Title: Artificial reef monitoring in Florida coastal counties
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095862/00001
 Material Information
Title: Artificial reef monitoring in Florida coastal counties
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Seaman, William
Publisher: Florida Sea Grant Program, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: April, 2004
Copyright Date: 2004
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00095862
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

flsgpt04001 ( PDF )


Full Text























..........



iw~d





2 Florida Sea Grant College Program


Acknowledgments

At the planning stage of this project, J. Dodrill, W. Horn and K. Mille of the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) provided comments on the informa-
tion to be gathered from counties, and identified contacts. W. Lindberg, University of
Florida (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, typed
versions of this document. The latter also assisted with formatting of figures. Comments
to 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 coastal
counties 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. Komel,
W. Lindberg, D. McLam, K. Neel, C. Olson, M. Solum, D. Suitor, R. Turpin, C. Vare,
S. Vascavage, L. Walters and B. Yoder.


SeFloridat
Florida


UNIVERSITY OF
'FLORIDA
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences


This publication was supported by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department
of 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 necessarily reflect the
views 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)


IV a I





Artificial ReeJ \ i., i,,i 1. ig in Florida Coastal Counties 3


Artificial Reef Monitoring in Florida Coastal Counties



William Seaman

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



Contents


Setting and Term inology ....................................... .......... ....
O objectives ........................ ........ ................. ........ ....
M ethods ...................... ................................. ......
Results ...................... ......................................
County Reef Program Census........................................
Reef Assessment and Data Management ......................
Geographic Information System Applications .................
Conclusions and Opportunities ...........................................
R efe re nce s ............................................. ..............
Appendix: Census Questionnaire ..........................................





4 Florida Sea Grant College Program


Figure 11


rnotos courtesy v. rmeggio ana rm. traniiey


Photos courtesy W. Lindberg


Enhancing the sport fishery.



The principal purpose of
the hundreds of human-
made reefs in Florida has
been to enhance
sportfishing. A relocated
petroleum platform is
deployed in southeast
Florida (A) Materials of
opportunity are increas-
ingly being augmented by
designed structures (B) in
county reef programs.
Below, custom-made
modules are used in
Florida's Big Bend.





Artificial ReeJ \ .I, ,,i r. i g in Florida Coastal Counties 5


This bulletin describes artificial reef monitoring programs in Florida. At least half the
nation human-made marine reefs are estimated to be in Florida waters and high interest
exists statewide among fishing, diving, governmental, economic and other stakeholders in the
performance of these structures and the habitats that they create. Further, the level and
breadth of activity in Florida makes it a lk'11 I either; nationally and worldwide, for interests
concerned i/ ith aquatic science, ecosystem management and environmental technology for
habitat 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 academic
research community and the advent of governmental funding for monitoring projects in Florida
counties. In response, this study was undertaken to gauge this growing field. Assessment of reef
performance-including evaluation of how well they meet objectives for which they were
created-has been a neglected subject in many areas of the world. More immediate issues of
reef 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 and
individuals whose largely independent efforts, taken as a composite, make up much of the
Florida reef "program. Information presented here describes the extent and nature of reef
monitoring in Florida counties, how data are managed and aspects of communication about
reefs.


Setting and Terminology

An artificial reef is "one or more objects of
natural or human origin deployed purposefully
on the seafloor to influence physical, biological
or socioeconomic processes related to living
marine resources" (Seaman and Jensen, 2000, p.
5). Often the intent is to mimic the natural
environment. Two types of reefs from Florida are
depicted in Figure 1. In Florida the focus has
been on developing recreational fisheries. Sec-
ondarily, recreational diving enhancement and
habitat restoration have been goals in certain
localities. Around the world, meanwhile, human-
made reefs are utilized in a broader variety of
situations, to protect or restore aquatic habitats,
enhance marine ranching or tourism, and pro-
duce seafood.
In Florida, local initiative is the hallmark in
the planning and construction of human-made
reefs. To this day, county-level efforts and


programs determine who builds reefs and where
they are placed, subject to Federal and State
regulations. This contrasts with many other areas
where a designated state governmental agency
has primary responsibility for siting and deploy-
ment of reefs. The usual procedure for reef
construction 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 handle
reef materials and operate professional natural
resources departments able to measure attributes
of the reef on-site (Figure 2). Stakeholders such
as recreational fishing and diving interests are
active partners, commonly securing free or
surplus materials, volunteering labor and equip-
ment and participating in and sometimes leading
field observations of reef sites. University
scientists and state agency experts round out the
effort.





6 Florida Sea Grant College Program


In the 1990s, the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) expanded
efforts to coordinate and facilitate the loose
network of local independent efforts growing
around the state. The State Legislature began
funding reef construction in 1980 (J. Dodrill,
personal communication), augmented by Federal
monies. To date 514 construction grants have
been awarded. As of October 2003 the FWC
listed 2,010 deployments on its website. (The
earliest was built in 1959; not all were built with
FWC grants.) Because this number (2,010)
connotes "deployments" of individual items,
which in fact may be located over time at one
common geographic reef site as opposed to a
unique isolated position, it is higher than the
actual number of "reefs" (estimated at several
hundred) in Florida waters. Many reefs result
from multiple deployments at or very close to
one point.
The availability of State construction grants
prompted centralization of reef planning activi-


ties at the county level because of the need for a
contact point to apply for, receive and administer
FWC funds. Further, as the grant process
evolved, the FWC Artificial Reef Program
developed both an in-house capability to monitor
reef sites and a process for funding grantees to
monitor reefs in their counties. Six monitoring
grants were awarded in the 2002-2003 fiscal
year by FWC, complementary to the more
numerous construction grants.
The term "monitoring," while well estab-
lished in the vocabulary of resource managers,
scientists and stakeholders, often has different
meanings. For the purposes of this bulletin, it is
defined broadly as making rigorous scientific
observations at varied levels of complexity and
for different subjects. This might include, for
example, recording presence or absence of plant,
invertebrate and fish species at a given reef site;
measuring physical attributes, such as water
temperature or subsidence of reef materials; or
surveying usage or economic expenditures by


County programs have range of available resources.


County technical staff, college faculty and stu-
dents, and volunteer citizens all contribute to
making observations and recording data at
Florida reef sites. At left, county-owned water-
front staging areas and seagoing vessels are
available in some Florida reef programs. Above,
on-site investigation of artificial reef attributes
is often done by scuba divers employed in a
county agency.


rnoios courtesy
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission


Figue 2





Artificial ReeJ \ .' ,,ii .i o. in Florida Coastal Counties 7


anglers and divers. The National Research
Council (2000), taking a fairly broad view, refers
to monitoring as "observation or measurement of
an ecosystem variable to understand the nature
of the system and changes over time" (p. 198),
while noting that its role extends to "compliance
monitoring," research, and modeling. Lindberg
(2003) discussed differentiation among types of
assessment studies in a keynote presentation to
volunteer reef monitors. He reflects that the term
monitoring "has often been used to describe
inventories and baseline studies," while discuss-
ing it as one narrower aspect of the field of
assessing and "accountability for management
actions" (p.5).
Objectives

This report summarizes features of reef moni-
toring practiced within the coastal counties of
Florida, as conducted or contracted by the desig-
nated county-level organizations providing leader-
ship for reef development. Individual research
efforts of particular laboratories or scientists are not
addressed; nor are pre-deployment site selection
practices. The focus is on technical questions that
relate 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 sciences
has grown (e.g., Nishida and Booth, 2001), and
thus part of the study determined GIS practices and
interest related to Florida artificial reefs.
The profile of county reef monitoring practices
contained within this study is meant to enable
comparisons between counties, foster exchange of
information and techniques among counties, and
facilitate coordination between counties and State
interests. Identification of research and training
needs and opportunities provides guidance to
academic, agency and extension/outreach profes-
sionals in the planning of future artificial reef
efforts in Florida.

Methods
Data for this study were obtained in the
answers to 17 questions presented to individuals -
reef coordinators who are responsible for
leadership of part or all of the artificial reef pro-
grams in the coastal counties of Florida. These
individuals were identified by the FWC Artificial


Reef Program within the Division of Fisheries,
which provided a contact list of persons with
whom it deals on matters of reef construction and
monitoring grant funding locally. Communication
with reef coordinators initially was by electronic
mail, using a cover letter and attached "fill-in
form" (see Appendix) to acquire information. The
list was revised during the project to reflect
changes in personnel. Follow-up communication to
obtain missing information was by telephone and
electronic mail. At the outset, FWC sent an elec-
tronic message of endorsement for the project to all
active coastal counties .
This study was conducted under the auspices of
statewide reef research and outreach efforts of both
the Florida Sea Grant College Program, which
provided limited support staff assistance, and the
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
University of Florida. The FWC, while not directly
involved, was afforded the opportunity to comment
on the questions asked. The majority of responses
were received between April and December 2002,
with limited follow-up afterward. Responses were
transposed 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 the
agency website. ArcView GIS was used to report
some results as a series of maps and to demonstrate
this emerging data management technology.

Results
This section describes activities associated
with Florida county reef programs, summarizes
practices to assess reef characteristics and
manage data, and profiles the use of and interest
in GIS. Most of the database is derived from
information supplied by 29 individuals repre-
senting 30 counties.
County Reef Program Census
Of the 35 coastal counties in Florida (Figure
3), all except Jefferson have artificial reefs
located in their marine waters. Thirty-two coun-
ties have reef "programs"-which are character-
ized by county organizations involved in reef
planning and deployment recognized by the
FWC. Each of these has an individual serving as
a designated FWC contact. The two remaining





8 Florida Sea Grant College Program


3C:MBIAfKA[
~NTA RfSA


SI DADE





Artificial ReeJ \ i., i,,i ..i in Florida Coastal Counties 9


Positions
Manager
Technical
Academic
Citizen
No Reef Program
No Data
Interior, No Reefs


counties (Gulf, Santa Rosa; the latter with a
contact) are served by adjacent county programs
that deploy reefs in or near their waters and
boating access points. Some county programs
are government-sponsored or funded, while
private organizations take the lead elsewhere.
For detailed description of artificial reef deploy-
ments and materials in the counties see FWC
website:
http://marinefisheries.org
Florida's county reef coordinators have
diverse backgrounds, and as a whole, there are a
variety of paid and a few unpaid positions (Figure
3). Typically they devote only part-time effort to
reef 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 the
positions held, the managerial group includes a
"division manager" and "environmental supervi-
sor," while the technical group includes a "natural
resources specialist" and "marine biologist". In
addition there are three counties where university
faculty (one in research, two in extension) coordi-
nate the reef program. Four private citizens, includ-
ing a high school teacher and a retired oceanogra-


L :




I

~NIj
h1 ,~


pher, volunteer as coordinators and also lead
environmental monitoring efforts in five other
counties.

Reef Assessment and Data Management
Twenty-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, reef
movement; by 17 counties), biological (e.g.,
species abundance; 22) and socio-economic (e.g.,
expenditures, usage; nine). Almost a third of the
counties are making observations for all three
categories, and almost half combine physical and
biological assessment. In no case were physical
and economic measurements ever made alone, but
always in concert with biological observations.
Three of the remaining ten counties with reef
programs were either considering or developing
monitoring efforts.
The assessment practices reported by counties
reflect the information needs of their county reef
programs. Table 1 indicates the subject areas
identified by reef contacts in response to the


aM Employment status of county reef program coordinators.


" 4





10 Florida Sea Grant College Program


question, "By monitoring, what are the three most
important questions you hope to answer?"
Seventy percent of all questions were biological,
with 47 questions stated by county contacts
fitting 12 categories. Most commonly, individu-
als wanted to know about species assemblages,
including diversity, abundance and recruitment
(13 questions); the ecological effects of and
species preferences for reef materials, designs
and habitats (12 questions); and the overall
productivity and performance of reefs relevant to
ecology and fisheries (eight questions). Another
six questions focused on the response of selected
species (e.g., target species, gamefish) to habitat.
Twenty-one percent of questions dealt with
physical attributes of the reef, principally with
stability (12 questions) and also with mapping to
verify 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 initial
study of reef monitoring, this project did not
gather more specific information on the actual
attributes measured nor the methods employed to
acquire data.


Once field data are in-hand, storage at the
county reef program is by means of electronic,
paper and video practices (Figure 6). Electronic
storage of data is done by 18 counties, either
exclusively (10) or in concert with either paper
(four) or video records (three) or both (one). Two
counties maintain paper and video records. Two
counties that monitor reef attributes were revis-
ing procedures at the time of this study, so did
not report on methods. The computer software
used in electronic data storage included
Microsoft (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 they
used the FWC format for data spreadsheets.
Information about artificial reefs and ad-
dresses is provided on websites by 15 county
programs (Figure 7). Note that websites are
subject to change.


Extent and nature of monitoring artificial reefs.


'% .-- -- .




V \




Information
Physical-Biological-Economic
Physical-Biological
Biological-Economic -' -
Biological
No Monitoring
[11 No Data
Interior, No Reefs s -





Artificial ReeJ I ..'i. inig in Florida Coastal Counties 11


Geographic Information System Applications
The use of GIS in county reef programs is
depicted in Figure 8. Fifteen counties use this
methodology, principally for mapping of reef
sites. In these counties, nine (64%) of the reef
contacts are "experienced" with GIS, while the
others were less familiar but could rely on
colleagues for GIS procedures. In the counties
not using GIS for reef applications, three indi-
viduals (19%) regarded themselves as experi-
enced, while seven were "aware" of it. Interest in
learning more about GIS was expressed by eight
counties, with six interested in training opportu-
nities.
The FWC reef program also maintains a GIS
database. It principally serves in-house data
management and subsequent presentations of
information to county audiences. Without having
a description of its content or applications, 21


county contacts expressed interest in learning
more about it.

Conclusions and Opportunities
In its entirety the Florida "artificial reef
program" is a quilt of local and mainly indepen-
dent initiatives coordinated by 32 individual
counties, which in turn are not so much linked as
undergirded to varying degrees by the statewide
FWC Artificial Reef Program. This concluding
section identifies possible ways for both sectors,
county-based and state-level, to coordinate and
cooperate in enhancing programs. Based on
reports from 94% of Florida coastal counties,
this paper determined that two-thirds of
Florida counties with reef deployment efforts
also conduct monitoring. These efforts result
from interest on the part of stakeholders that
build (e.g., county government) or use (e.g.,


iEi Subject areas for which reef monitoring information is sought.


Category of General Information
Biological
Assemblages of organisms
Species presence and diversity ................................................. ............... 11
Baseline species diversity and abundance ........................................ ..... ....... 1
Recruitm ent 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 m 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
47
Physical
Stability (durability, longevity) ........................ .... .. .. .... .. ........... .. 12
M a p p in g ................................................. ..... . . ..... ......... ..... 2
14
Economic
U s e o f re e fs .......................................................................... 2
Q quality of reefs ..................... ........................... . .... 1
Benefits of reefs .......................................................... ............. 1
Cost and biological productivity ........................................ ............ . ........... 1
Needs of public ................. .. ........................... .......... 1
6





12 Florida Sea Grant College Program


Format of data storage records obtained in monitoring reefs.


anglers, divers) reefs, are led by paid staff and
volunteers, and have been enhanced by FWC
reef monitoring grants.
Principal features shared in common by the
Florida county reef programs include part-time
leadership by designated coordinators, a focus
on biological attributes in reef monitoring, and
the use of electronic storage media for reef
data. Differences, meanwhile, include wide
variations in the backgrounds of reef coordina-
tors, the scope of reef monitoring (or lack
thereof), and degree to which websites and
GIS practices are used to communicate informa-
tion. There is a trend to start or revise monitoring
and growing interest in expanding the use of
computer-based information management and
dissemination.
In keeping with the emphasis of this study on
monitoring, the following opportunities are
suggested:
For county reef programs that may be in
earlier stages of development, there is a good


opportunity to learn from and coordinate with
monitoring practices in the 22 counties where
they are established at some level. There are
numerous possibilities for sharing experiences,
such as in organizing field work, and applying
standard observational and data management
techniques.
For county reef programs already conducting
monitoring, there is opportunity to expand from
the biological observations made in all 22 coun-
ties to include physical and socio-economic data
gathering.
The expressions of interest made by some
counties to learn about monitoring in other
counties are matched by statements from other
counties of being quite willing to share experi-
ences. Thus, there are opportunities regionally
and statewide to bring reef monitoring interests
of varying expertise together.
Among active reef monitoring programs
there is an opportunity to standardize data
recordkeeping-or at least debate its merits. This


Sgr61


Information Storage
Electronic
Electronic & Paper
Electronic, Paper & Video
Electronic & Video
Paper & Video
No Monitoring
Data Pending
Interior County


'I


"


-1- .

./'
-y





Artificial ReeJ \I ,,'r. 'i 11 in Florida Coastal Counties 13


Bay
Broward
Charlotte
Citrus
Collier
Duval
Escambia
Hillsborough
Lee
Martin
Miami-Dade
Okaloosa
Palm Beach
Pinellas
Volusia


www.mbara.org
www.broward.org/bri01000.htm
www.medicalwebdoctors.com/cmrtinc/areef.htm
www.bocc.citrus.fl.us/aquatics/aquatic_services.htm
www.co.collier.fl.us/natresources/reefs/
www.jaxrrt.org
www.co.escambia.fl.us/pdf/artificialreefs.pdf
www.epchc.org
www.lee-county.com/naturalresources
www.martin.fl.us/GOVT/depts/psd/coastal/reef/
www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/derm/reefs/home.asp
www.co.okaloosa.fl.us/reefs.htm
www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/erm/divisions/enhancement/habitat/artficialreef/
www.utility.co. pinellas.fl. us/reef.html
www.volusiareefs.org


applies, for example, to the use of different
software (e.g., Excel, Access, Word) for similar
purposes in different counties, and to the vari-
able use of the FWC format for data spread-
sheets.
The opportunity for more experienced
county programs to share experiences with
others extends to the use of websites to publicize
information about reefs. Examination of the 15
websites reported for this study reveals wide
variability in the content provided and how it is
managed. Photographs of reef materials and
sites, for example, are notably lacking. A county
that is about to develop or revise a reef website
could benefit by surveying existing sites to
develop categories of information to address.
The use of Geographic Information Systems
can be expanded both quantitatively and qualita-
tively. The expression by several reef coordina-
tors of high interest in GIS training represents an
obvious continuing education opportunity.
Meanwhile, the principal use of GIS for reef site


mapping indicates an opportunity to develop
other applications of this information manage-
ment and portrayal tool, such as in the depiction
of biological trends for assemblages of reef
organisms. Again, counties with GIS efforts are
willing to assist others.
At the regional level, there is opportunity to
compare monitoring results among counties.
This could build up the size of datasets for given
species or reef types, and extend the geographic
basis for interpreting results. Ultimately, compi-
lation of all county data in the FWC system
could afford both analysis of regional and state-
wide information and access by local users to
data from one or more counties. The software
used for data records should be considered
carefully for versatility and usefulness. County
interest in the FWC website suggests that stan-
dardization of data sets may better facilitate the
sharing of monitoring information statewide.
One rationale for monitoring is to give
funding sources as well as reef-builders and


County reef program websites in Florida.


County Websites
Yes
No
Data Pending
Interior, No Reefs


I Figure 7 1





14 Florida Sea Grant College Program


users solid and objective information that they
can use in making decisions about reef objec-
tives, deployment and evaluation. Monitoring
done consistently across county lines affords
greater comparability, such as for the effects of
reefs on given species. In addition, monitoring
generates information to answer basic scientific
questions and provides numerous educational
opportunities. As the State of Florida Artificial
Reef Strategic Plan is implemented, the role of
monitoring as a means of strengthening the
scientific basis for reefs must be addressed.
The opportunity for future studies of Florida
reef monitoring is to provide more detail on
actual practices of field observation and data
analysis, perhaps including examples and case
studies.
Finally, it was beyond the scope of this study
to develop a history of reef-building in Florida
or to inventory the numerous materials, designs,
and locations used in deployments. The value of
such an effort, though, would be to archive and
help 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 using
volunteer divers. Fisheries Centre Research Report
Volume 11, Number 2. University of British Columbia.

National Research Council. 2000. Clean coastal
waters: Understanding and reducing the effects of
nutrient pollution. National Academy Press, Wash-
ington, D.C. 405 pp.

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

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


Use of Geographic Information Systems in county programs.


Status of GIS
GIS Used
GIS Not Used
No Data
Interior, No Reefs


Figure 8 1





Artificial ReeJ \ ]..'r. 'i ig in Florida Coastal Counties 15


- ,,i*i3 Census questionnaire sent electronically to county contacts

Florida Study of Reef Monitoring and Geographic
Information 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 INFORMATION
5. 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 SYSTEMS
11. How familiar are you with "Geographic Information System" (GIS) procedures?
Experienced
Understand, but do not use
Aware of it
Unfamiliar
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?
High
High, and would be interested in training or demonstration
Moderate
Low
None
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. OTHER
17. If there is anything else that you'd like to mention about GIS, or any other reef-related issue, please
give us your thoughts.


















ft^.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs