artificial reef monitoring in florida coastal counties · 2015-06-24 · artificial reef monitoring...

Artificial ReefMonitoring

in FloridaCoastal Counties

Artificial ReefMonitoring

in FloridaCoastal Counties

William Seaman

2 Florida Sea Grant College Program

Acknowledgments

At the planning stage of this project, J. Dodrill, W. Horn and K. Mille of the FloridaFish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) provided comments on the informa-tion to be gathered from counties, and identified contacts. W. Lindberg, University ofFlorida (UF), also commented on content of the questions. W. Sargent and H. Norris,FWC, and R. Swett, UF, patiently advised on Geographic Information System methods.J. Whitehouse, UF, designed the fill-in form, and along with K. Wagner, UF, typedversions of this document. The latter also assisted with formatting of figures. Commentsto strengthen this manuscript were provided by J. Dodrill, W. Horn, W. Lindberg, K.Mille and R. Swett. Finally, special thanks go to the individuals in the Florida coastalcounties who provided information for this report: T. Ash, G. Bennett, F. Buckman,G. Burns, M. Cantrtell, J. Colle, P. Davis, M. Edwards, K. FitzPatrick, P. Fletcher,B. Fluke, B. Flynn, G. Garrett, J. Gorham, C. Halsey, J. Hubertz, C. Koepfer, L. Kornel,W. Lindberg, D. McLam, K. Neel, C. Olson, M. Solum, D. Suitor, R. Turpin, C. Vare,S. Vascavage, L. Walters and B. Yoder.

This publication was supported by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Departmentof Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under NOAA Grant No.NA 16RG-2195. The views expressed are those of the author and do not neccessarily reflect theviews of these organizations. No endorsement of product is made.

Additional copies are available from Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, PO Box 110409,Gainesville, FL, 32611-0409, (352) 392-5870.

SGEB-58 April 2004(Cover photo courtesy Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission)

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Artificial Reef Monitoring in Florida Coastal Counties 3

Artificial Reef Monitoring in Florida Coastal Counties

William Seaman

Associate Director, Florida Sea Grant College ProgramProfessor, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida

Contents

Setting and Terminology ............................................................. 5Objectives ................................................................................... 7Methods ...................................................................................... 7Results ........................................................................................ 7

County Reef Program Census............................................... 7Reef Assessment and Data Management ............................. 9Geographic Information System Applications ........................ 11

Conclusions and Opportunities ................................................... 11References ................................................................................. 14Appendix: Census Questionnaire ............................................... 15


The principal purpose ofthe hundreds of human-made reefs in Florida hasbeen to enhancesportfishing. A relocatedpetroleum platform isdeployed in southeastFlorida (A) . Materials ofopportunity are increas-ingly being augmented bydesigned structures (B) incounty reef programs.Below, custom-mademodules are used inFlorida’s Big Bend.

A

B

Figure 1 Enhancing the sport fishery.

Photos courtesy V. Reggio and R. Brantley

Photos courtesy W. Lindberg


Setting and Terminology

An artificial reef is “one or more objects ofnatural or human origin deployed purposefullyon the seafloor to influence physical, biologicalor socioeconomic processes related to livingmarine resources” (Seaman and Jensen, 2000, p.5). Often the intent is to mimic the naturalenvironment. Two types of reefs from Florida aredepicted in Figure 1. In Florida the focus hasbeen on developing recreational fisheries. Sec-ondarily, recreational diving enhancement andhabitat restoration have been goals in certainlocalities. Around the world, meanwhile, human-made reefs are utilized in a broader variety ofsituations, to protect or restore aquatic habitats,enhance marine ranching or tourism, and pro-duce seafood.

In Florida, local initiative is the hallmark inthe planning and construction of human-madereefs. To this day, county-level efforts and

This bulletin describes artificial reef monitoring programs in Florida. At least half thenation’s human-made marine reefs are estimated to be in Florida waters and high interestexists statewide among fishing, diving, governmental, economic and other stakeholders in theperformance of these structures and the habitats that they create. Further, the level andbreadth of activity in Florida makes it a bellwether, nationally and worldwide, for interestsconcerned with aquatic science, ecosystem management and environmental technology forhabitat restoration or creation.

Recent developments in Florida have prompted increased interest and effort in “monitor-ing” of reefs. These include extensive studies and disseminating results by the academicresearch community and the advent of governmental funding for monitoring projects in Floridacounties. In response, this study was undertaken to gauge this growing field. Assessment of reefperformance—including evaluation of how well they meet objectives for which they werecreated—has been a neglected subject in many areas of the world. More immediate issues ofreef materials selection, siting and deployment usually take precedence in the short-term.

A principal readership for this paper is the network of county-level organizations andindividuals whose largely independent efforts, taken as a composite, make up much of theFlorida reef “program.” Information presented here describes the extent and nature of reefmonitoring in Florida counties, how data are managed and aspects of communication aboutreefs.

programs determine who builds reefs and wherethey are placed, subject to Federal and Stateregulations. This contrasts with many other areaswhere a designated state governmental agencyhas primary responsibility for siting and deploy-ment of reefs. The usual procedure for reefconstruction in Florida is for a county govern-mental entity to provide an established organiza-tional base to address and resolve, at a minimum,regulatory, permitting and administrative issues.Some county agencies also physically handlereef materials and operate professional naturalresources departments able to measure attributesof the reef on-site (Figure 2). Stakeholders suchas recreational fishing and diving interests areactive partners, commonly securing free orsurplus materials, volunteering labor and equip-ment and participating in and sometimes leadingfield observations of reef sites. Universityscientists and state agency experts round out theeffort.


In the 1990s, the Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission (FWC) expandedefforts to coordinate and facilitate the loosenetwork of local independent efforts growingaround the state. The State Legislature beganfunding reef construction in 1980 (J. Dodrill,personal communication), augmented by Federalmonies. To date 514 construction grants havebeen awarded. As of October 2003 the FWClisted 2,010 deployments on its website. (Theearliest was built in 1959; not all were built withFWC grants.) Because this number (2,010)connotes “deployments” of individual items,which in fact may be located over time at onecommon geographic reef site as opposed to aunique isolated position, it is higher than theactual number of “reefs” (estimated at severalhundred) in Florida waters. Many reefs resultfrom multiple deployments at or very close toone point.

The availability of State construction grantsprompted centralization of reef planning activi-

ties at the county level because of the need for acontact point to apply for, receive and administerFWC funds. Further, as the grant processevolved, the FWC Artificial Reef Programdeveloped both an in-house capability to monitorreef sites and a process for funding grantees tomonitor reefs in their counties. Six monitoringgrants were awarded in the 2002-2003 fiscalyear by FWC, complementary to the morenumerous construction grants.

The term “monitoring,” while well estab-lished in the vocabulary of resource managers,scientists and stakeholders, often has differentmeanings. For the purposes of this bulletin, it isdefined broadly as making rigorous scientificobservations at varied levels of complexity andfor different subjects. This might include, forexample, recording presence or absence of plant,invertebrate and fish species at a given reef site;measuring physical attributes, such as watertemperature or subsidence of reef materials; orsurveying usage or economic expenditures by

County technical staff, college faculty and stu-dents, and volunteer citizens all contribute tomaking observations and recording data atFlorida reef sites. At left, county-owned water-front staging areas and seagoing vessels areavailable in some Florida reef programs. Above,on-site investigation of artificial reef attributesis often done by scuba divers employed in acounty agency.

County programs have range of available resources.Figure 2

Photos courtesyFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission


anglers and divers. The National ResearchCouncil (2000), taking a fairly broad view, refersto monitoring as “observation or measurement ofan ecosystem variable to understand the natureof the system and changes over time” (p. 198),while noting that its role extends to “compliancemonitoring,” research, and modeling. Lindberg(2003) discussed differentiation among types ofassessment studies in a keynote presentation tovolunteer reef monitors. He reflects that the termmonitoring “has often been used to describeinventories and baseline studies,” while discuss-ing it as one narrower aspect of the field ofassessing and “accountability for managementactions” (p.5).

Objectives

This report summarizes features of reef moni-toring practiced within the coastal counties ofFlorida, as conducted or contracted by the desig-nated county-level organizations providing leader-ship for reef development. Individual researchefforts of particular laboratories or scientists are notaddressed; nor are pre-deployment site selectionpractices. The focus is on technical questions thatrelate to reef performance, the assessments con-ducted to answer them, and how data are managed.The use of Geographic Information System (GIS)methods to depict spatial data in aquatic scienceshas grown (e.g., Nishida and Booth, 2001), andthus part of the study determined GIS practices andinterest related to Florida artificial reefs.

The profile of county reef monitoring practicescontained within this study is meant to enablecomparisons between counties, foster exchange ofinformation and techniques among counties, andfacilitate coordination between counties and Stateinterests. Identification of research and trainingneeds and opportunities provides guidance toacademic, agency and extension/outreach profes-sionals in the planning of future artificial reefefforts in Florida.

MethodsData for this study were obtained in the

answers to 17 questions presented to individuals —reef coordinators — who are responsible forleadership of part or all of the artificial reef pro-grams in the coastal counties of Florida. Theseindividuals were identified by the FWC Artificial

Reef Program within the Division of Fisheries,which provided a contact list of persons withwhom it deals on matters of reef construction andmonitoring grant funding locally. Communicationwith reef coordinators initially was by electronicmail, using a cover letter and attached “fill-inform” (see Appendix) to acquire information. Thelist was revised during the project to reflectchanges in personnel. Follow-up communication toobtain missing information was by telephone andelectronic mail. At the outset, FWC sent an elec-tronic message of endorsement for the project to allactive coastal counties .

This study was conducted under the auspices ofstatewide reef research and outreach efforts of boththe Florida Sea Grant College Program, whichprovided limited support staff assistance, and theDepartment of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,University of Florida. The FWC, while not directlyinvolved, was afforded the opportunity to commenton the questions asked. The majority of responseswere received between April and December 2002,with limited follow-up afterward. Responses weretransposed into an ArcView GIS (version 3.2) at-tributes table. A project view was created contain-ing multiple themes, each corresponding to a par-ticular question asked. Limited supplemental infor-mation was obtained from FWC personnel and theagency website. ArcView GIS was used to reportsome results as a series of maps and to demonstratethis emerging data management technology.

ResultsThis section describes activities associated

with Florida county reef programs, summarizespractices to assess reef characteristics andmanage data, and profiles the use of and interestin GIS. Most of the database is derived frominformation supplied by 29 individuals repre-senting 30 counties.County Reef Program Census

Of the 35 coastal counties in Florida (Figure3), all except Jefferson have artificial reefslocated in their marine waters. Thirty-two coun-ties have reef “programs”—which are character-ized by county organizations involved in reefplanning and deployment recognized by theFWC. Each of these has an individual serving asa designated FWC contact. The two remaining


FRANKLINGULF

WAKULLABAY

BREVARD

BROWARD

CHARLOTTE

CITRUS

COLLIER

DADE

DIXIE

DUVAL

ESCAMBIA

FLAGLER

HERNANDO

HILLSBOROUGH

INDIANRIVER

JEFFERSON

LEE

LEVY

MANATEE

MARTIN

MONROE

OKALOOSA

PALM BEACH

PASCO

PINELLAS

ST. JOHNS

ST. LUCIE

SANTA ROSA

SARASOTA

TAYLOR

VOLUSIA

WALTON NASSAU

Positions of Florida counties reef program coordinators.

BAY–Mexico Beach Artificial Reef AssociationResearch Director

BREVARD–Parks Support Services Manager

BROWARD–Natural Resources Specialist II

CHARLOTTE–Charlotte Marine Research TeamVolunteer

CITRUS–Aquatic Services Director

COLLIER–Senior Environmental Specialist

DIXIE–Water Quality Extension Agent

DUVAL–Reef Research Team President

ESCAMBIA–Division of Marine Resources Chief

FLAGLER–Environmental Planner III

FRANKLIN–Organization for Artificial Reefs Volunteer

GULF–(None)

HERNANDO–Waterways Technician

HILLSBOROUGH–Artificial Reef Coordinator/Environmental Supervisor

INDIAN RIVER–Coastal Resources Manager

JEFFERSON–(No Reef Program)

LEE–Marine Biologist

LEVY–Unofficial Reef Coordinator (Faculty Volunteer)

MANATEE–Environmental Manager

MARTIN–Coastal Engineer

MIAMI-DADE–Special Project Administrator

MONROE–Marine Resources Director

NASSAU–County Coordinator*

OKALOOSA–Environmental Services Manager

PALM BEACH–Environmental Program Supervisor

PASCO–Parks Division Manager

PINELLAS–Ocean Operations Supervisor

SANTA ROSA–Grants Coordinator (No Reef Program)

SARASOTA–Environmental Specialist III

ST. JOHNS–Facilities Maintenance Manager

ST. LUCIE–Central Services Project Manager

TAYLOR–County Extension Director IV

VOLUSIA–Inlet and Port District Manager

WAKULLA–Organization for Artificial Reefs Volunteer

WALTON–Grants Coordinator*

Figure 3

* Titles for two positions are not confirmed.


counties (Gulf, Santa Rosa; the latter with acontact) are served by adjacent county programsthat deploy reefs in or near their waters andboating access points. Some county programsare government-sponsored or funded, whileprivate organizations take the lead elsewhere.For detailed description of artificial reef deploy-ments and materials in the counties see FWCwebsite:

http://marinefisheries.orgFlorida’s county reef coordinators have

diverse backgrounds, and as a whole, there are avariety of paid and a few unpaid positions (Figure3). Typically they devote only part-time effort toreef program leadership. The majority are profes-sional staff, employed in either a managerial/administrative (15 individuals) or a technical/scientific (7) capacity (Figure 4). To illustrate thepositions held, the managerial group includes a“division manager” and “environmental supervi-sor,” while the technical group includes a “naturalresources specialist” and “marine biologist”. Inaddition there are three counties where universityfaculty (one in research, two in extension) coordi-nate the reef program. Four private citizens, includ-ing a high school teacher and a retired oceanogra-

pher, volunteer as coordinators and also leadenvironmental monitoring efforts in five othercounties.

Reef Assessment and Data ManagementTwenty-two Florida counties (of 32 reef

programs; two not reporting) conduct “monitoring”of artificial reefs in their coastal waters (Figure 5).The three broad categories of reef attributes as-sessed by them are physical (e.g., temperature, reefmovement; by 17 counties), biological (e.g.,species abundance; 22) and socio-economic (e.g.,expenditures, usage; nine). Almost a third of thecounties are making observations for all threecategories, and almost half combine physical andbiological assessment. In no case were physicaland economic measurements ever made alone, butalways in concert with biological observations.Three of the remaining ten counties with reefprograms were either considering or developingmonitoring efforts.

The assessment practices reported by countiesreflect the information needs of their county reefprograms. Table 1 indicates the subject areasidentified by reef contacts in response to the

Employment status of county reef program coordinators.

PositionsManagerTechnicalAcademicCitizenNo Reef ProgramNo DataInterior, No Reefs

Figure 4


Extent and nature of monitoring artificial reefs.

InformationPhysical-Biological-EconomicPhysical-BiologicalBiological-EconomicBiologicalNo MonitoringNo DataInterior, No Reefs

question, “By monitoring, what are the three mostimportant questions you hope to answer?”Seventy percent of all questions were biological,with 47 questions stated by county contactsfitting 12 categories. Most commonly, individu-als wanted to know about species assemblages,including diversity, abundance and recruitment(13 questions); the ecological effects of andspecies preferences for reef materials, designsand habitats (12 questions); and the overallproductivity and performance of reefs relevant toecology and fisheries (eight questions). Anothersix questions focused on the response of selectedspecies (e.g., target species, gamefish) to habitat.Twenty-one percent of questions dealt withphysical attributes of the reef, principally withstability (12 questions) and also with mapping toverify site coordinates and accuracy of place-ment. Finally, nine percent of questions ad-dressed socioeconomic issues, such as usage,benefit and productivity of reefs. As an initialstudy of reef monitoring, this project did notgather more specific information on the actualattributes measured nor the methods employed toacquire data.

Once field data are in-hand, storage at thecounty reef program is by means of electronic,paper and video practices (Figure 6). Electronicstorage of data is done by 18 counties, eitherexclusively (10) or in concert with either paper(four) or video records (three) or both (one). Twocounties maintain paper and video records. Twocounties that monitor reef attributes were revis-ing procedures at the time of this study, so didnot report on methods. The computer softwareused in electronic data storage includedMicrosoft (MS) Excel (used by nine counties),MS Access (five), MS Word (three), ArcView(two), MS Office (one), Map Info (one),Chartview Tracker (one), and Real Player (one).Four counties using Excel indicated that theyused the FWC format for data spreadsheets.

Information about artificial reefs and ad-dresses is provided on websites by 15 countyprograms (Figure 7). Note that websites aresubject to change.

Figure 5


Geographic Information System ApplicationsThe use of GIS in county reef programs is

depicted in Figure 8. Fifteen counties use thismethodology, principally for mapping of reefsites. In these counties, nine (64%) of the reefcontacts are “experienced” with GIS, while theothers were less familiar but could rely oncolleagues for GIS procedures. In the countiesnot using GIS for reef applications, three indi-viduals (19%) regarded themselves as experi-enced, while seven were “aware” of it. Interest inlearning more about GIS was expressed by eightcounties, with six interested in training opportu-nities.

The FWC reef program also maintains a GISdatabase. It principally serves in-house datamanagement and subsequent presentations ofinformation to county audiences. Without havinga description of its content or applications, 21

Table 1 Subject areas for which reef monitoring information is sought.

county contacts expressed interest in learningmore about it.

Conclusions and OpportunitiesIn its entirety the Florida “artificial reef

program” is a quilt of local and mainly indepen-dent initiatives coordinated by 32 individualcounties, which in turn are not so much linked asundergirded to varying degrees by the statewideFWC Artificial Reef Program. This concludingsection identifies possible ways for both sectors,county-based and state-level, to coordinate andcooperate in enhancing programs. Based onreports from 94% of Florida coastal counties,this paper determined that two-thirds ofFlorida counties with reef deployment effortsalso conduct monitoring. These efforts resultfrom interest on the part of stakeholders thatbuild (e.g., county government) or use (e.g.,

Category of General InformationBiological

Assemblages of organisms• Species presence and diversity .............................................................................. 11• Baseline species diversity and abundance ............................................................. 1• Recruitment and colonization .................................................................................. 1

Habitat structure and function• Productivity/effects of materials and configurations/designs ................................... 10• Overall biological/fishery productivity/performance/effectiveness ........................... 8• Response of target species .................................................................................... 6• Species habitat and material preference ................................................................. 2

Impacts• Longevity of habitat ................................................................................................. 2• Impact of fishing on community structure ................................................................ 2• Artificial vs. natural reefs (habitat complexity, community/assemblage structure) ... 2• Role of no-take reefs ............................................................................................... 1• If harm done ............................................................................................................ 1

47Physical

• Stability (durability, longevity) .................................................................................. 12• Mapping .................................................................................................................. 2

14Economic

• Use of reefs ............................................................................................................ 2• Quality of reefs ........................................................................................................ 1• Benefits of reefs ...................................................................................................... 1• Cost and biological productivity ............................................................................... 1• Needs of public ....................................................................................................... 1

6


Format of data storage records obtained in monitoring reefs.

anglers, divers) reefs, are led by paid staff andvolunteers, and have been enhanced by FWCreef monitoring grants.

Principal features shared in common by theFlorida county reef programs include part-timeleadership by designated coordinators, a focuson biological attributes in reef monitoring, andthe use of electronic storage media for reefdata. Differences, meanwhile, include widevariations in the backgrounds of reef coordina-tors, the scope of reef monitoring (or lackthereof), and degree to which websites andGIS practices are used to communicate informa-tion. There is a trend to start or revise monitoringand growing interest in expanding the use ofcomputer-based information management anddissemination.

In keeping with the emphasis of this study onmonitoring, the following opportunities aresuggested:

For county reef programs that may be inearlier stages of development, there is a good

opportunity to learn from and coordinate withmonitoring practices in the 22 counties wherethey are established at some level. There arenumerous possibilities for sharing experiences,such as in organizing field work, and applyingstandard observational and data managementtechniques.

For county reef programs already conductingmonitoring, there is opportunity to expand fromthe biological observations made in all 22 coun-ties to include physical and socio-economic datagathering.

The expressions of interest made by somecounties to learn about monitoring in othercounties are matched by statements from othercounties of being quite willing to share experi-ences. Thus, there are opportunities regionallyand statewide to bring reef monitoring interestsof varying expertise together.

Among active reef monitoring programsthere is an opportunity to standardize datarecordkeeping—or at least debate its merits. This

Information StorageElectronicElectronic & PaperElectronic, Paper & VideoElectronic & VideoPaper & VideoNo MonitoringData PendingInterior County

Figure 6


applies, for example, to the use of differentsoftware (e.g., Excel, Access, Word) for similarpurposes in different counties, and to the vari-able use of the FWC format for data spread-sheets.

The opportunity for more experiencedcounty programs to share experiences withothers extends to the use of websites to publicizeinformation about reefs. Examination of the 15websites reported for this study reveals widevariability in the content provided and how it ismanaged. Photographs of reef materials andsites, for example, are notably lacking. A countythat is about to develop or revise a reef websitecould benefit by surveying existing sites todevelop categories of information to address.

The use of Geographic Information Systemscan be expanded both quantitatively and qualita-tively. The expression by several reef coordina-tors of high interest in GIS training represents anobvious continuing education opportunity.Meanwhile, the principal use of GIS for reef site

mapping indicates an opportunity to developother applications of this information manage-ment and portrayal tool, such as in the depictionof biological trends for assemblages of reeforganisms. Again, counties with GIS efforts arewilling to assist others.

At the regional level, there is opportunity tocompare monitoring results among counties.This could build up the size of datasets for givenspecies or reef types, and extend the geographicbasis for interpreting results. Ultimately, compi-lation of all county data in the FWC systemcould afford both analysis of regional and state-wide information and access by local users todata from one or more counties. The softwareused for data records should be consideredcarefully for versatility and usefulness. Countyinterest in the FWC website suggests that stan-dardization of data sets may better facilitate thesharing of monitoring information statewide.

One rationale for monitoring is to givefunding sources as well as reef-builders and

County reef program websites in Florida.

Bay www.mbara.orgBroward www.broward.org/bri01000.htmCharlotte www.medicalwebdoctors.com/cmrtinc/areef.htmCitrus www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/aquatics/aquatic_services.htmCollier www.co.collier.fl.us/natresources/reefs/Duval www.jaxrrt.orgEscambia www.co.escambia.fl.us/pdf/artificialreefs.pdfHillsborough www.epchc.orgLee www.lee-county.com/naturalresourcesMartin www.martin.fl.us/GOVT/depts/psd/coastal/reef/Miami-Dade www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/derm/reefs/home.aspOkaloosa www.co.okaloosa.fl.us/reefs.htmPalm Beach www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/erm/divisions/enhancement/habitat/artficialreef/Pinellas www.utility.co.pinellas.fl.us/reef.htmlVolusia www.volusiareefs.org

Figure 7

County WebsitesYesNoData PendingInterior, No Reefs


Use of Geographic Information Systems in county programs.

users solid and objective information that theycan use in making decisions about reef objec-tives, deployment and evaluation. Monitoringdone consistently across county lines affordsgreater comparability, such as for the effects ofreefs on given species. In addition, monitoringgenerates information to answer basic scientificquestions and provides numerous educationalopportunities. As the State of Florida ArtificialReef Strategic Plan is implemented, the role ofmonitoring as a means of strengthening thescientific basis for reefs must be addressed.

The opportunity for future studies of Floridareef monitoring is to provide more detail onactual practices of field observation and dataanalysis, perhaps including examples and casestudies.

Finally, it was beyond the scope of this studyto develop a history of reef-building in Floridaor to inventory the numerous materials, designs,and locations used in deployments. The value ofsuch an effort, though, would be to archive andhelp explain the development of current prac-tices.

References

Lindberg, W.J. 2003. Data rich and conclusion poor:How can we learn more for the effort? Pp. 5-7 in: W.Seaman, B. Smiley, T. Pitcher and L. Wood, editors.Research and monitoring of marine reefs usingvolunteer divers. Fisheries Centre Research ReportVolume 11, Number 2. University of British Columbia.

National Research Council. 2000. Clean coastalwaters: Understanding and reducing the effects ofnutrient pollution. National Academy Press, Wash-ington, D.C. 405 pp.

Nishida, T. and A.J. Booth. 2001. Recent approachesusing GIS in the spatial analysis of fish populations.Pp. 19-36 in: Spatial Processes and Management ofMarine Populations. Alaska Sea Grant Program AK-SG-01-002.

Seaman, W., Jr. and A.C. Jensen. 2000. Purposesand practices of artificial reef evaluation. Pp. 1-19 in:W. Seaman, Jr., editor. Artificial Reef Evaluation.CRC Press, New York.

Status of GISGIS UsedGIS Not UsedNo DataInterior, No Reefs

Figure 8


Florida Study of Reef Monitoring and GeographicInformation System Use by County Programs

A. COUNTY INFORMATION:1. Name of respondent:2. County name:3. Position (Job/Title) in county:4. Number of active permitted reef sites in county waters:B. MONITORING INFORMATION5. Does your program monitor its reef sites in any way?: Yes (Go to #7) No (Go to #6)6. If NO MONITORING, please explain in a line or two (then go to #11):7. If there is monitoring, please indicate what kind:

Physical (e.g., stability, longevity)Biological (e.g., diversity, production)Socio-Economic (e.g., usage, costs/returns, expenditures)

8. By monitoring, what are the three most important questions you hope to answer?(1)(2)(3)(4 Others if you have them and have time to list.)

9. Once monitoring data are gathered, how do you store them? (Describe briefly)A. Also, what software is used?B. Also, what is the format used to store data?

10. Once monitoring data are gathered, how do you analyze them? (Describe briefly)

C. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS11. How familiar are you with “Geographic Information System” (GIS) procedures?

ExperiencedUnderstand, but do not useAware of itUnfamiliar

12. Do you or anyone in your reef program use GIS in artificial reef data management?Yes (Go to #14) No (Go to #13, then 15)

13. If GIS is not used in your reef program, what is your priority to try or use it?HighHigh, and would be interested in training or demonstrationModerateLowNone

14. How is GIS used in your reef program (or in a related department)?15. If there is a website for your reef program or links to relevant GIS projects in your county, please list:16. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Artificial Reef Program office in Tallahassee

maintains a GIS.A. If the GIS were available on-line, would you be interested in using it?B. If so, how? (Please describe your top two interests.)

D. OTHER17. If there is anything else that you’d like to mention about GIS, or any other reef-related issue, please

give us your thoughts.

Appendix: Census questionnaire sent electronically to county contactss

Science Serving Florida’s CoastFlorida Sea Grant College Program

PO Box 110400University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611-0400(352) 392-5870

www.flseagrant.org

Coastal Artificial Reef HabitatTechnology and ExtensionDeveloping and extendingscience-based information toimprove artificial reef technol-ogy in Florida’s coastalwaters is a priority for FloridaSea Grant. Most of its coastalcounty-based extensionfaculty are involved in someactivity related to artificialreefs. Through close andactive engagement withcitizens and organizations atthe county level, they provideplanning, siting, deployment,monitoring and education forartificial reef decision-mak-ing. Their work is backed bythe rigorous research compo-nent of the Florida Sea GrantCollege Program.

Recently, extension facultyhave organized the annualWest Coast Reef Coordina-tors conference, providedhands-on assistance tosecure and deploy reefmaterials in, among otherplaces, Charlotte Harbor,advised volunteers in under-water monitoring, and as-sisted various county applica-tions for reef grants.

Complementary to their workis the contribution of state-wide extension specialistsand university-based re-search faculty. They developand synthesize new informa-tion about artificial reefs, inpart to address questionsraised by county stakehold-ers and extension facultyalike about such topics asthe economic impact ofartificial reefs, the effects ofhuman-made reefs on naturalreefs, or methods of manag-ing reef monitoring data. Partof the information storehousecomes from 15 major re-search projects sponsoredover time by Florida SeaGrant.

Florida Sea Grant’s Exten-sion Program will continue tobe proactive and responsiveto the widespread Floridareef-building community.Examples of new effortsbeing considered are theorganization of a workshop tooffer training in GIS applica-tion to reef data manage-ment, and writing Extensionpublications on reef planningand design.

Photo courtesy Daniel Hughes

artificial reef monitoring in florida coastal counties · 2015-06-24 · artificial reef monitoring...

Documents