DISL-MBNEP-SAV2015-002-2016 English DISL-MBNEP-SAV2015-000-2016 Mimi Tzeng DISL Data Management Data Management Specialist 101 Bienville Boulevard Dauphin Island AL 36528 metadata@disl.org 2016-08-29 ISO 19115:2003/19139 1.0 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of Coastal Alabama - Summer Polygon Data (MBNEP Survey 2015) 2016-06-30 This data set consists of digital vector data describing the location and species composition of submerged aquatic vegetation in coastal Alabama during summer 2015, including Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay, Mobile-Tensaw Delta, Little Lagoon, Bay La Launch, Perdido Bay, and their communicating tributaries. The data set includes 1,068 orthophotograph frames and a MrSID mosaic produced from digital aerial imagery acquired on July 17, 18, and 19 and August 23, 25, and 26. SAV was concentrated in upper Mobile Bay and the Mobile-Tensaw Delta, Mississippi Sound, and the Perdido Key area of southeast Baldwin County. Most of the 2015 SAV acreage occurred in the lower Mobile-Tensaw Delta, particularly in the Bridgehead Quadrangle, which contained 65% (5,905.0 ac) of the total 9,124.3 acres mapped. Other areas of substantial acreage included the Mobile Quadrangle (1,021.2 ac) in the Delta and the Grand Bay Quadrangle (414.6 ac) in Mississippi Sound. Seventy-eight percent of the total SAV acreage (7,116.7 acres) was mapped as continuous (>50%) coverage. Overall, there were 3,875.6 more acres mapped in 2015 than in the 2009 MBNEP survey, mostly due to a 2,454.7-ac increase in the Bridgehead Quadrangle and a 511.4-ac increase in the Mobile Quadrangle. Locations that had no SAV in 2009 but had substantial acreage in 2015 included areas in the Dog River, Chickasaw Creek, and West Fowl River watersheds. Of the 28 habitat categories, most were comprised of mixtures of species occurring in oligohaline systems of the study area. The intended use of this data set is to provide an assessment of the status and trends of the summer distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation along the Alabama Coast in 2015. Roberta Swann Mobile Bay National Estuary Program Director 251-431-6409 118 North Royal Street Suite 601 Mobile Alabama 36602 mbnep@mobilebaynep.com Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. 8060 Cottage Hill Road Mobile AL 36695 Quantum Spatial, Inc. 727-576-9500 10033 MLK St. North Suite 200 St. Petersburg FL 33716 ESRI ArcGIS 10.3.0.4322; Version 6.2 (Build 9200) submerged aquatic vegetation SAV species composition coastal habitats Dauphin Island Sea Lab DISL Mobile Bay National Estuary Program MBNEP Alabama Mobile County Baldwin County Mobile Bay Mobile Tensaw Delta Mississippi Sound Perdido Bay Little Lagoon Bay La Launch Dauphin Island Fort Morgan Perdido Key Weeks Bay Wolf Bay Acknowledgment of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab (DISL), Mobile National Estuary Program (MBNEP), Alabama DCNR State Lands Division - Coastal Section, and Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. is required in products developed from these data, and such acknowledgment as is standard for citation and legal practices for data source is expected by users of these data. Users should be aware that comparison with other data sets for the same area from other time periods may be inaccurate due to inconsistencies resulting from changes in mapping conventions, data collection, and computer processes over time. The distributor shall not be liable for improper or incorrect use of these data, based on the description of appropriate/inappropriate uses described in the metadata document. These data are not legal documents and are not to be used as such. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping in Mobile Bay and Adjacent Waters of Coastal Alabama in 2015 2016 Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc. Mobile Bay National Estuary Program Mobile Alabama USA http://www.mobilebaynep.com/images/uploads/library/SAV_2015_Report.pdf DISL-MBNEP-SAV2015-000-2016 English biota imageryBaseMapsEarthCover inlandWaters oceans 2015-07-17 2015-08-26 -88.401908 -87.449668 30.228693 30.827469 true MBNEP 2015 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - Aerial Imagery Polygons MBNEP Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey - Feature Catalogue 2016-09-01 A shapefile containing 1294 study area polygons describing the location and species composition of submerged aquatic vegetation in coastal Alabama during summer 2015. Spatial_Data_Organization_Information: Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Vector Point_and_Vector_Object_Information: SDTS_Terms_Description: SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: GT-polygon composed of chains Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 1294 Spatial_Reference_Information: Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition: Planar: Map_Projection: Map_Projection_Name: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 16N Transverse_Mercator: Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.9996 Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -87.0 Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 0.0 False_Easting: 500000.0 False_Northing: 0.0 Planar_Coordinate_Information: Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: coordinate pair Coordinate_Representation: Abscissa_Resolution: 0.000000002220024164500956 Ordinate_Resolution: 0.000000002220024164500956 Planar_Distance_Units: meter Geodetic_Model: Horizontal_Datum_Name: D North American 1983 Ellipsoid_Name: GRS 1980 Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.0 Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222101 A MrSID mosaic produced from digital aerial photography of coastal Alabama acquired on July 17, 18, and 19 (Mobile Bay, Mobile-Tensaw Delta, Dauphin Island, Ft Morgan, and Perdido Key) and August 23, 25, and 26 (northern Mississippi Sound, Weeks Bay, Wolf Bay, and upper Perdido Bay) in 2015. A geoTIFF is also available. Quatum Spatial, Inc. (QSI) of St Petersburg, FL acquired the aerial photography and produced the geo-referenced ortho imagery. The summer imagery was acquired July 17-19 (Mobile Bay, Mobile-Tensaw Delta, Dauphin Island, Ft Morgan, and Perdido Key) and August 23, 25 and 26 (northern Mississippi Sound, Weeks Bay, Wolf Bay, and upper Perdido Bay). Environmental conditions during the project flights had minimal wind (> 10 mph) and mostly cloudless conditions. All flights were conducted during hours with sun angles ranging between 35 and 45. QSI utilized an Aero Commander 500 aircraft flown at of 15,000 feet during imagery acquisition. The aerial imagery was acquired using a Z/I Imaging digital mapping camera (DMC). The DMC was equipped with eight (8) cameras heads, four (4) for panchromatic and one (1) each for red, blue, green and near-infrared. Imagery was acquired to render a native pixel resolution of 1 meter for the study area. Imagery frames were formatted for 60% endlap and 30% sidelap. To accurately position each aerial photo center (principal point), the aerial mapping technology used an airborne global positioning system (ABGPS) and inertial measurement unit (IMU). The computerized flight-management system used ABGPS-supported aircraft navigation, interfaced with flight control software. Flight line start and stop points were processed by the onboard navigation system. During flight missions the ABGPS/IMU recorded the position and orientation of the camera platform. An Applanix IMU system ensured that tip, tilt, and swing of the camera was less than 3 degrees for each frame. Resolution loss due to blurring was avoided by a forward image motion compensation system. Image motion did not exceed 0.005 cm. The IMU system measured the position of the camera perspective center and orientation angles of each photograph at the midpoint of exposure, to an accuracy of 5-10 cm and 20-30 arc seconds, respectively. ABGPS coordinates were automatically collected in-flight for the principal point for each photographic frame. Dual-frequency GPS observation data were collected at a one second epoch. Additionally, inertial data were collected at a rate of 0.005 seconds. The ABGPS and inertial data were post-processed using Applanix MMS version 5.2 software, to provide accurate positional (x, y, and z) and rotation (omega, phi, and kappa) data of the camera. The three dimensional position of each exposure was determined from the ABGPS data, while the three-dimensional rotation of each exposure was determined from the inertial data. Intergraphs ISAT system for softcopy aerotriangulation was used for photogrammetric production of the ortho imagery. The orthorectification process relied on the aerial imagery, camera calibration data, aerotriangulation data, and a digital elevation model (DEM). The procedure was performed in a fully digital workflow environment, using measurements obtained from the ABGPS and IMU to provide accurate exterior orientation of the imagery. The process included use of the location and coordinate positions of the ABGPS and GPS photo control points as well as a precise camera calibration for the DMC used to capture the images. The aerotriangulation process extended horizontal control from relatively few ground survey control points to additional supplemental control points (i.e., pass points). Common pass points and tie points among overlapping image frames were collected. Any large residuals were double checked and corrected, or replaced if necessary. Bundle adjustments were run with ground control and ABGPS separately, and then combined using different weighting units. Final adjustments assured that all measurements were in balance with each other and properly represented actual conditions. The final solution was produced using a rigorous simultaneous least squares adjustment on the ABGPS and IMU data, to adjust and verify the positional tolerances of individual images. The root mean square errors of the ABGPS were X=0.078 m, Y=0.068 m, and Z=0.081 m. The output for the orientation angles (a measurement of the orientation of one image to another) was X=0.004 m, Y=0.003 m, and Z=0.006 m. Digital orthophoto frames were created using National Elevation Dataset (NED) Digital Elevation Models (DEM), which were combined with the processed raw imagery and aerotriangulation data. Intergraphs OrthoPro software was used to produce the orthophotos. A final color balancing was performed across the entire dataset. A total of 1,068 individual ortho frames were produced, along with a mosaic in MrSID (.sid) format. These products are projected to North American Datum of 1983, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone Number 16 North. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Polygons: Two mapping analysts visually reviewed the SAV polygons superimposed on the digital imagery to check completeness and edges, and consulted regarding questionable areas. The analysts reviewed the attribute classification for each delineated area and made determinations of accuracy of the habitat categories based of the field species and bed density data. The entire data set was reviewed after completion. A quality control assessment was performed to test spatial and thematic accuracy of the completed polygonal data set. The spatial test was performed to assess the horizontal spatial error of SAV polygon boundaries, based on comparison with actual SAV boundaries in the field. The thematic test was performed to assess the correctness of habitat attributes, such as SAV presence and species composition. Independent data sets of field points were used to test the spatial and thematic accuracies. The accuracy test points were removed from the overall data set prior to producing the SAV polygons. After completion of the polygonal database, 48 locations tagged with GPS as field edge points were imported into ArcGIS and compared with the estimated locations of their corresponding polygons. Field edge points collected prior to September 15 were used for testing summer polygons, and edge point data collected after September 15 were used for fall polygons. Polygons were spatially buffered 5 m inside and 5 m outside the estimated bed edge to produce a 10-m-wide zone along the delineated boundaries. If a test point fell within the 10-m buffer it was considered to meet spatial accuracy requirements. Of the 48 test points, six fell outside the buffer (12.5%), three each for the summer and fall polygons. The average spatial error of all 48 test points was 3.17 meters (10.4 feet) from the polygon boundaries. To test thematic accuracy, an error matrix was created using 225 field points, selected from the 2015 field points using a random number generator. The error matrix compared the actual field data with the predicted polygon classes. All oligohaline (low-salinity) habitat categories were combined as Freshwater Mix for the thematic accuracy test. Other classes were Shoalgrass, Shoalgrass-Widgeon grass, and No SAV. The overall classification accuracy was computed as the total number of correct class predictions divided by the total number of cells in the matrix. The thematic accuracy was determined to be 87%. Most of the thematic errors consisted of bare areas (No SAV) within patchy SAV polygons, or patchy or sparse SAV that was not delineated due to poor visibility or absence of signatures on the imagery. ArcGIS 10.3 software was used to create and maintain topological relationships between features. There are no duplicate features, but coincident lines are maintained between data layers where appropriate. Polygonal features begin and end at the same point, contain no overshoots or undershoots, and contain a single label. Linear features are continuous where appropriate, i.e., dangling arcs are removed if they are not required. QA/QC location data were collected in the field and used to check the accuracy of the polygons. A test was performed to assess the horizontal spatial error of SAV polygon boundaries, based on comparison with actual SAV boundaries in the field. After completion of the polygonal database, 48 locations tagged with GPS as field edge points were imported into ArcGIS and compared with the estimated locations of their corresponding polygons. Field edge points collected prior to September 15 were used for testing summer polygons, and edge point data collected after September 15 were used for fall polygons. Polygons were spatially buffered 5 m inside and 5 m outside the estimated bed edge to produce a 10-m-wide zone along the delineated boundaries. If a test point fell within the 10-m buffer it was considered to meet spatial accuracy requirements. Of the 48 test points, six fell outside the buffer (12.5%), three each for the summer and fall polygons. The average spatial error of all 48 test points was 3.17 meters (10.4 feet) from the polygon boundaries. MBNEP Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey - Feature Catalogue submerged aquatic vegetation, SAV, species composition, coastal habitats, Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 1.0 2016-09-01 Roberta Swann Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 118 North Royal Street Suite 601 Mobile Alabama 36602 mbnep@mobilebaynep.com MBNEP 2015 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - Field Points Attribute table within a shape file with GPS field points data. Surveys for beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) were conducted on the Alabama Gulf Coast during the summer and fall months of 2015 to provide SAV distributional data in Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Areas covered within the two-county region include Mobile Bay, the lower Mobile-Tensaw Delta, and adjoining waters along the coast of Alabama. A total of 1,437 field points was visited in the field to verify the presence of SAV and to determine species composition. Twenty-six vascular plant species representing 14 taxonomic families were recorded during the survey. false 2015_SAV_Field_Points FID Internal feature number generated automatically by ESRI ArcGIS. Shape Feature geometry. Point Polygon DATE Date that the GPS location was taken. FIELD_ID Identification number given during the time of the survey. PRESENCE_A Whether submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was present at the site. YES NO SPECIES SAV species observed during field verification. Unique Two Letter Codes for SAV Taxa for 2015. CC Cabomba caroliniana CD Ceratophyllum demersum EB Eleocharis baldwinii HD Heteranthera dubia HV Hydrilla verticillata HW Halodule wrightii LF Luziola fluitans MA Myriophyllum aquaticum MH Myriophyllum heterophyllum MS Myriophyllum spicatum NG Najas guadelupensis NU Nuphar ulvacea PC Potamogeton crispus PD Potamogeton diversifolius PN Potamogeton nodosus PP Potamogeton pusillus RM Rupia maritima SA Sparganium americanum SP Stuckenia pectinata TT Thalassia testudinum UF Utricularia foliosa UI Utricularia inflata UT Utricularia sp. VN Vallisneria neotropicalis ZP Zannichellia palustris DENSITY Type of SAV patch, based on in field observations and orthophoto assessment. Continuous Patchy Sparse NO SAV DEPTH__MET Depth of SAV in meters, as measured with a graded sounding pole. COMMENT_1 Physical description of field point, from in field observation. COMMENT_2 Secondary physical description of field point, from in field observation. Used when necessary. TIER_II Whether field point was used for Tier II survey: habitat condition assessments as a potential complementary tool in a comprehensive seagrass monitoring program. Report and data for this survey are available in "Tier 2 Seagrass Monitoring 2015", Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc., July 2016, 16pp. YES EDGE_POINT Whether field point was used to test spatial accuracy of SAV polygons superimposed over the aerial imagery acquired for the larger study. Report for the overall study is "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping in Mobile Bay and Adjacent Waters of Coastal Alabama in 2015", Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc., July 2016, 28 pp. YES NORTHING X Coordinate calculated with ArcGIS 10.3 and GPS EASTING Y Coordinate calculated with ArcGIS 10.3 and GPS MBNEP 2015 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - Aerial Imagery Polygons Attribute table within a shape file with polygon data. Surveys for beds of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) were conducted on the Alabama Gulf Coast during the summer and fall months of 2015 to provide SAV distributional data in Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Areas covered within the two-county region include Mobile Bay, the lower Mobile-Tensaw Delta, and adjoining waters along the coast of Alabama. Digital aerial imagery was acquired on July 17, 18, and 19 and August 23, 25, and 26 (1,068 photographs) for the summer dataset, and October 10-15 (1,068 photographs) for the fall dataset. Each set of native images were rectified and converted into digital ortho frames and a MrSID mosaic. Examination of the aerial imagery identified specific areas of SAV. Species categories are based on a visual assessment of the dominant taxa occurring at field point locations. false 2015_SAV_Summer_Polygons, 2015_SAV_Fall_Polygons FID Internal feature number generated automatically by ESRI ArcGIS. Shape Feature geometry. Point Polygon Id Identification number generated by ESRI ArcGIS 10.3. habit Type of SAV patch, based on in field observations and orthophoto assessment. CONTINUOUS PATCHY Species SAV species observed during field verification. Unique Two Letter Codes for SAV Taxa for 2015. Note: all species observed in the field are noted, including infrequent, minor components of the beds. CC Cabomba caroliniana CD Ceratophyllum demersum EB Eleocharis baldwinii HD Heteranthera dubia HV Hydrilla verticillata HW Halodule wrightii LF Luziola fluitans MA Myriophyllum aquaticum MH Myriophyllum heterophyllum MS Myriophyllum spicatum NG Najas guadelupensis NU Nuphar ulvacea PC Potamogeton crispus PD Potamogeton diversifolius PN Potamogeton nodosus PP Potamogeton pusillus RM Rupia maritima SA Sparganium americanum SP Stuckenia pectinata TT Thalassia testudinum UF Utricularia foliosa UI Utricularia inflata UT Utricularia sp. VN Vallisneria neotropicalis ZP Zannichellia palustris ground_tes Whether or not a groundtruth point was taken in the SAV polygon. YES NO Perimeter Perimeter of the polygon in meters, as calculated by ESRI ArcGIS 10.3. Area Area of the polygon in square meters, as calculated by ESRI ArcGIS 10.3. Acres The acreage of the polygon, as calculated by ESRI ArcGIS 10.3. Category The most prevalent SAV species at the site, upon which the habitat classification was based. Details about habitat category are available in the 2015 study report (Barry A. Vittor and Associates, Inc., 2016, "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping in Mobile Bay and Adjacent Waters of Coastal Alabama in 2015." Mobile Bay National Estuary Program. p.14-15). CC Cabomba caroliniana CD Ceratophyllum demersum EB Eleocharis baldwinii HD Heteranthera dubia HV Hydrilla verticillata HW Halodule wrightii LF Luziola fluitans MA Myriophyllum aquaticum MH Myriophyllum heterophyllum MS Myriophyllum spicatum NG Najas guadelupensis NU Nuphar ulvacea PC Potamogeton crispus PD Potamogeton diversifolius PN Potamogeton nodosus PP Potamogeton pusillus RM Rupia maritima SA Sparganium americanum SP Stuckenia pectinata TT Thalassia testudinum UF Utricularia foliosa UI Utricularia inflata UT Utricularia sp. VN Vallisneria neotropicalis ZP Zannichellia palustris