: assistance and use of MRGIS for TM analyses.

5. Don Field, NOAA Office of Oceanography and Marine
Assessment: provided acreage data for marine wetlands in
Florida and reviewed various techniques in their national
data synthesis program.

6. Millicent Quaman, USFWS National Research Center: requested
a presentation on the MRGIS database for Tampa Bay at the
final USFWS Tampa Bay workshop.

7. Jono Miller, ECOSWIFT of Sarasota County: produce slides of
TM data for Sarasota County for educational distribution.

8. Bob Bini's Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department:
review performance standards for urban development in
critical areas and participate on a steering committee.

9. Anitra Thorhaug, FAO/United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization: presented the MRGIS to a Phillipine group on
the first International Coastal Zone Rehabilitation Study
tour.

10. Bob Rogers, Department of Interior Minerals Management
Service: presentation on trends in distribution of seagrass
on the west Florida shelf.
11. George Spinner, citizen: information on value of mangroves.

12. Mara Heesch, Levy County Building and Zoning: estuarine
resource information.

13. Dean Jackman, DER: wetland loss information.

14. Bruce Ford, NEFRPC: information on habitats of northeast
Florida.

Table 1 - Cont.

15. Janet Fontenot, USF graduate student: information on
habitats of Charlotte Harbor.

16. Klaus Meyer-Arendt, Ft. Myers Beach: mapping information
for the lower Charlotte Harbor region.

17. FDNR Submerged Lands: presentation on the MRGIS at the
Annual Submerged Lands Management Conference.

18. James Thomas, NOAA Estuarine Programs Office: participated
in an estuarine remote sensing seminar and workshop.

19. Bill Harding, The Conservancy: assistance on habitats and
resources of the Charlotte Harbor and Naples area.

20. Dave Bartlett, NASA Langley Research Center: information on
cost analyses for MRGIS mapping.

21. George Ray, University of Florida: support for updating
mosquito impoundment information on the Indian River Lagoon.

22. Max Miller, Eart Satellite Corporation: raw data for a
Florida TM photographic image series of Florida.

23. Bob Ernest, Applied Biology, Inc.: imagery for the
Loxahatchee area.

24. Jan Platt, House of Represenatives/Agency on Bay Management:
presentation on Bay Day for the Tampa Bay Region.

25. Wade Stephen, Tampa Tribune: imagery for the Tampa Bay
area.

26. Ray Judah, Lee County Division of Planning: briefing on
MRGIS and technique to the Environmental staff.

27. James Ward, House of Representatives: information on the
Destin area.

28. Presentation at the Conference on Florida's Coastal Future.

29. Don Morrow, Trust for Public Lands: imagery on the
Nassau/St. Mary's River area.

30. Douglas Baughman, South Carolina SeaGrant Consortium:
information on the MRGIS.

31. Kathy Hasty, Governor's office: participate on a geographic
information distribution committee to set standards within
the state.

Table 1 - Cont.

32. Carroll Curtis, NOAA National Marine Pollution Program:
present a paper on updates of NWI maps using TM data at
Coastal Zone 87.

33. Lonnie Ryder, DNR Beaches and Shores: demonstrate MRGIS for
applications in resource planning along the beaches.

34. Bob Evans, Florida Chapter of the American Society of
Photogrammetry and Remove Sensing: presentation on the
MRGIS.

35. Various reporters of the St. Petersburg Times, Tampa
Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, The Post, Tallahssee Democrat,
Herald Tribune, Florida Today, Bradenton Herald, Miami
Herald, Daytona News Journal, and CNN News: supplying data
from analysis.

Table 2. List of species captured during
August and September, 1986

FISH

Lagodon rhomboides (pinfish)
Archosargus probatocephalus (sheepshead)
Syngnathus louisianae (chain pipefish)
Syngnathus scovelli (gulf pipefish)
Hippocampus zosterae (dwarf seahorse)
Gobiosoma robustum (code goby)
Microgobius gulosus (clown goby)
Chasmodes saburrae (Florida blenny)
Opsanus beta (gulf toadfish)
Anchoa mitchilli (bay anchovy)
Menidia beryllina (inland silverside)
Eucinostumus sp. (mojorra)
Diapterus auratus (Irish pompano)
Chilomycterus schoepfi (striped burrfish)
Cynoscion nebulosus (spotted seatrout)
Sciaenops ocellatus (red drum)
Bairdiella chrysura (silver perch)
Achirus lineatus (lined sole)
Paralichthys albigutta (gulf flounder)
Symphurus plagiusa (blackcheek tonguefish)
Oligoplites saurus (leather jacket)
Floridicthys carpio (goldspotted killifish)
Lucania parva (rainwater killifish)
Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepshead minnow)
Gobiesox strumosus (skilletfish)
Prionotus scitulus (leopard searobin)
Chaetodipterus faber (Atlantic spadefish)

INVERTEBRATES

Penaeus aztecus (penaeid shrimp)
Palaemonetes sp. (grass shrimp)
Alpheidae (snapping shrimp)
Xanthidae (mud crab)
Majidae (spider crab)
Callinectes sapidus (blue crab)
Stenorhynchus sp. (arrow crab)

Table 3. Average density and biomass of fish captured in the
inner, mid, and outer bay sections of Cockroach Bay.

Inner Mid Outer

Average Density (fish/m2) 10.5 5.5 4.6

Average Biomass (g/m2) 12.44 8.37 11.62

Table 4. Average density and biomass of fish captured in three
different species of seagrass.

Thalassia Syringodium Halodule

Average Density (fish/m2) 6.0 5.2 9.3

Average Biomass (g/m2) 11.60 3.56 11.12

Table 5. Average density of fish and macroinvertebrates captured
in the inner, mid, and outer bay sections of
Cockroach Bay.

Inner Mid Outer

Average Density (fish/m2) 78.5 31.3 25.5

Average Biomass (g/m2) 27.29 14.83 20.03

Table 6. Average density and biomass of fish and
macroinvertebrates captured in three different
species of seagrass.

Thalassia Syringdoium Halodule

Average Density (fish/m2) 51.3 27.6 36.7

Average Biomass (g/m2) 23.74 9.74 17.48

REFERENCES

Florida Deptartment of Natural Resources, Bureau of Marine
Research. 1984. Five Year Research Plan, 1983-1988.

Gilmore, R.G., J.K. Holf, R.S. Jones, G.R. Kulczycki, L.G.
MacDowell III, and W.C. Magley. 1978.
Portable Tripod Drop-net for Estuarine Studies. Fish. Bull.
76(1):285-289.

Hartman, R.D. 1985.
A study of the relative selectivity of six shallow,
estuarine-marsh sampling gears and the distribution of fish
and crustaceans in the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge,
Louisiana. Briefs, Am. Inst. Fish. Res. Biol., 14(3):8.

Kjelson, M.A. and G.N. Johnson. 1973.
Description and Evaluation of a Portable Drop-net for
Sampling Nekton Populations. Southeast Assoc. Game. Fish.
Comm., Proc. 27th Annu. Conf. p. 653-662.

Kjelson, M.A., W.R. Turner, and G.N. Johnson, 1975.
Description of a Stationary Drop-net for Estimating Nekton
Abundance in Shallow Waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104(1):
46-49.

Kushlan, J.A., 1981.
Sampling Characteristics of Enclosure Fish Traps. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 110:557-562.

Lindall, W.N. Jr. 1973.
Alterations of South Florida: A Threat to its Fish
Resources. Mar. Fisheries Review. Paper 1013. 35 (10):
26-33.

Lindall, W.N. Jr. and G.H. Saloman. 1977.
Alteration and Destruction of Estuaries Affecting Fishery
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Fish. Res. Paper
1262 39(9):1-7.

II I ,~~~~~~kw'IfS
- - -- - ----

IC'%ro se
Figure 1. Boom and drop net assembly,

r~~~~~~~~~\"O~ ~ ~~~~~~~~"

Figre . oom and dropOS ne serby -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c - - --e.ros

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If

~~~~~~~T-4c If)C1~tpc ~1c

Figre2. oo, owpec, ad as dea j/ f$Il

I,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"

Toil 0(c~l
I,~~~~~~I
I~~~~~� /�� - ~ ~ mnJr hu\ oCo

Figure 3. Bowpiece detail.

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f - --- --- ----4

Figure 4. Drop net deployment detail.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s

2 ." Io

'1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,0
I / .~~~~~~~~~

Figr 5. D rop n~et dtiol.

32/27 3510 3025 3025 3025 3025
CENTRAL FLOATING MEMORY MEMORY MEMORY MEMORY
PROCESSING POINT MODULE MODULE
UNIT ACCELERATOR MODULE MODUL E MODULE
I SELBUS
9203 8000 9131 i 9020 -1

PROCESSOR SPEED DATA
ORT INPUT/OUTPUT HIGH J ~~~~LSTP
I N TERFACE

SEE FIG. 71

M PBUS

8030 |8032 8 LIE
COTOLERDC O N R LE ASYNG
lLPFDC IOPDC TAPE DRIV

8580 see 00 1600
DP Fig.9
8310 RS232
300 LPM I
PRINTER I DISK DRIVE MODEL
W/8317 300 MB 9 2 03 9568
CRT

MODEL
1~44

Figure 6. MRGIS mainframe and peripheral hardware.

GOULD SELBUS
9131
HIGH SPEED DATA
INTERFACE
HSD

COMTAL
CONT- 13
INTERFACE

IMAGE RESOURCES VIDEOPRINT
3M COMTAL CT-8H MODEL 5300
8000-30SER 512 x 512 4 x 5 INSTA PRINT
IMAGE PROCESSOR HIGH RESOLUTION OR
COLOR MONITOR 35 MM EXPOSURE
3 REFRESH MEMORY 19" DIAGONAL HARDCOPY OUTPUT

TRACK BALL
|CONTROLLER

Figure 7. MRGIS graphics hardware.

GOULD SYSTEMS
MPX 32
OPERATING SYSTEMS

PROGRAMMING SUPPORT
SOFTWARE

FORTRAN 77+
SYMBOLIC DEBUGGER
SCIENTIFI C RUNTIME
LI BRARY

FISHERIES STATISTICS
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

EARTH RESOURCES LABORATORY APPLICATIONS

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SOFTWARE

COASTAL ZONE COLOR
SCANNER IMAGERY
ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

Figure 8. MRGIS software configuration.

RS232 INTERFACE

300/1200 | | ELAS SOFTWARE
MODEM AMBER
MONITOR
36"x48" 2 3Mb
BACKLIT TABLE IBM AT 640kb
DIGITIZER

STANDARD DOT 60Mb
MATRIX PRINTER TAPE SYSTEM
ALLOY QICTAPE

ERDAS SOFTWARE

TEKTRONIX
INKJET
PRINTER

Figure 9. RS232 Interface extension and IBM-AT data transfer system.

MAP 1

This image depicts Cockraoch Bay in Tampa, Florida. The scale of

the image is 1:100,000 or 1 inch = 8,333 feet. The legend

depicts the vegetation of Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. Those

colors not in the legend are outside the Preserve and represent a

false color infrared composite of the raw LANDSAT data. The deep

blue is water and the reds are vegetation outside the Preserve.

The upland light/white colors are barren, urban, or cleared

areas. The gridded border of the image is in the Universal

Transmercator standard earth reference system coordinates. The

resources described in the legend are from data trasnferred from

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Research Center onto the MRGIS. These

data and the ability to exchange rastor and vector map data

conclude a cooperative project to map the Tampa Bay area and

transfer the data to the MRGIS. Data overlay techniques were

developed to directly overlay LANDSAT data into a

photographically mapped wetlands database. This technique will

allow updating of the Tampa Bay database with LANDSAT TM

data.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3n OO36a

I fi f~~qsfl~I~;,Mg

Rnfiq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3qan 3qn1U 5W1 45f0l 5EG

I I I I I I I Iptchygras

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~qmd/es
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j manrov

I I i ~ ~ ~~~~~i~~~fl~~~un 352900 85S5UDD3un

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.

COCKROACH BAY AQUATIC PRESERVE

I ~~~~~~~~~scale 1:100000 (1"=8333')

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~Map I

MAP 2

This image depicts St. Joe Bay in the Florida panhandle. The

scale of the image is 1:200,000 or 1 inch=3.15 miles. The legend

depicts the vegetation of the St. Joe Bay Aquatic Preserve.

Those colors not in the legend are outside the Preserve. The

shades of blue adjacent to the Preserve seagrasses are extensions

of the grass beds. The very light blue and white in the estuary

are shaloow, non-vegetated sites and beach areas. The reds are

vegetation and the browns are wetlands outside the Preserve. The

upland light/white colors are barren, urban, or cleared areas.

The gridded border of the image are the Universal Transmercator

standard earth reference system coordinates. See Map 3 for an

explanation describing different map scales with the inkjet

printer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- --- ---- ---- ----

33 n o n -3910H

3EUUUU ~~- -- --------- I-AOU

---- --- --- ---- ---:-- .- .:..

...............

The uariable name is : ST. JOE BAY (1;200,000)

CLASS NAME

MODERATE/DENSE SEAGRASS

PP.TCHY SEAGRASS

MARSH

AQUATIC PRESEROE OPEN LdATER

MAP 3

3 ~~This image represents a small subset of the St. Joe Bay area in

the Florida panhandle (see Map 2, lower right corner). The scale

I ~~of the image is 1:33,000 or I inch = 2,750 feet. The legend

3 ~~depicts the vegetation of the St. Joe Bay Aquatic Preserve.

Those colors not in the legend are outside the Preserve. The

shades of blue adjacent to the Preserve seagrasses are extensions

of the grass beds. The very Ilight blue and white in the estuary

I ~~are shallow, non-vegetated sites and beach areas. The reds are

vegetation and the browns are wetlands outside the Preserve. The

upland light/white colors are barren, urban, or cleared areas.

If compared to Map 2 the ability to work with different scales on

the inkjet printer becomes apparent. In order to display all of

I ~~the data on the paper, a minimum scale of 1:33,500 is required.

* ~~Thus the image in Map 2has much of the data removed to display

the entire area in a smallI print. The entire image can be

printed in panels at 1:33,000 then reconstructed into a large

color map at full resolution. The gridded border of the image

U ~~are the Universal Transmercator standard earth reference system

coordinators.

Ut. j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fl~~~~~~~~~~~o0,;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0iqss~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~3oul

"I W ......~~~~~~~I

I'Moun~~ ------------- - -------- --- - ---- 00

MO fza 91aSU sa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A: G2032M

The00 4)ral aei T.JEBY(:300

0205CLOS W *52000

0255000A E/D NS 3200000

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reprint 1

Trends in Seagrass Distribution on
the West Florida Shelf

Abstract for a presentation at the Minerals Management Service
I ~~~Seventh Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting

Kenneth D. Haddad

Marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses are crucial components of

I ~~fisheries habitat along the Florida west coast. These habitats

may serve as nursery grounds, protective structure, and food

sources for many marine organisms. Therefore, quantifying

* ~~habitat distribution and alteration and documenting the

dependency of fisheries on habitat may provide managers with a

I ~~tool to predict future fishing stocks.

With support from the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management through the Florida Department of

I ~~Environmental Regulation, the Florida Department of Natural

Resources Bureau of Marine Research implemented a fisheries
habitat assessment program. A Marine Resources Geographic

Information Systems (MRGIS) was developed which houses a

* ~~geographically referenced database of fisheries habitat

information. The project also includes 1) a sampling program to

quantify faunal abundance and diversity within habitat, 2) stable

* ~~isotope analyses of associated plants and animals to establish

habitat dependency, and 3) an assessment of growth and mortal ity

* ~~of juvenile fish.

Initially, the project focused on developing techniques for

habitat mapping and monitoring. The extent of Florida's coastal

zone (2172 kin) precluded standard cartographic approaches.

Digital LANIJSAT Thematic Mapper (TM) data were selected as the

optimal base for a statewide assessment effort. Analyses early

in the program determined that TM data generally were not

sufficient to delineate seagrasses consistently. Aerial

photography were photointerpreted for seagrass and digitized into

the TM database. Mapping seagrasses of the west Florida coast is

currently underway. Recent mapping efforts by various Federal

agencies also will be incorporated into the MRGIS database.

Analyses comparing historical with recent data were

conducted on selected areas along the west Florida coast to

determine trends in seagrass distribution. Initial findings

suggested that distribution changed notably in many bay systems

since the 1940's. Areas of decline included Charlotte Harbor

(29%), Tampa Bay (44%), Bayport (13%), western Choctawhatchee Bay

(30%), and eastern Perdido Bay (45%). Big Lagoon (west of

Pensacola) increased (55%).

Seagrass declines pose a significant management problem

because the factors causing the declines, in many areas, are

unknown. Loss has generally occurred in deeper waters suggesting

that decreased water quality and light penetration have

influenced seagrass distribution. Nutrient enrichment, which

promotes phytoplankton growth, and resuspended fine organics and

clays may explain reduced water clarity, but its effect on

seagrass growth has not been documented. Research is necessary

to determine if changes in water quality and light penetration

affect seagrass distribution and to identify other possible

causative factors. Although this should be a research priority,

all facets of seagrass research remain inadequately funded.

Seagrass beds are a dominant habitat on the west Florida shelf

I ~~and certainly contribute to the success of the fisheries.

I ~~Funding for research to develop the information required for

adequate management has not been commensurate with the economic

and environmental value of the resource. Federal and State

resource managers should address this issue.

Kenneth Haddad is a Biological Scientist with the Florida

Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Marine Research. His

research has involved the development of applications in remote

sensing to coastal and ocean resource assessment. This has

I ~~included the development of a remote sensing facility at the

Bureau of Marine Research.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reprint 2

THE ROLE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMNIATION SYSTEMS
IN MANAGING FLORIDA'S COASTAL WETLAND RESOURCES

Kenneth D. Haddad & Barbara A. Hoffman
Biological Scientists
Bureau of Marine Research
100 8th Avenue SE
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095
813-896-8626

Florida is one of the fastest growing states in the nation and

this trend is expected to continue into the twenty-first century.

The impact of this growth on our wetland ecosystems is difficult to

assess and monitor. To deal with these complex issues, coastal resource

managers require rapid access to a comprehensive coastal resource

database from which they can extract and synthesize pertinent data.

A program has been initiated at the Florida Department of Natural

Resources (FDNR), with funding through the Florida Department of Environ-

mental Regulation and the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Management,

to develop a coastal wetland resources spatial database and incorporate

these data into a Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS may

be defined as a computer system or network which has as its primary

function the maintenance and analysis of geographical (spatial) data.

The initial phase of the FDNR program has been to institute a

Marine Resources Geographic Information System (MRGIS) and develop

techniques in remote sensing and image analysis for mapping and monitor-

ing marine wetlands (see Haddad and Harris, Coastal Zone 85). LANDSAT

satellite Thematic Mapper data are the primary source for the land

cover/wetland mapping and the geographic reference system (in Universal

Transverse Mercator units) into which ancillary data are added. The

ability to enter ancillary data (such as bathymetry, sediment and

soil types, jurisdictional boundaries, etc.) is the feature that gives

I the GIS 'guch value as a tool in resource management. A GIS is designed

Ito work with numerous geographically co-referenced layers of data

to answer queries from the database user. For example, to consider

I the state regulatory criteria for developing marina sites, the GIS

I could be queried to display all locations that are not in an Aquatic

Preserve, are not adjacent to environmentally sensitive land, are

I within 600 yards of a secondary road, and are within 50 yards of water

depths greater than 4 feet. The system would display these areas

I for further analysis and assessment.

In addition to the mainframe MRGIS capabilities for data storage

and manipulation, microcomputers with GIS capabilities are being installed

Eat selected regional and local planning levels. Data are downloaded

onto data cartridges and sent to the microcomputer facility for map

Idisplay, local planning use, and data upgrading. This strategy for

Idata dissemination will bring rapid access of large volumes of geogra-

phic data to the manager. The system is designed for a desktop, user-

Ifriendly approach, with a color map-oriented display for resource

managers to effectively utilize the best available data in their resource

I planning and decision making. FDNR also is developing a link between

Egeographically oriented and tabular data (such as fisheries statistics,

boat license registration, and permits) to further provide easily

Einterpretable and rapidly accessible computer data to state, regional,

and local resource managers and planners.

C1986 by the American Congress on Surveying and Ma in and
~ie A Socie hoto a ~ote PdA
rights reserved. Repro uctionS 0 svolume or any parts thereof
(excluding short quotations for use in the preparation of reviews
P ~ ~ ~ P P R and technical and scientific papers) may be made only afterob
taining the specific approval of the publishers. The publishers are
-'-"- - -~~. ~86~ P A ~AS~PERS not responsible for any opinions or statements made in the tech-
1986 ACSM-ASPRS nical papers
ACSM-ASPRS CONVENTION ANNUAL CONVENTION

Volume 3

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

SYSTE MS

.-. e ... -

on su~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11
1941

ISBN 0-937294-70-5
Published by
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
and
American Society for Photogrammetrv and Remote Sensing
210 Little Falls St.
Falls Church, Virginia 22046

ML~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
5.
a-.

~~~ ~~~~~ _ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tampa Bay lost 44% of its emergent marshland and 81% of its
submerged seagrasses (Lewis et al., 1979; Lewis and Phillips, 1982).
A FLORIDA GIS FOR ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT 0 This vegetation loss and associated problems of low oxygen
conditions, poor water quality, noxious algal blooms, and coastal
storm erosion affected the survival and availability of desirable
1Kenneth D. addad and Barbara A. wcHarriso fisheries species. a to
Florida Department of Natural Resources fisheries species.
Bureau of Marine Research Before growth management was considered important, and natural
100 8th Avenue, S.E. wetlands were recognized as valuable to a healthy environment,
St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Florida's population exploded. From 1950-1960, population growth
ABSTRACT was faster than that of any other state. Today Florida hosts the
ABSTRACT 1 eighth largest population which is projected to double by the year
A Marine Resource Geobased Information System was developed within 2010. Five thousand people move to Florida each week and 80% choose
A Marine Resource Geobased Information System wa s developed within pco a stal counties.
the Florida Department of Natural Resources as a tool for research
and management of estuarine and coastal environments. The prime i The Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) Bureau of Marine
data layer is from LANDSAT thematic mapper data in a UTM map Research recognized the problems that Florida's growth is having on
coordinate system. An initial habitat inventory and historical its marine environment and began, in 1982, a project to assess
habitat analysis are providing needed information to state, regional existing estuarine resources of the entire state. In order to
and local government and to the public. The concept of ancillary generate a map database for Florida's 2,172 linear kilometers of
data overlays and GIS manipulations is being applied to the coastline, a remote sensing/Geobased Information System (GIS)
estuarine environment. The initial development of the rastor-based approach was instituted.
MRGIS has been successful. Full realization of its capabilities
will require a long term commitment to the development and GIS DEVELOPMENT
enhancement of the data base.
Management of Florida's estuarine and nearshore coast required
INTRODUCTION -l considerable forethought in planning for the development of a pilot
GIS. It was obvious that a major type of data to be utilized in the
Over 100 species of finfishes, shrimp, and crabs are harvested GIS would be digital rastor data from airborne and space platforms
commercially and recreationally from state or Federal waters off the and that the ability for image analysis would be a main
Florida coast. In 1983, this represented 178 million pounds of consideration in system development. NASA, working cooperatively
commercial fisheries worth a dockside value of $166 million (U.S. with-the State of Florida, demonstrated the potential of the NASA
Dept. Commerce, 1983). Commercially, Florida's fishery is the sixth Earth Resources Laboratory ELAS software as a GIS. ELAS is a
largest in the United States and contributes greatly to the State modular FORTRAN overlay package which is relatively machine
economy. Recreationally, over 30% of Florida's tourists come to independent (Junkin et al., 1981). ELAS may be categorized as a
fish and generate over $105 million in state revenue. Resident rastor-based information system as described by Marble and Peuquet
anglers additionally provide over $43.3 million to Florida's tax (1983). ELAS currently does not have the ability to access tabular
base (Bell et al., 1982). data, and the ability to manipulate and sort layered data is not
based on a "user friendly approach". The exceptional flexibility of
Fisheries are a renewable, but vulnerable, resource. Over 70% of the software package, however, makes it an extremely powerful image
Florida's fisheries species of commercial and recreational processing/GIS tool.
importance depend on estuaries during some portion, if not all, of
their lives. Submerged seagrasses and emergent marshlands provide A pilot program to develop a Marine Resource Geobased Information
shelter for young, growing marine animals. These vegetational System (MRGIS) was initiated within the FDNR and funded by the NOAA
components indirectly supply abundant food through production of Office of Ocean and Coastal Management through the Florida
detritus and support a diverse group of non-fishery organisms. Department of Environmental Regulation. The dedicated purposes of
These estuarine communities form a complex food web, supported by the MRGIS are to (1) develop an initial data base of the extent and
the vegetation. Without estuarine vegetation, much of Florida's location of marine fisheries habitat within the State, (2) look at
fisheries simply would not exist. trends in habitat change, (3) integrate ancillary data from a
variety of sources, and (4) demonstrate the potential and
Commercial fisheries statistics for several Florida counties show effectiveness of an image processing rastor-based GIS for research,
declines in the amount of fish caught over a 30-year period from management, and education. The MRGIS is a stand-alone minicomputer
1953 to 1983 for some estuarine-dependent species. These declines system operating ELAS as the primary applications software. Several
usually were associated with estuaries surrounded by highly- conceptual and successful operational aspects of the MRGIS can
developed or developing counties. Tampa Bay, for example, is provide a basis for GIS development.
encircled by two of the most populated counties of the State. From
1950 to 1980, Tampa Bay's surrounding population increased by 243% 1. Stand alone system: Image and GIS processing requires
(Census Bureau, 1982). With this population boom came industry, I intense computational time. A multi-use system
sewage effluent, massive dredge and fill projects, mosquito control t eliminates the interactive potential necessary for
and many more occurrences associated with population growth. Hence, operation. The GIS is user-time-intensive and is a

2 I 3

preiulsit for ef ectv operation.
peeust f eLANDSAT satellite data were considered a viable alternative to
'2. Regionalization: The concept of a centralized single standard approaches for primary data base development. In fact, the
system meeting the needs of a state is a questionable success of the MRGIS is totally dependent on the transformation of
approach, again, primarily due to the massive amount of raw LANDSAT data into both a
data processing. Regionalization is a viable approach reference system for overlays of ancillary geobased data.
which can be cost-effective and provide greater user (TM) data were evaluated for the potential
access.
of extracting estuarine wetland and land cover information on a
3. Dedicated uses: It can be advantageous to categorize statewide basis, and for the cost of extracting that data relative
systems. For example, the MRGIS concentrates on to standard cartographic techniques. The techniques were
generating databases on marine resources. This allows for approximately 70% more cost-effective and 83% more time-effective on
a uniquely specialized approach to developing the a per hectare basis for large aerial coverage (Haddad and Harris
needed database for that user community. 1985a). In addition, a fully automated approach to TM data
extraction was not viable (Haddad and Harris 1985b). The current
4. Data exchange: Perhaps the greatest potential for approach is to use a rapid, biasable, unsupervised classification of
failure of a decentralized approach is the need for the TM data to a level which then requires a skilled interactive and
complete compatibility between databases. This ability to manipulative assessment of the results. The concept behind this
exchange GIS data should transcend all but minimal approach often is practiced but rarely documented.
hardware and software requirements and address both vector Due to spectra imitations in TM data, statistical
and rastor data bases. From a statewide perspective, this separation of d iffering land cover types is not always
will be the most difficult issue to address. separation of differingble.

Although the above observations are not new, advances in hardware, 2. Statistical separation can be enhanced by entering
software, and price structures have given estuarine managers the ancillary data (i.e., soils data, bathymetry, etc.) into a
potential to use GIS capabilities. As GIS capabilities are multilayer data analysis (Marble and Peuquet, 1983).
instituted on state, regional, and local levels, lessons learned
from the relatively small group of GIS users throughout the country 5 3. For final land cover editing, the user, in a highly
need to be transmitted effectively to the growing body of potential
GIS users. interactive sense, has the ability to use photointerpre-
SMRGIS OPERATION Xtive and ecologically-based cognizance to directly alter
and update the digital database. For example, if wet
The MRGIS approach was pursued because estuarine management in a pine flatwoods were statistically undistinguishable from
state the size of Florida requires the development of a revisable estuarine mangroves, the user, through knowledge of
digital database. Since the obvious primary data layer would be geography, can easily partition them manually. This is
land cover information, this requirement guided the approach to the only practi and viable approach to provide high
generate digital land use data. A standard cartographic approach accuracy products acceptable to the resource manager.
generate digital land use data. A standard cartographic approach
would include digitizing existing analog maps or acquiring, photo- 4. In some cases, TM data m
interpreting, and digitizing new photography. These approaches were 4. In some cases, TM data must be enhanced with photoin-
discounted, although not totally eliminated, for several, probably Harris 1985a). This was demonstograted in the case ofand

universal, reasons. submerged aquatic vegetation where water penetration is
1. The only commonly formatted analog maps available were dependent on a clear water overflight. These data may be
those of the National Wetlands Inventory (U.S. Fish and manually digitized directly from a high-quality aerial
Wildlife Service). These data, although extremely photo or transferred via normal cartographic methods to a
Wildlife Service). These data, although extremely USGS quad sheet for digitization.
valuable, generally are not available in a digital form
and the digitization process alone would transcend the
and the digitization process alone would transcend the Photo data may be merged directly into the TM data which
scope of the MRGIS program. In addition, these
scopinventories f arhe Mnow histogrica data becaddiio F 's negates the need to attempt data refinement by the more
inventories are now historical data because of Florida's Certain scaling
. . . .time-consuming statistical methods. Certain scaling
growth. These data may be used as ancillary input into increase accuracies for digital
factors of the data can increase ace
the prime data base. *
the prm aabs. .input. For example, when digitizing into TM data from
*2. An updated aerial photographic acquisition program1:24,000 scale photography, acreage computations are much
2. An updated aerial photographic acquisition program if the TM data are resampled to 15-meter
with consequent interpretation and digitization does not c more accurate if the standard 3r -meter cell size.
circumvent the bottleneck of the digitization processes. The reasons are obvious and scaling differentials are
The reasons are obvious and scaling differentials are
The associated costs would stifle any attempt at this important.
approach on a statewide basis. v1
5. The concept of supplementing TM data with aerial
photography was a main consideration in the successful

4 5

development of the MRGIS. Besides the obvious data commercial and recreational catch and effort in order to maintain a
enhancement potential, ease of the process allows rapid sustainable yield of specific species.
and cost-effective data upgrades. Since TM data provide
the basic background data base, either as classified data Historical Analysis
or as a false-color or color-composite, only the features -
of immediate concern need to be extracted from the aerial One aspect of the MRGIS program has generated considerable,
photography and digitized into the MRGIS. Without the unexpected interest by managers and the public. In conjunction with
background TM data, many extraneous features in the aerial the current assessment effort, selected geographic sites are being
photography would have to be extracted to provide (1) a evaluated for habitat alteration. Aerial photographs from selected
geographic perspective and (2) the estuarine manager with time periods (from the 1940's) are photointerpreted and digitized as
a complete pictorial data display. an overlay directly into the TM database. Both a quantitative and
visual presentation of the information from a historical perspective
Since no GIS-type databases existed for Florida estuaries, the is generated and the resultant knowledge can be used to identify
question of whether to use TM data as an ancillary input into a issues requiring management action.
multilayer data set, or to use TM data as the coordinate reference
system and enter all other data as ancillary, was not a Figure 1 depicts the changes in seagrass vegetation in a portion of
consideration. It was determined early that TM data could be Tampa Bay, Florida. As previously discussed, seagrasses often are
georeferenced to UTM coordinates with subpixel accuracies. Welch et difficult to extract from TM imagery because of water clarity; this
al. (1985) determined that residual errors for UTM-rectified TM data necessitates photointerpretation to develop that aspect of the data-
fall within National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS) for 1:24,000 base. The data in this figure were digitized into a historical
scale maps and meet NMAS at 1:50,000 and smaller scales. In fact, overlay representing 1943 and a current overlay representing 1984.
in our experience, when entering ancillary map data (various scales) The land category for the 1943 overlay is from a 1984 TM image and
into the TM-based coordinate reference system, errors in geodetic is presented to provide a geographical reference and to demonstrate
accuracies of local and regional resource information maps become the TM-based coordinate reference approach. Seagrass delineation
readily apparent. was categorized as dense/moderate, patchy, and sparse, and
associated acreages were calculated (Table 1). Significant results
The development of the MRGIS operations has been an evolutionary of this analysis include (1) a total loss of 53% of seagrass and (2)
process and uses of the MRGIS are evolving with it. The geobased a significant decline of 82% in the moderate/dense category. IThis
nature of the data is helping to focus research, management, and type of information has been, and will be, generated for selected
educational activities on the estuarine environment. estuarine areas throughout Florida. So far, losses of seagrass have
been robserved consistently. With the understanding that seagrasses
Habitat Analysis play an extremely important function in Florida's fisheries
production, and with pictoral and quantifiable data depicting loss,
Currently, the major operation of the MRGIS is to develop an initial X declines in marine wetlands are being seriously addressed as
inventory of marine fisheries habitat within coastal Florida. management issues at both state and local levels.
LANDSAT TM data are being processed to delineate mudflats (where
applicable), saltmarsh (to species), mangroves, and seagrasses Figure 2 depicts changes in saltmarsh of St. Augustine Inlet from
(submerged aquatic vegetation). Aerial photography is being used 1943 and 1984. In this case, the historical data were again
for seagrass mapping when water clarity precludes the use of digitized into the UTM-referenced TM database as an ancillary data
available TM data. This initial comprehensive database will provide layer. The statistically classified 1984 TM data were then directly
the ability to assess changes in these habitat components on a analyzed for changes. A 585 ha loss (-20%) of marsh was observed
regular basis by using data from existing and future orbital which mostly can be attributed to the placement of an earthen dam
platforms. across a portion of a tributary observed in the upper right portion
of the image. Major habitat alterations have occurred throughout
The development of this database is coming at an important point in Florida, but present laws are reducing those impacts. This
Florida's growth. Legislative mandates require that coordinated information can be used to develop plans for reestablishing and
growth management plans be developed on state, regional, and local protecting the natural functions of Florida's estuaries.
levels. Estuarine wetlands (fisheries habitat) are cited as
habitats of special interest and knowledge of the location and Ancillary Data Analysis
aerial extent of these habitat components are required for
proper planning and effective management. The Florida Aquatic Input of photoanalyzed historical data and current TM data provide
Preserve Program uses the inventory information to develop only the foundation for an estuarine GIS. The input of ancillary
management plans and provide information to the public. A databases provides the necessary information to use the GIS as a
multidisciplinary research effort is underway to quantify the complete management tool. Unfortunately, no digital databases of
association between fisheries habitat and fisheries production. An important management criteria exist; consequently, a large effort
ultimate goal of this effort is to develop carrying capacities of will be required initially (as in all GIS developments) to input
specific habitats for fishes of commercial and recreational value to these databases.
Florida. This type of information can then be integrated into
fisheries production models and will enhance predictive capabilities A data overlay approach is depicted in Figure 3 and differs from
useful for regulating

6 7

** standard GIS overlays only in the types of parameters being entered.
This approach currently is being tested for an Aquatic Preserve in
1:9 4 3 19:.4 t �I UB 0> Tampa Bay, Florida. A hypothetical, but practical, management issue
might be: the population of snook (a Florida gamefish) has been
!iii:�i; ireduced significantly in southwest Florida. A juvenil, stocking
Fu revaluation program is underway and it is known that the juvenile
snook have the best potential for survival if they are released (1)
in isolated depressions (>1.8 m in depth) surrounded by seagrass and
-:''~J- ~ mangrove habitat, (2) over organic sediments, and (3) where the
average salinity is less than 12 parts per thousand. Where should
these releases take place? The conceptual process to answer this
and questions like it (Figure 3) is not new by any means. The point
[~ ~-. ~.~~to be made is the need for extension of GIS applications into
'.t'"-?;! -estuarine management practices.

UPLAND DENSE PATCHY SPARSE
SE A GRASS

Figure 1. Historical and recent analyses of the Pinellas Point area TM
of Tampa Bay, Florida. Seagrasses (1943 and 1984) were LANDCOVER
photointerpreted and digitized directly into LANDSAT
TM imagery.

Table 1. Results of a historical analysis (Figure 1 I
above) of a portion of Tampa Bay, Florida.
SEAGRASS 1943 1982 % CHANGE
Dense 428 ha 74 ha -82S LI
Patchy 203 199 - 2
Sparse 90 67 -25
Total 721 340 -53

BATHYMETRY

SEDIMENTS

MARSH

1943 3 UPLAND 19 Figure 3. A schematic overlay approach for estuarine management
issues. The parameters are numerically unquantified
but the overlay concept is apparent. An analysis to
determine the best stocking sites for juvenile ShOOk
Figure 2. Historical and recent analyses of the St. Augustine, determine the bedistockyof those locatio ns meetino
Florigurarea. The historical would result in a display of those locations meeting
Florida area. The historical image represents a data the stocking criteria.
overlay digitized into the 1984 TM-based UTM-referenced
coordinate system.

8 4 9

SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Rapid growth in Florida and subsequent impacts on its estuarine We wish to thank Beverly Roberts, Karen Steidinger, and Kristie
environment required development of a GIS capability. A Marine Killam for their input and review on this manuscript.
Resource Geobased Information System instituted within the Florida - -
Department of Natural Resources is being developed as a useful tool REFERENCES
for research, management, and public education. The magnitude of
Florida's estuaries stimulated development of the prime database and Bell, F.W., P.E. Sorensen, and V.R. Leeworthy. 1982. The economic
coordinate reference system from LANDSAT Thematic Mapper data. impact and valuation of saltwater recreational fisheries in
Florida. Fla. Sea Grant Rep. No. 47. 118 pp.
Historical analysis of fisheries habitat provided information
depicting the previously unquantified loss of seagrass (important to Census Bureau. 1982. Number of inhabitants in Florida.
fisheries production) on a statewide basis. This information alone Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. PC80-1-All.
is sufficient to enhance the value of the MRGIS beyond its initial
investment. . Junkin, B., R. Pearson, R. Seyfarth, M. Kalcic and M. Graham.
1981. ELAS Earth Resources Laboratory Applications Software.
Some pertinent observations on the operational development of the NASA/NSTL Earth Resources Laboratory Rep. No. 183. NSTL
MRGIS are: Station, MS.

1. Ancillary data required for long-term operations are Haddad, K.D. and B.A. Harris. 1985a. Assessment and trends of
rarely digital and must be entered through manual or Florida's marine fisheries habitat: an integration of aerial
automated digitizing procedures. photography and thematic mapper imagery. Pp. 130-138 in S.K.
Mengel and D.B. Morrison (eds.), Machine Processing of R-imotely
2. Rastor GIS data require large mass storage capabili- Sensed Data. West Lafayette, IN. Purdue University. 370 pp.
ties. One full TM data set for Florida contains 4.2
Haddad, K.D. and B.A. Harris. 1985b. Use of remote sensing to
gigabytes of information. Upcoming technological develop-
ments will eliminate this as a logistical problem. asseas estuarine habitats. Pp. 662-675 in O.T. Magoon, H.
Converse, D. Minor, D. Clark, and L.T. ToSin (eds.), Coastal
3. Data dessimination from a rastor-based GIS often is Zone '85, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Coastal and
based on color and is pictoral in content. Photographic Ocean Management, Vol. 1. New York. American Society of Civil
products are not optimal for many uses. Color printers Engineers. 1294 pp.
are being improved, but the data layer concept is lost in
a flat-plane presentation. Downloading of processed Lewis, R.R., C.S. Lewis, W.K. Fehring, and J.A. Rodgers. 1979.
images and ancillary data bases to microbased GISes as a Coastal habitat mitigation in Tampa Bay, Florida. Pp. 136-140
hands-on management tool is currently being tested in a in G. Swanson (tech. coord.), Proceedings of the Mitigation
pilot program. Symposium. Tech. Report RM-65, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

4. Management of natural resources has occurred without Ft. Collins, Colorado.
the necessary information for effective management.
Today, management criteria are not structured to utilize
Todaymanagment riteri are ot stucture to uilizeLewis, R.R. and R.C. Phillips. 1982. Seagrass revegetation studies
CIS capabilities. As managers are introduced to CIS 4 in Monroe County. Final report prepared for State of Florida
capabilities and concepts, demands on the capabilities Department of Transportation. 95 pp.
increase.
Marble, D.F. and D.F. Peuquet. 1983. Geographic information
5. Serious misconceptions can occur in explaining the systems. Pp. 923-959 in D.S. Simorett (ed.), Manual of Remote
capabilities of a CIS to potential users. Initial GIS Sensing, 2nd Ed., Vol.-- 1. Falls Church, VA. The Sheridan
development requires an intensive and committed effort. Press.
This is particularly true for estuarine resources where
the concept of a CIS approach to management has not been U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
pursued. Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1983.
Florida Landings.
The types of information being generated by the MRGIS operations are
proving beneficial and, in some cases, the only viable approach for W l h . ..JroadM hes 95 oprtv
long term management of Florida's estuaries. Its uses will expand evaluation of geodetic accuracy and cartographic potential of
as the information base expands - this will remain an ever changing LANDSAT-4 and LANDSAT-5 thematic mapper image data. Photogram.
process. I Eng. and Remote Sensing 51(l1):1799-1812.

10 11

Reprint 4

Reprinted from Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium
on Coastal and Ocean Management "Coastal Zone '85 '
ASCE/Baltimore, MD, July 30-August 1, 1985

USE OF REMOTE SENSING TO ASSESS ESTUARINE HABITATS

Kenneth 0. Haddad* and Barbara A. Harris*

INTRODUCTION

In the early 1900's, Florida was the winter residence for the
adventurous who wisely left the state as summer drew near. Though the
State offered warmth and comfort during winter months, it became a
humid, mosquito-infested swampland during the long, hot summers.
Three events occurred near or before 1950 that changed Florida's
reputation and future: (I) air conditioning, (2) mosquito control
programs, and (3) massive drainage projects that created dry lands
suitable for human habitation. Since 1950, Florida's population
has literally exploded. Today, approximately 788 people move to
Florida each day along with a daily influx of 90,000 tourists (Office
of Planning and Budget, personal communication; McGinnis 1983). Rapid
development far exceeded planned growth management and, consequently,
environmentally unsound development practices were the norm. Because
about 75% of Florida's new residents chose coastal counties for their
homes, the effects of this growth on coastal and estuarine habitats
were amplified. Estuarine dredge and fill practices were rampant.
Massive areas of estuarine wetlands were ditched and diked for
mosquito control. Upland canals replaced winding rivers and lowlands,
expediting the flow of nutrient rich waters (made richer by Florida's
extensive livestock and agriculture production) into estuaries. Laroe
amounts of raw sewage and industrial pollutants were released into
estuaries. Although laws were enacted to control these effluents,
pollutants and treated sewage still affect coastal waters.

Estuaries and lagoons are dominant features in Florida. They are
among the most productive ecosystems on Earth and provide food and
shelter for a large and diverse group of living resources. This
includes over 70% of Florida's marine commercial and recreational
finfish and shellfish which depend on the estuary during some part of
their life cycle (Harris et al. 1983). Some popular species, such as
spotted seatrout, spend their entire life within the estuary.
Numerous studies have shown that estuaries are most important for
juvenile fishes (Deegan and Day 1984, Miller et al. 1984, Odum 1984,
Zimmerman and Minelo 1984, Crowder 1984). Based on this information,
estuaries must be maintained for suitable habitation by these species
and those that provide for a healthy ecosystem.

The maintenance of estuaries in Florida is not simply an
aesthetic or environmental concern; a sound economic concern also
exists. Florida's commercial fishermen harvested fish and shellfish

*Biological Scientists, Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Marine Research, St. Petersburg, FL.

662

ESTUARINE HABITATS 663

worth an estimated wholesale value in 1980 of $175 million and, at
retail prices, of $1.25 billion. Florida ranks third in the nation in
resident anglers (2,127,000) while approximately 1,278,000 tourist
anglers annually fish in Florida waters (U.S. Dept. of Interior,
1982). Sport fishermen alone generate a $1.4 billion industry which,
when combined with commercial fishing, constitutes an industry worth
over $1.6 billion. In comparison, the Florida phosphate mining
industry generates $1.2 billion, and cattle production, $311 million.
These statistics emphasize the importance of Florida's fishing
industry; we must realize the long term importance of fisheries
habitats to the State of Florida.

Assessing the relationship between a fishery and an estuary
requires detailed knowledge of each life stage of a species and its
interaction with the environment for food and cover. Marshes,
mangroves and seaqrasses play important roles in the estuarine and
nearshore environments and are important components of fisheries
habitats. These components provide not only food and cover, but
detrital matter which ultimately fuels several food webs. The loss of
vegetation components of a fisheries habitat has a compounding and
long-term effect on the estuary not only by removing food and cover,
but also by eliminating their role in absorbing flood waters,
assimi I lating waste and excess nutrients, recycling nutrients,
controlling shoreline erosion, and trapping particulates that result
from erosion. Loss of wetland habitat components can result in
reduced water quality and altered circulation patterns that will, in
turn, affect the health of the estuary and ultimately the fisheries.

Public opinion holds that Florida's fisheries are declining, and
commercial landings statistics suggest this trend to be true for some
species (for example, spotted seatrout and shrimp; Florida Department
of Natural Resources 1951-1983). Many factors can lead to a decline
in fish populations (e.g., overfishing, water quality degradation,
loss of specific habitat components, natural events) and to single out
individual processes causing a decline is very difficult. In many
cases, the decline certainly can be man-induced; as Florida's human
population increases, pressure on the fisheries and every other
resource also increases. Under natural conditions, the percentage of
fish eggs hatching and surviving to maturity theoretically is much
less than one percent. Man continually reduces that percentage and
can even affect spawning regimes and -fecundity through selected
harvesting pressures or pollution.

REMOTE SENSING

One step in understanding a fishery is to map and'quantify the
estuarine habitat so crucial to the continued survival of many
species. This information can then be used to monitor the habitat
over future years to identify areas of degradation. In addition,
habitat information eventually will become an important component of
fisheries stock assessment and stock predictions.

With support from the NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management through the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,

664 COASTAL ZONE '85

the Florida Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Marine Research
has implemented a fisheries habitat assessment program and developed a
computer-based Marine Resources Geobased Information System (MRGIS).
The MRGIS is designed to process, analyze, and integrate satellite
data and other digital data with a variety of environmental and
socioeconomic data for resource analysis and application modeling.
The MRGIS is used primarily as a research and development tool for
coastal resource management and for integrating coastal data bases.
The system is a research prototype for the State of Florida and is
also used to demonstrate regional and statewide applications.

Hardware design was configured to meet the constraints of the
Earth Resources Land Applications Software (ELAS), the principal
applications software installed on the MRGIS. This software was
sponsored and developed by the Earth Resources Laboratory (ERL) of the
National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL) of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ELAS software
development began in the early 1970's and was directed towards
supervised classification of LANDSAT and aircraft data. Development
progressed with the addition of the capability to aeographically
reference the data to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid.
Also, the data processing approach was changed from batch to
interactive processing. A data base capability was added to allow the
storage of numerous parameters, i.e. LANDSAT classifications, soil
types, rainfall, elevation, percent slope, slope length, aspect,
ownership, oceanographic variables, etc. by a selectable cell size.
This permits manipulation of these parameters through selectable
application algorithms to produce resource management information. A
complete description of ELAS is documented in Junkin et al. (1980).

The initial phases of this program have been to assess and
develop techniques using remote sensing and to implement a statewide
program to assess and monitor fisheries habitats. The almost
insurmountable problem in mapping and monitoring a coastline of over
2,172 km are the time constraint and enormous funding requirement for
conventional photogrammetric mapping. For these reasons LANDSAT
satellite imagery was chosen as the primary data base in the mapping
procedure, supplemented with aerial photography where necessary.
Table I presents the types and characteristics of the data used. Low
altitude photography was not used because of the constraints for large
area assessments.

Initial review of both LANDSAT imagery and aerial photography
suggested that several structural components of marine fisheries
habitat could be accurately mapped. The categories for mapping were:

1. Salt marsh: an intertidal community represented in Florida by
the species Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) and Juncus
roemarianus (black rush). Salt marshes dominate the intertidal
zone ot lorida's northern coastlines, while mangroves dominate
southern intertidal areas. Salt marshes have been linked to high
densities and biomass of marine invertebrates, including shrimp
(Subrahmanyam et al. 1976, Day et al. 1973, Zimmerman et al.
1984).

ESTUARINE HABITATS 665

Table I. Characteristics of data types used in fisheries habitat
mapping.

Platform/Sensor Altitude Resolution Data Repeat Coverage

LANDSAT Imagery
Multispectral 508-917 km 60m digital 16-18 days
Scanner 4 channels

Thematic Mapper 508 km 30m digital 16 days
7 channels
High Altitude 3,658-
Aerial Photography 18,288 km 1-7m color 0-10 yrs
color-IR
transparencies
prints

2. Mangroves: an intertidal community represented in Florida by
the species Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove), Avicennia germinans
(black mangrove), and Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove).
Mangroves are well known for their ability to stabilize shorelines
and filter water; their significance and contribution to fishery
production has been implied.

3. Seagrasses: a shallow subtidal community represented by the
species Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass, found only in the
southern half of F-lorida), Syrinodium filiforme (manatee grass),
Halodule wrightii (shoal grass), three species of Halophila (star
grass), and Kuppia maritima (widgeon grass). The presence of a
greater diversity and abundance of organisms within qrassbeds as
compared with adjacent non-vegetated sites is well-documented (see
Zieman 1982).

4. Mudflats: an intertidal non-vegetated area represented by
several forms of microscopic benthic algae. Diatoms,
dinoflagellates, fi lamentous green algae, and blue-green algae are
the primary producers and are observed typically as sediment
discoloration. During daylight hours, adjacent seaqrasses contain
a higher number of fishes, crabs, and shrimp than mudflats
(Peterson 1981). Summerson (1980, cf. Peterson 1981), however,
found a more even distribution of fish and crabs over mudflats and
seagrasses at night.

Since the intent was to use LANDSAT data to map these and other
fisheries habitats an initial comparison between LANDSAT and standard
photogrammetric analyses was conducted. LANDSAT data was
statistically processed using a standard maximum likelihood classifier
in ELAS and areal coverage of the habitat components were computed.
The smallest mapping unit for both the photo-analyses and LANDSAT
analyses was approximately 0.4 hectare (ha). Photographic
interpretation was considered the most accurate technique for
measuring areal extent of a qiven fisheries habitat and results of
LANDSAT analyses were compared with identical areas photographically
assessed (Table 2). This simple approach to comparison is presented

666 COASTAL ZONE '85

Table 2. Areal comparisons (in hectares, I hectare = 2.47 acres)
between photoanalysis vs LANDSAT analysis for selected
fisheries habitat in Florida.

Habitat Photo-analysis LANDSAT %
Component Analysis Difference

Saltmarsh 11057 10541 4.7%
13914 13164 5.4%
5130 5677 9.6%

Mangrove 1866 1492 20.0%
1089 1084 0.4%
3436 3340 2.7%

Seagrass 523 567 7.6%

1National Wetlands Inventory 1984.
2Coastal Coordinating Council 1973.
3Harris et al. 1983

only as a measure of confidence that the mapping could be conducted on
a statewide basis with a reasonable assurance of accuracy using
LANDSAT data as the primary data base. LANDSAT TM data was selected
over MSS data (see Table I) as the prime data source for fisheries
habitat mapping for some of the following reasons: (1) the potential
for error in statistical analysis is decreased because of higher
resolution, (2) band one, measuring reflectance in the blue spectral
region (.45-.52pim), provides greater potential for analysis of water
characteristics, (3) band 5, measuring reflectance in the infrared
spectral region (1.55-1.75 Im) provides a better potential for
separation of wetland characteristics, (4) geographical rectification
of the TM data to a coordinate system (UTM) is more accurate, (5) the
higher data resolution (0.1 ha) is more descriptive pictorally and,
consequently, is easily utilized and accepted by the neneral public
and the resource manager. Figure I compares data resolution, at
identical scale, of an MSS image (Band 2, .6-.7im) to an identical TM
image (Band 3, .63-.69um) of an area near Melbourne, Florida.

Cost and time comparisons between LANDSAT and photographic
analysis are presented in Table 3. Comparisons were based on standard
photogrammetric techniques used to fly, photointerpret, and develop a
digital data base of Level I land use data (i.e., urban, agriculture,
rangeland, forestland, water, etc.) with a Level III classification
for marine fisheries habitats (i.e., mangroves, seagrass, salt marsh,
mudflat, oyster bars).

Although the exact figures may vary, a 69-72% cost reduction and
an 83% time reduction can be realized through using LANDSAT imagery
over aerial photography. The real cost saving occurs in the analysis
and digitization category. The cost of aerial photographs can be
similar to the cost of LANDSAT TM imagery if existing high altitude
photographs (i.e. National High Altitude Mapping Program) are used
concurrently with the imagery.

ESTUARINE HABITATS 667

":~c. I

Figure 1. A comparison between thematic mapper imagery (top) and
multispectal scanner imagery (bottom).

668 COASTAL ZONE '85

Table 3. Cost and time comparison (per hectare) for photographic vs.
LANDSAT TM analysis for fisheries habitat mapping.

Category Photography ($/ha) LANDSAT TM ($/ha)

Imagery .0002-.0022 .0003

Analysis and .0151 .0040
digitization

Ground truth .0006 .0006

Total .0159-.0179 .0049

Production time 3.479 sec/ha 0.588 sec/ha

Based on these initial results, selected marine fisheries
habitats are being mapped for the entire state using a combination of
LANDSAT TM imagery and aerial photography. In addition to mapping
existing habitat, trends in habitat change have been developed by
photointerpreting historical aerial photographs ca. 1940-1950's and
entering the results into a comparative digital data base and
determining habitat change. The results of analysis for several case
studies provide examples of types of information generated by the
habitat mapping program using various combinations of remote sensing
tools.

Case Study: Charlotte Harbor

Located on Florida's SW coast, Charlotte Harbor is one of the
State's largest, most pristine estuaries. Recreational and commercial
fishermen extensively fish the harbor which supplies, for example,
over 50% of Florida's west coast commercial landings of red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus) and spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus).
Present areal extent and geographic locations of fisheries habitat and
a historical comparison of habitat change have been produced for the
Charlotte Harbor area. The recent analysis was based on
photointerpreted 1982 aerial photography. The major vegetated
habitats in Charlotte Harbor were mangrove (22,927 ha), seagrass
(23,682 ha) and saltmarsh (1,436 ha). These vegetated components
comprised 27% of total intertidal and submerged bottom. In contrast,
the same vegetation in Indian River, Florida comprised 16% of the
intertidal and submerged bottom. The historical analysis of Charlotte
Harbor was based on 1945 photography. Results proved that an
unexpected 12,955 ha of estuarine wetlands were lost over the 37 year
period. This included 1499 ha of saltmarsh and 9,904 ha of seagrass.
Mudflats and oyster reefs also were delineated for Charlotte Harbor of
which 3,434 ha and 128 ha were lost, respectively. Conversely,
mangroves increased by 2,067 ha. Most of this increase can be
attributed to mudflat succession and perhaps rise in sea level.
Mangrove loss has occurred in the harbor, mainly due to older
waterfront developments that eliminated fringing mangroves. However,
the overall trend has been an increase.

ESTUARINE HABITATS 669

The loss of seagrass in Charlotte Harbor has been substantial.
Although loss occurred throughout the Harbor, 57% of the loss was in
the Pine Island Sound/Sanibel Island area which comprised only 34% of
the total submerged bottom mapped in Charlotte Harbor. In the late
1950's and early 1960's, several major alterations to the Pine Island
Sound area occurred that appear to have dramatically affected the
ecosystem: (I) the Intracoastal Waterway was dredged through Pine
Island Sound and up the nearby Caloosahatchee River, and (2) a
causeway was constructed restricting the natural flow of water through
the Sound. Even before 1960, the Caloosahatchee River was channelized
to Lake Okeechobee.

Prior to these alterations, Pine Island Sound was under oceanic
influence, with sponges, some corals, scallops, turtle grass and other
higher salinity species growing within the Sound. Most likely,
construction of the causeway acted as a dam impeding tidal exchange
and diverting the natural flow of the channelized Caloosahatchee River
into the Pine Island Sound area. The tannins and particulates
associated with the river input would increase turbidity. When
compounded with increased nutrients, direct destruction, and
reintroduction of fine sediments into the environment by dredging, a
decrease in seagrasses would be expected. Substantial seagrass loss
has occurred in the deeper portions of the Sound and is most likely
due to insufficient light penetration for photosynthesis. In
addition, after causeway construction in 1962, the area went from a
major scallop producer in Florida (as much as 180,000 Ibs/yr) to no
scallop production by 1964. Circulation alterations caused by the
causeway diverting freshwater flow into Pine Island Sound from the
Caloosahatchee River were probably the primary reasons for the decline
of the environmentally sensitive scallop.

Although exact explanations cannot account for seaqrass losses in
other portions of the study area, some analogies may be implied.
Primary seagrass loss occurred in the deeper portions of the Harbor,
at the fringing bars, and in lagoonal-type areas. Very little direct
destruction has occurred. It is likely that overall changes in
drainage patterns and introduction of sewage pollutants and storm
water runoff has served to increase the suspended load in the Harbor.
Also, the loss of natural filtration of nutrients probably has
increased the phytoplankton production. All of these factors would
synergistically act to increase turbidity in the Harbor and eliminate
seagrass meadows in the deeper water.

Case Study: INDIAN RIVER

This water body parallels the east coast of Florida, extending
approximately 192 km. Indian River actually is not a river but a
saltwater lagoon, the longest in Florida. The lagoon is straight and
hugs the coast, rarely exceeding more than 3.2 km from the sea. It is
separated by a long string of barrier islands separated by narrow
inlets. This study included the southern portion of Indian River from
Satellite Beach south to St. Lucie Inlet.

Through use of 1982 LANDSAT imagery and 1984 high altitude
infrared photography, areal coverage of seagrasses and mangroves was

670 COASTAL ZONE '85

calculated. Indian River water is typically turbid, necessitating the
use of the aerial photography as a supplement to the satellite imagery
for mapping seagrass. Seagrasses covered 2,777 ha comprising 8.3% of
the total submerged bottom (33,425 ha). Mangroves totalled 3,198 ha,
however, not all of this is avai lable to fisheries resources as
typical mangrove habitat. Much of the mangrove/marsh area has been
"impounded" for mosquito control. This process involves building a
dike around a mangrove site and flooding it for a large part of the
year. This prevents saltwater mosquitoes from laying eggs since they
require moist soil (not water) for oviposition. In some cases,
impoundments actually encouraged the growth of mangroves. Many of the
areas before impounding consisted of high marsh succulents such as
Batis and Salicornia interspersed with mangroves; now they are
predominantly mangroves. However, we contend that most impounded
areas constitute a loss of habitat unless properly managed for
fisheries. Approximately 76% of the total mangrove area has been
impounded, leaving 767 ha of mangroves available to marine fisheries
species.

One area, located north of Ft. Pierce inlet, was analyzed for
loss of mangroves and seagrasses over time. Historical black and
white aerial photographs (Soil Conservation Service) were interpreted
for the years 1958 and 1970. Line drawings were produced (Fig. 2)
based on the interpretations depicting areal coverage of mangroves and
seagrasses during those time periods. A lixe drawing also was
produced for the 1982 imagery/ photography interpretation. A 25% (217
ha) loss of seagrasses occurred in the Ft. Pierce area since 1958
with 11% of that decline occurring after 1970. Assessing loss of
mangroves was difficult because of the laroe number of mosquito
impoundments. A 27% loss of mangroves occurred since 1958 with seven
percent occurring since 1970. These losses were primarily due to
development and do not reflect loss due to impoundments.

Case Study: Ponce de Leon Inlet

Ponce de Leon Inlet, a site south of Daytona Beach, Florida, also
was interpreted for historical areal coverage of estuarine vegetation
(Fig. 3). Three time periods were analyzed. The 1943 image (center)
is the result of photointerpretation of December, 1943, Soil
Conservation Service photooraphy for emergent and submergent
vegetation (marsh and seagrass,. The major habitat change in this
image is the result of dredging the Intracoastal Waterway and
placement of the spoil on the marsh surface. The left image is a
hypothetical pre-Intracoastal Waterway portrayal of the area produced
by removal of the spoil islands and channels using capabilities within
the MRGIS. The image on the right is the current marsh structure
delineated through the processing of May, 1984 LANDSAT TM data. This
series of analyses visually demonstrates the impact of human
impingement upon the coastal marsh system. It also shows that photo-
analysis and LANDSAT analysis can be made compatible. The marsh area
decreased from 2,119 ha before dredging to 1,920 ha in 1943. Marsh
coverage decreased again to 1,572 ha in 1984 or a total decline of
27% in marsh habitat entirely due to dredge and fill activities.
Seagrasses were present in the 1943 photos (30 ha) but had disappeared
completely by 1984.

ESTUARINE HABITATS 671

1958 1970 1982

Mangroves

EiD Seagrasses

Figure 2. A graphic representation of an area near Fort Pierce Inlet
depicting change in areal coverage of seagrass and
mangroves over time.

672 COASTAL ZONE '85

pre -19431943 1984

white =seagrass

beach/bar

water

*marsh

fupland
Figure 3. A computer-enhancel reproduction of Ponce de Leon Inlet,
south of Daytona Beach, Florida, showing vegetation chanqes

over time.

ESTUARINE HABITATS 673

SUMMARY

A cursory look at the use of remote sensing to map fisheries
habitat has been presented. The important aspect of the mapping
program is the ability to develop a digital data base and to map and
monitor the habitat on a state-wide basis in a minimal amount of time
at low cost. LANDSAT TM data effectively have been used as the prime
data source for the mapping. When the resolution is insufficient for
a given need, higher resolution aerial photography can be interpreted
and integrated into the LANDSAT data base.

If Florida fisheries habitats are to be effectively managed,
managers need to know the location ofimportant habitat components
to monitor and assess those habitat components for natural and
man-induced changes. This type of information is also important as a
major variable in determining habitat carrying capacities for
commercially and recreationally important fish species important to
the State. This type of information eventually will become a variable
in a fishery production model and will help to provide a predictive
capability useful in regulating commercial and recreational fishing
pressure on a species in order to maintain an optimum yield.

The resource manager also can more effectively evaluate regional
environmental impact statements with an understanding of the location
and extent of the habitats in the area. Planners can use the
information in planned growth activities such as marina siting, access
channels, etc. The Florida Aquatic Preserve Program currently uses
the habitat maps in developing management plans and presenting the
resources of the preserves to the public.

The habitat component loss information was generated to gain an
understanding of trends in habitat change up to the present. This
information is important for planned restoration work and provides
resource managers with an assessment of impacts already accrued within
an area. The general public has made an unexpected demand for this
type of information, generated by continuous rhetoric, on habitat loss
in Florida. The mapping program has descriptively and quantitatively
addressed this issue by positively enhancing public awareness so
important in effectively addressing the issues legislatively.

Substantial fisheries habitat loss and alteration has occurred in
Florida and statutes have been developed to assist in protecting those
resources. Direct destruction still occurs but has been reduced. An
overriding concern developed from our initial findings is the loss of
submerged seagrasses. Loss has occurred state-wide and often is not
due to direct impact but, more likely, to changes in ambient water
quality. Water quality has degraded as the human Dopulation
increased. Since 75% of those people living in and moving to Florida
live on the coast, the impact on water quality in our estuaries will
continue. This will be an expensive and difficult issue to address
and we can expect a greater loss of seagrasses in the future.

The types of information generated from this mapping program will
assist in making management decisions. This program is now in the
final stages of an initial inventory of marine fisheries habitat in

674 COASTAL ZONE '85

the State. The next steps are to upgrade the map data to a higher
resolution and accuracy and to develop a method for rapid data
dissemination.

LITERATURE CITED

Coastal Coordinating Council. 1973. Statistical inventory of key
biophysical elements in Florida's coastal zone. Fla. Dept. Nat.
Resources. Tallahassee, FL. 43pp.

Crowder, L.B. 1984. What factors determine habitat use in fish? Pp.
385-397 in B.J. Copeland, K. Hart, N. Davis, and S. Friday
(eds.), research for Managing the Nation's Estuaries:
Proceedings of a Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. UNC Sea
Grant College Publ. UNC-SG-84-08. 420 pp.

Day, J.W., Jr., W.G. Smith, P.R. Waoner, and W.C. Stone. 1973.
Community structure and carbon budget of a salt marsh and shallow
bay estuary system in Louisiana. Center for Wetland Resources.
La. State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA. LSU-SG-72-04. 80 pp.

Deegan, L.A. and J.W. Day, Jr. 1984. Estuarine fishery habitat
requirements. Pp. 315-336 in B.J. Copeland, K. Hart, N. Davis,
and S. Friday (eds.), Reearch for Manaqinq the Nation's
Estuaries: Proceedings of a Conference in Raleigh, North
Carolina. UNC Sea Grant College Publ. UNC-SG-84-08. 420 pp.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1951-1982. Florida
Landings. Tallahassee, Florida.

Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinqer, and J.A. Huff. 1983.
Assessment of fisheries habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth,
Florida. Florida Dept. Natural Resources, Bureau Marine
Research, St. Petersburg, FL. 211 pp + maps.

Junkin, B., R. Pearson, R. Seyfarth, M. Kalcic, M. Graham. 1981.
ELAS Earth Resources Laboratory Applications Software.
NASA/NSTL Earth Resources Laboratory Rep. No. 183. NSTL Station,
MS.

McGinnis, H. 1983. Recreation and tourism. Pp. 159-192 in C.O.
French and J.W. Parsons (eds.), Florida Coastal EcoTogical
Characterization: a Socioeconomic Study of the Southwestern
Region. Volume I: U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-83/14. 334
PP.

Miller, J.M., S.W. Ross, and S.P. Epperly. 1984. Habitat choices in
estuarine fish: do they have any? Pp. 337-352 in B.J. Copeland,
K. Hart, N. Davis, and S. Friday (eds.), Research for Managing
the Nation's Estuaries: Proceedings of a Conference in Raleigh,
North Carolina. UNC Sea Grant College Publ. UNC-SG-84-08. 420pp.

ESTUARINE HABITATS 675

National Wetlands Inventory. 1984. Florida Wetland acreage. Draft
Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, FL.

Odum, W.E. 1984. Estuarine productivity: unresolved questions
concerning the coupling of primary and secondary oroduction. Pp.
231-253 in B.J. Copeland, K. Hart, N. Davis, and S. Friday
(eds.), --Research for Managing the Nation's Estuaries:
Proceedings of a Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. UNC Sea
Grant College Publ. UNC-SG-84-08. 420 pp.

Peterson, C.H. 1981. The ecological role of mud flats in estuarine
systems. Pp. 184-192 in R.C. Carey, P.S. Markovits, and J.B.
Kirkwood (eds.), Proceedings U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Workshop on Coastal Ecosystems of the Southeastern United States.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-80/59. 257 pp.

Subrahmanyam, C.B., W.L. Kruczynski, and S.H. Drake. 1976. Studies
on the animal communities in two north Florida salt marshes.
Part II. Macroinvertebrate communities. Bull. Mar. Sci.
26:172-195.

U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with
U.S. Dept. Commerce, Census Bureau. 1982. The 1980 national
survey of fishing, hunting, wildlife associated recreation. U.S.
Govt. Printing Office. Library of Congress Catalog Card No.
82-600262. Washington, D.C. 20402.

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of seagrasses of south Florida: a
community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/25. 158 pp.

Zimmerman, R.J. and T.J. Minello. 1984. Fishery habitat
requirements: utilization of nursery habitats by juvenile
penaeid shrimp in a Gulf of Mexico salt marsh. Pp. 371-383 in
B.J. Copeland, K. Hart, N. Davis, and S. Friday (eds.), Resear-T
for Managing the Nation's Estuaries: Proceedings of a
Conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. UNC Sea Grant College
Publ. UNC-SG-84-08. 420 pp.

Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, and G. Zamora, Jr. 1984. Selection of
vegetated habitat by brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, in a
Galveston Bay salt marsh. Fish. Bull. 82: (in press).

Reprint 5

Managing Cumulative Effects
in Florida Wetlands

Conference Proceedings

of the Conference held October 17-19, 1985
at the New College Sudakoff Lecture and Conference Center
Sarasota, Florida

as convened by Mote Marine Laboratory;
Environmental Studies Program, New College of U.S.F;
and the Center for Governmental Responsibility,
University of Florida

Supported by a grant from
the Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation, Inc.,
with additional support from
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
the Florida Department of Community Affairs,
and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

SEPTEMBER 1986

E.S.P. Publication #38

CHARLOTTE HARBOR HABITAT ASSESSMENT

KENNETH D. HADDAD
BARBARA A. HOFFMAN
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Marine Research
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

ABSTRACT
Charlotte Harbor is one of Florida's largest and least impacted
estuaries. The estuarine complex includes the freshwater input of three major
rivers as well as expansive areas of mangroves and seagrass. Historical and
recent areal extent of mangroves, seagrasses, saltmarshes, mudflats, and
oyster reefs, as well as categories of upland use and vegetation, have been
assessed for change. The study area included the main harbor complex and
adjacent uplands. Urban area increased by 2490%, forest land by 17%, water
area by 8%, barren land by 26%, and transportation/utilities by 91%, while
agriculture area decreased by 22%, rangeland by 81%, and wetlands by 23%. Of
the wetland loss, 90% included loss of marine wetlands. Seagrasses declined
by 29%, saltmarshes by 51%, mudflats by 75%, and oyster reefs by 39%.
Mangroves, however, increased by 10%. Much of the seagrass loss occurred in
the area of Pine Island Sound, where three major environmental disruptions may
explain the decline: dredging the intracoastal waterway; building and
placement of the Sanibel causeway; and channeling the Caloosahatchee River.
Seagrass loss in other parts of the harbor occurred in less shallow areas,
probably indicating a decline in water quality which prevented sufficient
light penetration to the seagrasses. Most of the harbor fringe consists of
mangroves, protected since 1972 by a state preservation program. However,
adjacent to the mangrove fringe, thousands of acres of pine forest, freshwater
wetlands, and agricultural land have been replaced by clear-cut sites drained
by mazes of canals. So far, very few dwellings exist; however, the potential
cumulative impacts are great. Charlotte Harbor presents a clear case where

-175-

I
I
estuarine preservation and management will mean little without concurrent I
upland management and management of the freshwaters flowing to the harbor.

I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-176-
U

INTRODUCTION
Charlotte Harbor (Figure 1), located in Lee and Charlotte Counties on
Florida's southwest coast, is one of the state's least modified estuaries.
The harbor is approximately 56km from north to south, encompassing 92,000 ha
of water area. Total shoreline measures 320km, excluding the numerous
mangrove islands. Shallow water of 1.8m depth predominates. Tidal range
averages 0.5m and the average annual rainfall is 135cm. Recreational and
commercial fishermen extensively fish the harbor which provides, for example,
over 50% of Florida's west coast commercial landings of red drum and spotted
seatrout. In addition, over 40 endangered and threatened species live within
the Charlotte Harbor area, including at least 15 bald eagle pairs.
Three major rivers, as well as numerous small creeks, flow into
Charlotte Harbor. The Myakka and Peace Rivers together have a drainage basin
of approximately 770,'000 ha, and the Caloosahatchee River drains about 310,000
ha of land area (Taylor 1974). These watersheds include pasture land, citrus
I ~groves, and farmland. In addition, the Peace River flows through expansive
phosphate mining areas, and the Caloosahatchee River receives industrial and
* ~domestic wastes from Ft. Myers.
During periods of heavy rainfall, flow from Charlotte Harbor's rivers
* ~and creeks reduces surface salinity throughout the estuary and several
kilometers offshore. During drought periods of low river flow, a saline wedge
can occur well upstream in each of the three major rivers.
Charlotte Harbor was formed during the Great Ice Age when radical
changes in sea levels, caused by the advance and retreat of glacial ice caps,
I ~alternately bound up then released tremendous quantities of water to the
oceans. Sea levels varied by as much as 82m above and 160m below present
levels. In the last ice age, receding sea levels allowed the precursors of
the Myakka and Peace Rivers to erode broad river valleys. As the ice caps
I ~melted some 10,000 years ago, sea levels rose once more, creating the estuary
we know today as Charlotte Harbor.
MARINE HABITATS OF CHARLOTTE HARBOR

The word 'habitat' refers to the specific physical, structural, and

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~-177-

Lemon Boy -

Gasp arNi

G a s p o r i~~~~~~~~~~~~~a ~~L e e Co. I

Cayo CostaMoohoPs

North CaptivaI

sonbCOe 0

Est ero Sa %

Figure 1. Charlotte HarborI

-178 3

chemical environment in which an organism lives. Marine habitats often are
described by the dominant vegetative or other structural components found
within the particular ecosystem. From this point of view, marine habitats of
Charlotte Harbor include mangroves, seagrasses, saltmarshes, mudflats, and
oyster reefs.
Mangroves are salt-tolerant trees that grow along almost all natural
shorelines of Charlotte Harbor, including the numerous small islands. Three
species commonly exist within the system. Red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle)
are easily recognizable from their prop roots; black mangroves (Avicennia
germinans) have characteristic pneumatophores arising vertically from
underground roots; and white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa) have salt
glands at the base of the leaves. Mangroves are well known for reducing
erosion and providing nesting and rookery habitat for brown pelicans, roseate
spoonbills, common egrets, etc. The complex root systems provide hiding
places for fishes, crabs, and shellfish, and, additionally, provide a hard
surface for attachment by sessile organisms. Some scientists believe that
mangroves also provide a tremendous food supply in the form of leaf detritus.
Seagrasses are vascular plants which live in the shallow subtidal zone
of estuaries and coastal regions. Four species of seagrasses thrive within
Charlotte Harbor. Turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) has wide, flat leaves
with rounded tips. Manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme) has thin rounded
blades, while shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) has thin flat blades ending with
a forked tip. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) is a freshwater species capable
of withstanding seawater; it has thin flat blades resembling shoal grass, but
with rounded tips. Seagrasses provide food source to herbivores, such as sea
turtles and manatees, and to numerous detritivores. Seagrasses provide
shelter for fish, crabs, and shellfish and surface area for epiphytic
attachment. Seagrasses stabilize sediments and retard erosion by baffling
waves and binding the sediment. They also aid in nutrient cycling.
Exportation of seagrass blades provides energy to areas quite remote from
source beds, including areas such as beach shorelines and offshore ocean
bottoms.

-179-

Saltmarshes are herbaceous plant communities that dominate estuarine
shorelines in the northern half of Florida where winter temperatures of
near-temperate latitudes discourage mangrove growth. In Charlotte Harbor, as
in all of south Florida, saltmarshes generally serve as a transitional zone
between mangroves and freshwater marshes in rivers. Smooth cordgrass
(Spartina alterniflora) and black needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) constitute
most of the marsh vegetation; however, marshland is not a prevalent habitat
within the Charlotte Harbor system. Like seagrasses and mangroves,
saltmarshes provide a concentration of high quality food for estuarine animals
in addition to a conducive environment for early life stages. Saltmarshes are
also a fundamental part of nutrient cycles, long term accumulators of
pollution, and short-term pollution buffers. Animal production is high in
saltmarshes, again, providing a tremendous food supply in the form of tiny
organisms that are food for fisheries species.
A mudflat is an unvegetated site that becomes exposed at low tide.
During daylight hours it serves as a primary feeding ground for numerous
species of shorebirds and for wood storks, white ibis, and roseate spoonbills.
However, during the night fish, crabs, and shrimp become the major consumers.
Primary producers of mudflats include diatoms, dinoflagellates, filamentous
green algae, and blue-green algae. Measured primary productivity of 0.9
gC/m2/day (Thayer and Ustach, 1981) is less than half that of estuarine
macrophytes, but the food is in a form readily available to consumers.
Oyster reefs are composed of the gregarious American oyster
(Crassostrea virginica). Oysters reefs reduce current velocities and waves
and provide habitat for animals that require hard substratum for attachment.
In fact, every square meter of oyster reef provides at least 50 square meters
of available hard surface. The irregular surface creates interstices,
providing shelter for small fish and invertebrates. Oysters also help recycle
nutrients.
Overlying parts or all of the estuarine habitats, depending on the
tides, is the water column. The chemical, physical, and biological
composition of the water column influences virtually all aspects of the

-180-

estuary. Phytoplankton are the primary producers and their productivity is
not limited to shallow areas or shorelines as it is for seagrasses, mangroves,
and saltmarshes. Phytoplankton are capable of production in the photic zone
over the entire area of the estuary. Phytoplankton exist in a state readily
available to consumers and are essential components in the food chain that
supports larval fishes. But, an abnormal abundance of phytoplankton occurs in
many Florida estuaries as the result of increases in nutrient levels above
natural ambient levels. This process of eutrophication can have serious
implications to the quality of production in an estuary such as Charlotte
Harbor.
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Habitat assessment is just one small contribution to the overall
knowledge required to understand and manage the resources. When considering
cumulative effects of various perturbations on the Charlotte Harbor system, it
is important to measure the perturbations and their cumulative effects.
Habitat alterations have been assessed in the Charlotte Harbor region
for the 1940's and the 1980's (Harris et al. 1983). Techniques evaluated in
this endeavor are now being employed for a statewide analysis (Haddad and
Harris 1985).
The summary results of the Charlotte Harbor analysis are presented in
Table 1. The study site was based on those USGS quadrangles which bordered or
were within the harbor complex (Figure 2).
Urban area increased by 2490%, a gain of 92,395 acres. Almost 50% of
the urban increase was due to massive land boom tracts where huge areas were
cleared and roads were built. Few actual dwellings exist, even today. In
contrast, the population of Charlotte Harbor has increased by only 1246%.
Agricultural land, mostly composed of pasture and citrus, decreased
22%, a loss of 2,854 acres. Most of this acreage became urban.
In this region, rangeland is typified by a dominance of palmetto
prairies interspersed with pine. Rangeland is characterized by fields or
brushland with less than or equal to 30% trees. Rangeland decreased 81%, a
loss of 85,515 acres. Most of this loss reflected urban gains.

-181-

Table 1. Historical and recent acreages of land use and vegetation categories
in Charlotte Harbor.

Land use or Acreage
Vegetation Category 1945 1982 % Change

Urban 3,710 96,105 +2490

Agriculture 13,137 10,283 - 22

Rangeland 106,219 20,704 - 81

Forestland 34,583 40,491 + 17

Water 288,799 312,705 + 8

Wetlands 160,226 123,903 - 23

Barrenland 6,202 7,826 + 26

Transportation and
Utilities 1,801 3,433 + 91

Table 2. Historical and recent acreages of marine wetland habitats.

Wetland Habitat 1945 1982 % Change

Seagrasses 82,959 58,495 - 29
Mangroves 51,524 56,631 + 10
Saltmarsh 7,251 3,547 - 51
Mudflats 11,206 2,723 - 76
Oyster Reefs 806 488 - 39

PLACI A GO A

IPORT ioJ
BOCA A M HA
GRANDE s

PTIVA FOD M

WUL+FER BT
BEA

Figure 2. Charlotte Harbor study site and quad locations.

-183-

Forestland, defined as non-developed sites with over 30% trees,
increased 17%, a gain of 5,908 acres. Forestland was the only general
vegetation category to increase; however, the increase was determined to be an
influx of exotic species, such as Melaleuca and Australian pine. These
species often replace native vegetation.
The water category (non-vegetated bottom) increased 8%, a gain of
23,906 acres. Canal construction and loss of seagrass contributed in large
part to this increase.
Barrenland is any non-vegetated area, including cleared sites and
beaches. Barrenland increased 26%, a gain of 1,624 acres. Most of this
increase was caused by clearing vegetated sites for development purposes.
Transportation and utilities had a tremendous 91% increase of 1,632
acres. This category directly reflects population growth, since increased
roads and utilities are results of population increases.
Wetlands, both marine and freshwater, decreased 23%, a loss of 89,923
acres. Included within the wetlands cateogry are the marine habitats:
seagrasses, mangroves, saltmarshes, mudflats, and oyster reefs. These
habitats also were assessed for historical changes (Table 2).
Seagrasses declined by 29%, a loss of 24,464 acres. Over 50% of the
loss took place within the Pine Island Sound and Matlacha areas. Several
reasons may explain the loss: the intracoastal waterway was dredged through
the Sound; the Sanibel causeway was constructed; and the nearby Caloosahatchee
River was channelized. Where seagrasses were not mechanically impacted in the
Pine Island Sound area, many probably disappeared because of decreased light
levels due to sedimentation and turbidity.
Throughout the remainder of the harbor, grassbeds consistently
disappeared from deeper areas, indicating that lower light levels within the
water column could be influencing growth patterns. Increases in nutrients,
which promote phytoplankton growth, and increases in resuspendable fine
organics and clays may explain reduced water clarity, but this has not been
documented. This reduction in light could either reduce photosynthesis to a
level at which seagrasses could not survive or stress the plant to such an

-184-

extent that man-induced or natural perturbations could cause loss.
Mangrove acreage actually increased by 10%, a gain of 5,107 acres.
Although many biological factors can explain the mangrove increases, the major
factor has been management strategy. In the late 1960's the Charlotte Harbor
area was the focus for effective state, regional, and local planning. A part
of this plan was the acquisition, through purchases, mitigation and donation,
of a buffer zone of wetlands around the harbor. This habitat of marsh and
mangrove is now maintained as a functioning part of the estuarine system
* ~contributing to fish and other wildlife production and helping to maintain
water quality. Because mangroves were protected, very few trees were lost due
to direct removal for development. The mangrove increase can be explained by
natural growth onto mudflats and oyster reefs, spoil island creation, marsh
succession, and sea level rise.
Saltmarshes decreased by 51%, a loss of 3,974 acres. In addition to
- ~dredge and fill, loss may be attributed to the extensive upland development of

I ~canals which may have diverted freshwater away from saltmarshes, allowing
saltwater intrusion and inducing mangrove growth.
I ~~~Mudflats decreased by 75%, a loss of 8,483 acres. Mangrove increase
may account for much of this loss.
3 ~~~Oyster reefs were not present in large areas both historically and
recently. A 38% decline occurred, representing a loss of 322 acres.
I in ~~From a management perspective, the development of a wetland buffer zone
inCharlotte Harbor has been a success, but the loss of seagrasses suggests a
failure in managing the entire harbor as a system. In retrospect, a
I ~historical look at the development of the area can provide some insight into
probable cumnualtive impacts that affected the deeper water seagrasses of the
I ~~area.
If we assume that seagrass loss occurred because of changes in ambient
water quality and sedimentation, a number of man induced perturbations can
explain these changes:
3 ~1. Dredging and filling have catastrophic direct impacts, but the long-term
effects of dredging are most likely seen in migration of spoil deposits

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-185-

and the release of bound fine organics and clays into the system from all
aspects of the dredging activity. These organics and clays contribute to
the resuspendable benthic layer and can become resuspended easily by minorI
currents and wind-driven circulation. In Charlotte Harbor, major dredging
activities have included dredging the Intracoastal Waterway and access
channels, and placement of bridges and causeways.
2. Increases in dissolved nutrients, due to runoff and effluent discharges,
can contribute to a general increase in the phytoplankton concentrations
in the water column. Increased phytoplankton populations block light that
is normally available to the seagrasses through a clearer water column.
Man-induced nutrient inputs occur from discharges such as sewage disposal
and runoff from livestock, agriculture, and urban and suburban areas.I
3. Alterations of natural drainage patterns could have a significant effect
on ambient water quality as well as on the life cycles of various biota
utilizing the estuary. The entire drainage basin must be managed for the
maintenance of the estuary, but this is rarely accomplished. Riverine and
creek discharges are major contributors of freshwater to the estuary.
Delivery occurs through a natural percolation and filtration process whichj
both cleanses the water and maximizes the delivery time to the estuary.
In the Charlotte Harbor drainage basins, alterations of this natural
process have been induced primarily by phosphate mining, agriculturalI
production, cattle production, and urbanization. The impacts of these
drainage alterations have not been assessed quantitatively nor have
physical, chemical, or biological cumulative impacts been addressed in any
comprehensive manner. It is important from a management perspective to
define single activities that can be many kilometers upstream from the
estuary, but have potential for cumulative impacts within the estuary.
4. Altered circulation patterns induced by structures and channeling also
interact with water quality. The synergistic effects of these activities
can induce significant biological change. A dramatic example is the loss
of the scallop industry in the Pine Island Sound area. As predicted by
the USFWS (1959, c.f. Estevez), placement of the Sanibel causeway across

-186-1

San Carlos Bay precluded the survival of the scallop. Upon the completion
of the causeway in 1962, the scallop population indeed collapsed. Because
scallops require unpolluted saltwater with little freshwater input, a
likely explanation for the population collapse is the synergistic effects
of three occurrences: 1) the causeway impeding water circulation and
creating a dam effect for waters exiting San Carlos Bay; 2) changes in
freshwater quality and flow into the area due to channeling and other
alterations of the Caloosahatchee River; and 3) dredging of the
Intracoastal Waterway through the area. The results most likely included
increased turbidities, increased freshwater delivery (timing and reduction
of salinity), persistence of freshwater in the area due to the causeway,
and the subsequent demise of the scallop.
5. Drainage alterations in upland areas surrounding the harbor also have
occurred and certainly contribute to the water quality of the system. A
* ~~good example of altered drainage is represented in the Matlacha/Pine
I ~~~Island area of Charlotte Harbor for 1944 and 1982 (Figures 3 and 4). The
dotted lines depict boundaries of natural wetlands and flow patterns.
* ~~These wetland areas served as filtration and retention areas for
freshwaters before it percolated to groundwater areas or flowed into the
harbor. Major drainage alterations occurred since 1944 and are evident in
the 1982 depiction (Figure 4). The natural drainage pattern has been
replaced with a system of canals. From the developer's perspective, these
canals serve to lower the water table to: 1) reduce flooding potential;
2) provide fill for raising the land to a height above sea level to allow
I ~ ~development; 3) provide "waterfront property"; and 4) provide boat access
to the harbor by way of a maze of canals.
From a biological perspective, the potential for long-term estuarine
degradation has been created by: 1) 100% clearing of vegetation associated
with the development tract, including both uplands and wetlands (in some cases
"refuges" have been left); 2) poorly designed systems of canals which allow no
flushing or circulation and serve as sinks for nutrients (i.e., fertilizers)
and other pollutants; and 3) the rapid removal of freshwater from the land by

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-187-

* ~~~~~'3-----\ e

s-..-.--. ~
0 ''* *~~~~~~~~'

g 'I~~~~~~~~ ~ ~

I.,.
9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)* -!1:, -.'.' 3.
.5- --

K ' I I -

�b"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S U- ~~*

,.I~~~

313.,~ ~ ~ ~~~~~? / I'~0,.

~~~Ii?~~~
3.' II

I~~
N 94
or~~~~~
Dangmap ofMtah udagebsdo 94ara
Figure 3- phtgrpy
-188-~~'t 1: ~L ri�

I)5~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~TT FFOID
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-189--

the canal systems which deliver it directly to the harbor. When heavy
stormwater runoff occurs, the canals are flushed all at once, carrying
increased loads of accumulated organics and sediments directly to the harbor.I
Although a wetland buffer exists along the harbor shoreline, the canal systems
often bypass natural wetlands by direct openings to the harbor. The resultant
rapidly lowered salinities and increased dissolved nutrients, fine organics,
and sediments can impact local areas in the harbor, but additionally can
cumulatively affect the entire harbor. Some canal systems within the harbor
are designed to minimize these perturbations.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The results of cumulative impacts are difficult and expensive to
quantify, and, often the complexity of interactions precludes predicting their
effects. In the past this has led to a management strategy that only
addresses direct and local impacts, or if cumulative impacts must be
considered, the criteria for determining and regulating the impacts are based
upon poorly defined models which do not adequately weigh the ecological
integrity of the system. Effective management requires a commitment forI
long-term monitoring of water quality, structural habitat quantity and
quality, and their various associations. In addition, this requires a
commitment toward research to define quantitative biotic relationships,
cumulative effects, and all the intrinsic relationships that affect an
ecosystem.
The effects of cumulative impacts in the Charlotte Harbor region are
quantifiable if gauged by alterations in vegetative cover. Losses in marsh
and mangroves are generally the result of direct impact; consequently, the
presence and increase in these types of vegetation reflect an active role by
regulatory and planning agencies to minimize losses. Marsh and mangrove
losses through man induced perturbations still occur in small increments in
Charlotte Harbor. Although these losses can be measured, they still have an
unquantifiable cumulative impact on the environment.
Most loss of seagrass in Charlotte Harbor was not the result of direct
physical impact. The indirect cumulative impacts which caused the loss have

-190-I

not been specifically identified or quantified, although the loss itself is
quantifiable. In fact, no direct scientific data exist that describe the
physiological responses of seagrasses (in Charlotte Harbor) to any potential
impacts, such as nutrients, pollutants or reduced light penetration. The
impacts can be surmised only by deductive reasoning.
This lack of quantifiable, cause and effect information presents a
management problem that is difficult to address; in fact, quite often the
management process must be instituted without adequate information upon which
I ~to develop realistic planning.
With recent support both legally and environmentally to begin
addressing cumulative effects of human impacts on systems, the lack of
information necessary to assess cumulative impacts becomes acutely obvious.
We can no longer target a species or habitat for management without
understanding its role in the system. Unfortunately, the commitment to
provide the resources to adequately quantify the ecological processes that
occur in our wetlands has not been provided in the past and is unlikely to be
provided in the near future. This is because of a basic conflict between
* ~science and management; management requires short-term responses to immediate
problems which require long-term research for adequate response. The
* ~long-term research often does not provide the short-term gain of information
frequently perceived as necessary in budgetary allocations.
This creates a dilemma for areas such as Charlotte Harbor. Currently,
only the wetland changes are known and reasons for their change are
speculative. Seagrass coverage has declined, but why it declined is unknown,
as is the impact of the loss on the system as a whole. Can a decline in
certain fisheries populations be expected? Is there a threshold amount of
total cover and food, as provided by certain structural components such as
seagrasses, beyond which secondary production is reduced? Are certain
* ~fisheries species capable of adaptation to changing habitat availability? Is
eutrophication a causative factor in seagrass decline, or is it resuspended
organics, or possibly sea level rise, or cumulative effects of these and more?

I -~~~~~~~~~~~~191-

CONCLUSION
Charlotte Harbor is relatively unimpacted when compared with other
Florida estuaries. But the area is undergoing rapid growth which will
continue to impact the health of the system, already evidenced by seagrass
loss. Water and sediment quality is and will continue to be the most serious
issue facing management if the estuarine resources are considered in the
planning process. Current Department of Environmental Regulation water
quality standards and the Water Management Districts' freshwater management
plans do not provide adequate mechanisms to assess cumulative impacts relative
to the biological components of the system. Unless this is recognized at
state, regional, and local levels, cumulative effects of various water quality
parameters will most likely have a serious impact on the future health of the
Charlotte Harbor estuary.
LITERATURE CITED
Estevez, E.D., J.E. Miller and J. Morris. 1981. Charlotte Harbor estuarine
ecosystem complex and the Peace River, a review of scientific
information. Chapter 5, Charlotte Harbor. Rept. to SW Fla. Reg. Plan.
Council. Mote Marine Lab., Sarasota. 198 p.
Haddad, K.D. and B.A. Harris. 1985. Use of remote sensing to assess
estuarine habitats. p. 662-675, In: O.T. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Minor,
D. Clark and L.T. Tobin (eds.), Coastal Zone 85, Vol. 1, Proc. Fourth
Symp. on Coastal & Ocean Management. 1294 p.
Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger and J.A. Huff. 1983. Assessment
of fisheries habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth, Florida. Fla.
Dept. Nat. Resour. Bur. Mar. Res., St. Petersburg, FL. 211 p. + maps.
Taylor, J.L. 1974. The Charlotte Harbor estuarine system. Fla. Sci.
37(4):205-216.
Thayer, G.W. and J.F. Ustach. 1981. Gulf of Mexico wetlands: value, state of
knowledge and research needs. Proc. Gulf Coast Workshop. NOAA/Off.
Mar. Poll. Assess., Miami, FL. Oct. 1979.

-192-

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reprint 6
Eleventh International Symposium

U ~~machin Processing of

with special emphasis on

Quantifying Global Process:
Models., Sensor Systems, and Analytical

I ~~~~~~Sensor

Preprocessing Dnatai Information'

U ~~~~~June 25-27,,1985

* Reprints fro te Proceedings
Purdue University
Laboratory for Applications of Remote Sensing
3 ~~~~~~West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 USA

ASSESSIFT AND TENDS OF FLORIDA'S MARINE
FISHERIES HABITAT: AN INTEGRATION OF PERIPL
PHOTOGRAPHY AND TllTIC MAPPER IFMGERY

KENNETH D. HADDAD, BARBARA A, HARRIS

Florida Department of Natural Resources
St. Petersburg, Florida

ABSTRACT blizzards for warm winters. In doing so, they
also battled intense summer heat, mosquitoes,
Florida is currently one of the three and springtime rains that transformed the State
fastest growing states in the U. S. with into a giant swamp. Technoloqy soon included
approximately 5,000 new residents entering the ways to beat these elements of Florida's natural
state each week. Eighty percent of these environment. Air conditioning was invented.
residents choose coastal counties for their new Mosquito control programs were established. And
homes placing intense pressure on estuarine and massive canal systems replaced winding rivers
lagoonal systems. Over seventy percent of and natural sheet flows, draining the wetlands
Florida's commercial and recreational marine and creating dry land deemed more suitable for
fisheries species depend on the estuary during agriculture and housing. Since 1950, Florida's
all or some portion of their life cycle. population has literally skyrocketed and
Consequently, the alteration and removal of continues to do so today. Approximately 35-40
estuarine habitat may have dramatic impacts on people move to Florida every hour. Since over
marine fisheries. 75% of these new residents have chosen coastal
counties to establish homesites, problems
The Florida Department of Natural Resources associated with exploding growth and
is currently mapping and quantifying marine development have intensified along Florida's
emergent and submergent wetlands as critical beaches and shores. Before the environmental
components of marine fisheries habitat. The protection laws of the 70's and 80's, large
primary data base is developed from LANDSAT amounts of raw sewage and other pollutants were
Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery using an inter- disposed into estuaries. Large areas of
active image processing software package. When estuarine wetlands were ditched and diked to
submerged vegetation cannot be delineated with prevent the occurrence of a critical
LANDSAT data, aerial photographs are interpreted reproductive stage of the dreaded saltwater
for that submerged habitat and digitized into mosquito. Developers dredged, fi lled, and
the georeferenced (UTM) LANDSAT data as an constructed bulkheads and canals, creating far
interpretive enhancement. more waterfront property than Mother Nature
thought necessary. The land of the flowers
In addition to assessing current areal lacked sound growth management and transformed
coverage of marine wetlands, historical trends into a land of uncontrolled development.
at specific sites are being developed. Losses
in marine fisheries habitat in Florida's By 1970, coastal development had reduced or
estuaries have ranged from 18 to 81%. eliminated about 20% of Florida's coastal area
(Taylor 1970), areas dominated by estuaries and
The mapping effort and trend analysis have lagoons. Estuaries are among the most
broad implications for management of the productive ecosystems on Earth, producing, on an
resources. Processing techniques have proven average, over three times more vegetation than
highly successful and the integration of aerial agricultural land and about four times more than
photography has been a key element in providing lakes and streams. Estuaries provide food and
a data-enhancement approach acceptable to the shelter for a large and diverse group of living
resource manager. resources. In fact, over 70% of Florida's
marine commercial and recreational finfish and
I. INTRODUCTION shellfish depend on the estuary during all or
some part of their life cycles (Harris et al.
Florida - the word means land of the 1983). Additionally, wetland vegetation
flowers. Beginning in the 1800's, Florida's associated with estuaries provides a natural
warm climate and lush, subtropical vegetation filter system to cleanse inflowing waters. They
attracted many settlers who traded northern also stabilize bottom sediments and shorelines,

1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
130

mollifying erosive forces. Based on these II. MARINE RESOURCE GEOBASED INFORMATION SYSTEM
facts, it is obvious that estuaries must be
maintained for suitable habitation by all The importance of quantitatively mapping
species that contribute to a healthy and monitoring Florida's coastal fisheries
ecosystem. habitat has been understood but implementation
simply has not been possible due to the almost
The maintenance of estuaries in Florida is insurmountable logistical problems encountered
not only an ecological concern, but also a sound when dealing with a coastline of over 2,170
economic concern. Commercial fishermen linear kilometers. Standard photogrammetric
harvested seafood worth an estimated wholesale techniques were prohibitively costly and time
value in 1980 of $175 million and, at retail consuming, and a minimum ten year cycle in data
prices, of $1.25 billion. Approximately updates could be expected. This is inadequate
1,278,000 tourist anglers annually fish in for a state whose population is expected to more
Florida waters and Florida ranks third in the than double (maximum projected growth) its
nation in resident anglers (2,127,000) (U.S. population by the year 2020 (Smith and Sincich
Dept. of Interior 1982). Sport fishermen alone 1984), with the most intense growth affecting
generate a $1.4 billion industry. In the fragile coastal zone and, consequently, the
comparison, the Florida phosphate mining fisheries habitat so important to the state's
industry generates $1.2 billion wholesale, and economy.
cattle production, $311 million wholesale.
These statistics emphasize the importance of Based on results of a Florida LANDSAT
Florida's fishing industry. In addition to demonstration project (Brannon et al. 1981),
sound management, we must realize the long term through National Aeronautics and Space
importance of fisheries habitats to the State of Administration's (NASA) terminated Technology
Florida. Transfer Program, investigators determined that
the LANDSAT series of satellites could
Marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses play provide the primary data base for mappinq and
important roles in estuarine and nearshore monitoring Florida's estuarine and coastal
environments and are important components of marine fisheries habitat. With support from the
fisheries habitats. These components provide National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
not only food and cover, but also detrital Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
matter which ultimately fuels several food webs. through the Florida Department of Environmental
Additionally, the loss of vegetation components Regulation, the Florida Department of Natural
of a fisheries habitat has a compounding and Resources Bureau of Marine Research has
long-term effect on the estuary by eliminating implemented a fisheries habitat assessment
the role of vegetation in absorbing flood program and developed a computer-based Marine
waters, assimilating waste and excess nutrients, Resources Geobased Information System (MRGIS).
recycling nutrients, controlling shoreline The MRGIS is designed to process and integrate
erosion, and trapping particulates that result satellite data and other digital data with
from erosion. Loss of wetland habitat environmental and socioeconomic data for
components can result in reduced water quality resource analysis. The MRGIS is used primarily
and altered circulation patterns that will, in as a research and development tool for coastal
turn, affect the health of the estuary and resource management.
ultimately the fisheries.
Hardware configuration was designed to meet
Many Florida fishermen believe that the constraints of the Earth Resources Land
Florida's fisheries are declining. This trend Applications Software (ELAS), the primary
is confirmed for some species by commercial applications software installed on the MRGIS.
landings statistics (for example, spotted ELAS was sponsored and developed by the Earth
seatrout and shrimp; Florida Department of Resources Laboratory of the National Space
Natural Resources 1951-1983). A decline in fish Technology Laboratories of NASA.
populations can be the result of numerous
factors (e.g. overfishing, water quality ELAS has a FORTRAN module overlay archi-
degradation, loss of specific habitat tecture with well over 100 modules providing a
components, natural events) and to identify wide range of statistical, manipulative,
individual or synergistic processes causing a modelling, and management routines available
decline is very difficult. It is possible, interactively to the user. A complete
however, to map and quantify the estuarine description of ELAS is documented by Junkin et
habitat so important to the continued survival al. (1980).
of many species. With this information,
estuarine habitats can be monitored over future III. DATA SELECTION
years to identify areas of degradation or
change. In addition, habitat information For the development of the initial data
eventually will become an important variable in base, several specific fisheries habitat
the assessment and prediction of fisheries components were evaluated for their mapping
populations. potential. Three marine wetland vegetative
components had high potential for LANDSAT

1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
131

mapping, were considered critically important as
fisheries habitat and, in addition, were under
intense development pressures:

Seagrasses: a shallow subtidal community
represented by seven species. A areater
diversity and abundance of organisms within
grassbeds than adjacent non-vegetated sites
is well documented (Zieman 1982).
Mangroves: an intertidal community represented
by three major species. Mangroves are well
known for their ability to stabi lize
shorelines and filter water.
Saltmarsh: an intertidal community represented
by two major species. Saltmarshes have been
linked to high densities and biomass of
marine invertebrates (Zimmerman et al.
1984).
These are the prime vegetative habitat
components being mapped, however, site specific
vegetated and nonvegetated habitat components
also are being mapped (i.e. coral reefs, mud
flats, oyster bars, hard bottom, algae beds,
etc.).

A. IMAGE SELECTION

When mapping emergent marine vegetation in
Florida, imagery selection is not of critical
concern because seasonal variation is slight and
any good cloud-free imagery typically is
acceptable. However, mapping of submerged I
features such as seagrass requires very careful
selection; the primary factor is water clarity.
If submerged features are unobservable with Figure 1. A 1984 TM image (channel 1, .45-
aerial photography or TM imagery, they certainly .52 -im) of a site near Cape Canaveral, Florida.
cannot be mapped. The best times for clear Submerged vegetation (dark) is easily observed
water imagery occur in fall and winter during along the shoreline.
low tides. This rather stringent requirement
for seagrass mapping sometimes precludes the use
of LANDSAT TM data because of a low potential
for having a cloud free, low tide, clear water
image. When a clear water TM image is available
(Fig. I) the seagrasses are readily observable
and asil maped. Aeril phtogaphyis otenaccurate; (5) more distinct statistical classes
and easily mapped. Aerial photography is oftenofdtmabegnredyuilzgagetr
avai lable, cloud-free, and is usually flown in of data (s even by ur) and
the intr whn te waer s claret, Tusselection of channels (seven vs four) and
the winter when the water is clearest. Thus,opizebaddtsan 6prhste
the integration of photographic interpretations greatest asset, the simple fact that higher data
with the TM imagery has become an essential resolution (.10 vs .45 ha) is more descriptive
element in the habitat mapping program. pictorally in both the raw and enhanced data.
Invariably, TM data have been accepted or
B. THEMATIC MAPPER (TM) VS. MULTISPECRAL selected by the resource manager and even the
SCANNER (MSS) DATA general public in Florida simply because users
can more readily identify visually with features
Although the use of MSS data was successfulreovdbTM
in the initial mapping process, TM data were
selected as the prime data source as soon as it Dattavio and Dattavio (1984) have evaluated
became available for the following reasons: (1) the potential improvement of TM simulator vs MSS
better resolution reduces boundary pixel error simulator data and concluded that TM data may
between statistical classes; (2) the blue improve accuracy for mapping wetlands. It may
reflectance (.45-.52 yin) in channel I provides a be concluded that, in addition to accuracy, many
better potential for observing water character- other features of TM data optimize its use in
istics and submerged vegetation; (3) the resource management. Use of TM imagery as
infrared reflectance (1.55-1.75 vm) in channel 5
provides better potential for seperating wetland the prime data source has virtually assured the
characteristics; (4) rectification of the TM acceptance and use of the MRGIS as a too] for
data to an Earth coordinate system is more managing Florida's coastal resources.

1985 AMachine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium

IV. IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES After classification, the resultant image
is then rectified to Universal Transverse
A. TM CLASSIFICATION AND RECTIFICATION is then rectifieddiateos A semi-automated
Mercator (UTM) coordinates. A semi-automated
Since no specific ELAS TM statistical point picking routine (courtesy of Fla. Dept.
manipulatives were avai l able in the early days of Transportation) was used to rapidly produce
manipulatives were avai lable in the early dayshilyacrtreifaios Tspogm
of TM data processing, existing ELAS routines highly accurate rectifications. This program
were used to enhance the data. Because such requires the use of a digitizing table and a
were used to enhance the data. Because suchdaaf ecniigUTcoerpntfrevy
large amounts of data were to be processed, an data file containing UTM corner points for every
large amounts of data were to be processed, an U .Goo~
unsupervised training procedure was used to U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadranqle
genservate the statistics required for maximum (quad) in Florida. The quad sheet is placed on
likelihood classification. A standard ELAS the digitizing table and initialized to the UTM
module, SRCH, was selected. SRCH is an corner points. Control points for image
rectification are then qenerated by choosing a
unsupervised classifier that uses a 3x3 pixel retification are then heet usin the diitizing
window for homogeneity determination before
window for homogeneity determination before furso n the sheetponing the digithe
Iclustering or discarding the nine pixels to LANDSAT scene using thenin featur e from the
develop a maximum of 64 statistics (stats) for of TM data greatly facilitates accurate control
any ivendataset By singa 33 widowtheof TM data greatly facilitates accurate control
any given data set. By using a 3x3 window, the
data variability appears to be smoothed and point generation with root mean square residual
processing time is significantly reduced. Point errors always less than one pixel. A nearest
classifiers were extremely slow and tended to be neighbor resampling is then used to rectify the
overwhelmed by the data variability, often image to 31m UTM coordinated pixels.
producing unusable stats. B. PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND RECTIFICATION
Since the qoal for a final processed
product was an image emphasizing the fisheries I t became evident in the early stages of
habitat components and also depicting gross MRGIS development that, in some cases, specific
habitat components and also depicting qross
upland and land use categories, several TM mapping features (i.e., seagrasses) would have
chal c inations we to be extracted from aerial photographs and
channel combinations were attempted andimedd nt th LADTdaabs. hs
evaluated for these criteria. The best results dv fo the rsAT da ta base. This
by far were obtained by using channels one processing of remotely sensed d ata but is achine
through five (.45-.52, .52-.60, .63-.69,
.76-.90, 1.55-1.75 lim). Although SRCH is an practical reality. Since the LANDSAT data
unsupervised classifier, the training fields can provided the mapping base, only those features
be selected to maximize or skew the statistics of interest needed to be extracted from the
generation towards features of interest. SRCH photography. For example, if seagrasses could
develops an intermediate set of stats which are not be statistically differentiated in the TM
then merged, based on an interactively set data, existing aerial photography for the given
scaled distance (merge radius). The standard area was acquired and interpreted only for
approach to stat generation using SRCH is to run seagrasses as polygons onto mylar overlays. If
it on an entire scene or some unified portion of the photography (regardless of scale) was flight
controlled and of high Quality, the mylar
a scene. However, when developed on small, overlays could be pacd qud lity, the mylar
carefully chosen rectangles of data within a digitizer, rectified to the UTM-referenced TM
scene, the stats can be biased to better meet scene and hand-digitized directly into the data
the needs of the investigator. The selection of base. ' te ptl no dt
proper training fields is an art/science which controlled, the interpretations were first
requires an ecologiAbia s towards wetlands transferred to U.S.G.S. quads and then
image contents. A bias towards wetlands
classification can be generated by concentrating digitized.
most of the training on wetland areas and a In addition to the TM enhancement,
wetland feature ~ ~Isno adelinetediont the TMrod (ie.,n4'-90 17)hanembent
minor amount on upland areas. If some pertinent historical photography from selected time
wetland feature is not delineated in the periods (i.e., 1940's-1950's, 1970) have been
original stat generation, either a supervised interpreted to determine trends in fisheries
technique may be used or an unsupervised point h ita a eare h st daal
clustr anaysis ay berun o onlythosehabitat change. The various historical analyses
clustegor aayies may becrun onfusionly thowere digitized as separate channels of data into
categories of confusion. the corresponding UTM rectified LANDSAT scene
fi le for direct overlay and numerical
Using these techniques, rapid, accurate file for diret overay and numerical
classifications can be developed in relatively comparisons.
short periods of time. Areal comparisons
between photoanalysis and LANDSAT analysis have V. THE RESULTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
differed as little as 0.4% for wetlands TO THE REAL WORLD
calculation of identical regions (Haddad and Although LANDSAT technology has been
Harris, in press). These investigators also avai lable for well over a decade, its acceptance
found a 69-72% cost reduction and an 83% time
reduction by using LANDSAT TM imagery over has been slow. In the early days of technology
aeredcialphotonray asing LANDT Trime y bse. transfer, LANDSAT was oversold as a panacea to
aerial photography as the prime data base.

1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
133

the remote sensing world and the resource
manager. As a result, the resource manager
labelled LANDSAT as a marginally acceptable tool
for providing useful data for resource
decisions. This attitude is changing in Florida
for several reasons: (I) the positive results
of NASA's now terminated Technology Transfer
Program demonstrated LANDSAT applications and
provided a base upon which to mature into the
technology; (2) software developments have
provided for more accurate information
extraction; (3) image processing facilities have I
become increasingly less costly, and; (4) the
advent of Thematic Mapper data has areatly
enhanced the interest of the resource manaqer.

As with all technoloqies, LANDSAT must
demonstrate its capabilities and fill a niche in
the real world. This did not occur as rapidly
as predicted, but the impetus is now growinq and
the applications of LANDSAT technology are many.
Certainly the LANDSAT founding fathers did not
envision that the first programmatically applied
use of LANDSAT data in Florida would be to map
marine fisheries habitats. However, a syste-
matic approach to mapping fisheries habitat for Figure II. A statistically processed
the entire State of Florida has been initiated TM image of a 12 km site in Indian River,
and the results have many implications. Florida. Mangroves are depicted in black
A. INDIAN RIVER and seagrasses in white. Seagrasses were
interpreted from 1984 aerial photography
The Indian River is actually a saltwater and imbedded into this 1982 image.
lagoon extending 192km along Florida's east
coast. It is separated from the Atlantic Ocean
by a series of barrier islands divided by
narrow, natural and man made inlets. The Indian freshwater vegetations. Instead of the ourist
River supports a rich abundance of marine flora approach to rectifying the data (i.e. further
and fauna which are increasingly subject to time consuming data reduction), a rapid and
coastal development. practical approach was used: understanding
that mangroves simply are not found in fresh-
Commercial landings of several estuarine water habitats and taking advantage of the
dependent species in the Indian River system, interactive capabilities of the MRGIS, the
i.e. spotted seatrout and shrimp, have indicated freshwater "mangroves" were changed to a fresh-
a statistical ly significant decline in water wetland category. This reinforces a
harvestable populations since the 1950's. The premise maintained in this mapping program:
reasons for declines can be all or one of many machine processing of LANDSAT TM data must be
factors, i.e. natural population fluctuations, augmented interactively with information derived
overharvesting, climatological events, loss of from both aerial photography and the investi-
habitat, etc. These parameters are difficult to gator's ecological understanding of the system,
elucidate and quantify, but by knowing the being mapped.
location and trends in the major fisheries
habitat components, the resource manager can Within the present 120 coastal kilometers
evaluate and attempt to maintain the estuarine mapped in the Indian River, mangroves comprised
environment as a useful nursery around for 3,198 hectares (ha) of a total 33,425 ha of
juveni le and adu It commercially and estuarine habitat. But, based on mosquito
recreationally important fisheries species. impoundment locations (Biddlingmeyer and McCoy
1978), only 767 ha are available to the fishery.
The predominant vegetated habitat Mosquito impoundments are a control measure for
components in the lower two thirds of Indian saltwater mosquitos that consists of bui ding a
River (current study site) were mangroves dike around the wetland breeding habitat and
interspersed with several succulent marsh controlling water levels within the impoundment
species and seagrasses. LANDSAT 4 TM imaqery to prevent adult mosquitos from laying eggs.
for July 1982 was used as the primary data Unfortunately, this removes access into and out
source in the mapping effort. Statistical of this critical fisheries habitat component and
processing of the TM data easily delineated the consequently, 76% of the existing emerged
mangrove populations in the study area (Fig. vegetated wetlands in the Indian River are not
II). However, several of the mangrove productive to fisheries.
categories were found to be confused with some

134 1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium

The Indian River is often turbid and in northeastern Florida have become an issue of
seagrass beds were unobservable by using the focus as federal, state, and local officials
acquired TM imagery. Existing aerial attempt to manage a rapidly increasing
photographs (Feb., 1984) with good water population. An assessment of this growth and
penetration were photointerpreted for seaqrasses its impacts on the fishery is difficult to
and the results were digitized into the TM data interpret but the area has been mapped and
base ( Fig. II). Seagrasses were found to cover assessed for impacts on fisheries habitats
2,777 ha of the bottom. (Durako et al., in press).

Although the location and aerial Three sites in northeast Florida have been
calculations of the existing habitat are of analyzed for habitat alteration from the 1940's
prime importance, trends in habitat change also and 1950's to the present: (1) an 11.3 km
are important in assessing local habitat impacts coastal segment with Ponce de Leon Inlet
and areas suitable for habitat restoration. (Volusia County, Fla.) as the center; (2) a
Several areas in the Indian River were mapped 12.9 km segment beginning north of St. Auqustine
for historical coverage (1940/1950 and 1970) and Inlet and extending north; and (3) an area
the interpretations entered into the LANDSAT beginning at St. Johns River Inlet (Jackson-
data base. An approximate 30% decline in ville, Fla.) and extending 5.6 km on either side
seagrasses (1,214 ha) can be estimated from the of the Inlet and up the river 16 km. The
resulting trends. Although an estimated 76% of historical interpretations were based on black
the existing mangroves are lost to the fishery and white aerial photographs (Soil Conservation
by mosquito impounding, a total of 86% of the Service). A TIPS formatted, May 14, 1984
mangrove/marsh has been lost to the fishery LANDSAT TM image was used as the primary data
since the 1940's. base.

A visual pattern of seagrass loss for one The Ponce de Leon Inlet segment experienced
area in Indian River is depicted in Figure III. an overall 20% decline of marine wetlands since
This image is the result of digitizing the 1943 (Fig. IV). A 19% decline in emergent
seagrasses for 1951, 1970, and 1984 into the wetland vegetation occurred while 100% (30 ha)
LANDSAT data base, then removing all other of the seagrasses were lost. In both the
features to dramatize the patterns in seagrass photoanalysis and the TM analysis of Ponce de
change. This 12 km stretch of estuary Leon Inet, three categories of emergent wetland
surrounding Sebastian Inlet, Fla. experienced a were delineated: mangrove, saltmarsh/manqrove
38% (514 ha) decline in seagrass since 1951, (70% saltmarsh and 30% mangrove), and saltmarsh.
with 16% of that decline occurring after 1970. The areal extent of mangrove declined from 1,290
ha to 951 ha 26% decrease), saltmarsh/mangrove
B. NORTHEAST FLORIDA increased from 458 ha to 518 ha (11% increase),
and saltmarsh decreased from 172 ha to 104 ha
The impacts of growth on fisheries habitat (39% decrease). Several important conclusions

Figure III. A historical analysis of the Sebastian Inlet area
showing areal coverage of seagrasses over a 33-year time span.

1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
135

can be developed from the trends. First, the
wetland structure of the Ponce de Leon Inlet
area is changing vegetatively, evidenced by the
decrease in saltmarsh coverage and increase in
the saltmarsh/manqrove coverage. Manoroves are
a tropical species; their northern limit (for
substantial populations) extends just north of
Ponce de Leon Inlet. One can expect the ratio
of mangrove to marsh to vary with time,
depending on climatological events such as
winter freezes. These natural changes in
habitat components do not reflect a loss of
habitat but merely a change in habitat.

A second conclusion that can be drawn from
the trend analysis for Ponce de Leon Inlet is
that 347 ha of emergent wetland were lost since
1943 because of direct human impact. Dredge and
fill for development and the Intracoastal
Waterway were the prime contributors to the
total loss of wetlands. An estimated 167 ha of
spoil were dredged and dumped onto the wetlands
prior to 1943 as a result of construction of the
Intracoastal Waterway. By 1984, many of these
areas had been expanded by further spoi I
dumping. Several spoil islands now contain
urban development while others are now
vegetated. Most impacts occurred in the early
1900's. Spoi l deposits near Ponce de Leon Inlet
(1943) cover 15 ha of marsh per linear km of
Waterway. One hundred seventy three linear
kilometers of coastal northeast Florida
marsh-lands were impacted by the Waterway.
Gross extrapolation of these figures indicates
1lo~go D - , that approximately 3,461 ha of fisheries habitat
in northeast Florida already may have been
impacted by the placement of dredge spoil by
1943. This includes only areas impacted by
spoil; it does not include areas actually
dredged before 1943 or dredged and impacted by
spoil placement after 1943.

* Mangrove 1943 1290ha The St. Augustine area analysis indicated a
20% loss of marsh since 1952. The majority of
1984: 951ha the loss occurred in an area which had been
dammed and converted to a freshwater lake (Guano
(m/m) 1984: 104ha marsh; 518ha m/m Lake). Once a marshland tributary, this area
has been totally removed from fishery
production.
Water
The Jacksonville/St. Johns Inlet analysis
indicated a 36% loss of marsh habitat since
1943. This area has experienced the greatest
loss in NE Florida primarily due to dredge and
Figure IV. A comparison between marine fill activities related to military and
wetlands near Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida for industrial development. Loss prior to 1943 was
1943 and 1984. Two categories, marsh and marsh/ extensive but immeasurable. A large amount of
mangrove, were combined pictorally to create one the river's shoreline is composed of spoil; most
marsh/mangrove category, but have been addressed of the people living there are unaware that they
as separate numerically, live on a once productive marshland.
These three locations may represent "worst
case" areas, but development is expanding in all
directions. Early Florida coastal communities
centered at inlets to exploit ocean access for
fishing and trade; thus, growth impacts have
been greatest in these areas.

1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
136

Table I. Summary of fisheries habitat alteration for several Florida estuaries.

Seagrasses Mangroves Saltmarsh Mangrove/Saltmarsh

Indian River -30% -86% -
Charlotte Harbor -29% +10% -51%
Tampa Bay -81%1 - - .44%2
Ponce de Leon Inlet -100% - -19%
St. Augustine Inlet NP NP -20%
St. Johns Inlet NP NP -36%

NP = not present
1Lewis et al., in press
2Lewis 1982

VI. SUMMARY Durako, M.J., M.D. Murphy, and K.D. Haddad. (in
Florida is undergoing tremendous growth and press). Coastal fisheries and habitats:
development pressures, with continual issues and impacts. Northeast Florida. In
occurring on marine fisheries habitat components Growth Impacts on Coastal N.E. Florida and
that are important in maintaining a viable Growth Impacts on Coastal N.E. Florida and
commercial and recreational fishery. Until the Georgia. Jan. 24-26, 1985. Jacksonville,
development of the LANDSAT program and, more
recently, availability of Thematic Mapper data, Florida Dept. Natural Resources. 1951-1982.
no practical method existed to map and monitor a Florida Landings. Tallahassee, Fla.
coastline as extensive as Florida's. The use of
an unsupervised TM data classification procedure Haddad, K.D. and B.A. Harris (in press). Use
and the integration of photointerpreted of remote sensing to assess estuarine
supplemental data has proven a simple, habitats. Proceedings Coas tal Zone 85.
cost-effective approach to a potentially complex July 30Aug. 2, 1985. Baltimore, Maryland.
July 30-Aug. 2, 1985. Baltimore, Maryland.
and costly problem.
The resulting habitat maps are providing a Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger, and
very essential data base for effective J.A. Huff. 1983. Assessment of fisheries
management of Florida's resources. The results
of habitat trend analyses have suggested Florida. Florida Dept. Natural Resources,
substantial losses of fisheries habitat Bureau Marine Research, St. Petersburg, FL.
throughout Florida (Table I). The visual and 211 pp + map.s
quantitive aspects of the data are providing
the public and local and state officials with Junkin, B., R. Pearson, R. Seyfarth, M. Kalcic,
the incentive to address habitat loss and and M. Graham. 1981. ELAS Earth Resources
alteration as a serious issue of Florida's Laboratory Applications Software. NASA/
coastal zone. NSTL Earth Resourcves Laboratory Rep. No.
183. NSTL Station, MS.

Lewis, R.R., III. 1982. Mangrove Forests. Pp.
153-171 in R.R. Lewis, III (ed.), Creation
LITERATURE CITED and Res-toration of Coastal Plant
Uommunities. LKL Press, boca Katon,
Biddlingmeyer, W.L. and E.D. McCoy. 1978. An Florida.
inventory of the saltmarsh mosquito control
impoundments in Florida. Fla. Medical Lewis, R.R., M.J. Durako, M.D. Moffler, and R.C.
Entomology Laboratory, P.O. Box 520, Vero Phillips. Seagrass meadows of Tampa Bay -
Beach, Fl. 32960. 103 pD + maps and a review. Proceedings Bay Area Scientific
appendices. Information Symposium (BASIS), Tampa, Fla.
In press.
Dottavio, C.L. and F.D. Dottavio. 1984.
Potential benefits of new satellite
sensors to wetland mapping. Photo. Eng.
and Rem. Sens. 50(5): 599-606.

1985 Machine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
137

Smith, S.K. and F. Sincich. 1984. Projections
of Florida population by county 1985-2020.
Population Studies Bull. No. 68., Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, College of
Business Administration, Univ. of Fla.,
Gainesville.
Taylor, J.L. 1970. Coastal development in
Tampa Bay, Florida. Mar. Poll. Bull.
1(10):153-156.

U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
in conjunction with U.S. Dept. Commerce,
Census Bureau. 1982. The 1980 national
survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife
associated recreation. U.S. Govt. Printing
Office. Library of Congress Cat. Card No.
82-600262. Washington, D.C. 20402.
Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of seagrasses
of south Florida: a community profile.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS-82/25. 158 pp.

Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, and G. Zamora,
Jr. 1984. Selection of vegetated habitat
by brown shrimp, Penaeus aztecus, in a
Galveston Bay saltmarsh. FTTsUu IlI. 82:
(in press).

Kenneth D. Haddad is a Biological Scientist
with the Florida Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Marine Research. He is responsible
for the development and operation of the Marine
Resources Geobased Information System within the
Department of Natural Resources. His present
research includes assessing the use of satellite
imagery, predicting and monitoring oceanic,
toxic red tide blooms based on hydrographic and
biological features, and assessing and using
remote sensing techniques to map and monitor
wetland habitats. He holds a Master of Science
degree in marine science from the University of
South Florida.

Barbara A. Harris is a Biological Scientist
with the Piorida Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Marine Research. Her work mainly
focuses on the change and loss of Florida's
estuarine habitats through ohotographic inter-
pretation and satellite imagery analysis. She
also monitors trends in sea turtle nesting
throughout the State. She received her
Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Studies/
Ecology from University of Florida.

1985 Allachine Processing of Remotely Sensed Data Symposium
138