Photo-interpretation of 1:24,000 scale natural color aerial photographs was used to develop and classify a map using field reconnaissance to ground truth and resolve boundaries. Standard crosswalked to: SCHEME- The System for Classification of Habitats in Estuarine and Marine Environments (Madley et al. 2002) was modified by Avineon for the source map and database. Results/Products Overview: The project produced a reclassified benthic cover map and a set of individual maps for each CMECS in a GIS which could be overlaid on a base map of Florida Bay. It also produced a detailed report with additional analysis and a CMCES-SCHEME crosswalk. Lessons Learned: Advantages of using CMECS: CMECS units coincided generally with or were easily cross-walked to source map classification units Little re-delineation of the map polygons was required Generally usable cross-walk with few ambiguities CMECS units were consistent and ecologically relevant to CMECS goals Additional type definition enabled by CMECS provides some resolution of water column units in the vertical dimension and underlying substrate Addition source material merged with primary classified map provided additional information about benthic cover units, reef types, underlying surface substrate type and emergent vegetation types that complemented the primary information. CMECS accommodated all additional information easily Limitations of CMECS: Difficult to differentiate Sub-tidal from Inter-tidal given available imagery Difficult to differentiate Unconsolidated shore vs. Unconsolidated bottom Impossible to determine bottom types when obscured by turbid water in imagery Difficult to determine some geoform types given available imagery and data Continuous and discontinuous cover modifier categories are different between SCHEME and CMECS and could not be resolved without precise percent cover Recommendations for Further Testing: This pilot demonstrated CMECS enabled higher resolution of ecological units and classified types than the local classification systems. Protocols for implementing multiple data sources in producing CMECS maps should be developed. CMECS could also benefit from further testing and development of major components, specifically the emerging water column geoform components of the classification. Development of application guidance and mapping guidance for CMECS is needed and will be promoted and enhanced by further pilot testing. CMECS Pilot Study Abstract Name of Pilot Project: Muir Inlet
Photo-interpretation of 1:24,000 scale natural color aerial photographs was used to develop and classify a map using field reconnaissance to ground truth and resolve boundaries. Standard crosswalked to: SCHEME- The System for Classification of Habitats in Estuarine and Marine Environments (Madley et al. 2002) was modified by Avineon for the source map and database. Results/Products Overview: The project produced a reclassified benthic cover map and a set of individual maps for each CMECS in a GIS which could be overlaid on a base map of Florida Bay. It also produced a detailed report with additional analysis and a CMCES-SCHEME crosswalk. Lessons Learned: Advantages of using CMECS: CMECS units coincided generally with or were easily cross-walked to source map classification units Little re-delineation of the map polygons was required Generally usable cross-walk with few ambiguities CMECS units were consistent and ecologically relevant to CMECS goals Additional type definition enabled by CMECS provides some resolution of water column units in the vertical dimension and underlying substrate Addition source material merged with primary classified map provided additional information about benthic cover units, reef types, underlying surface substrate type and emergent vegetation types that complemented the primary information. CMECS accommodated all additional information easily Limitations of CMECS: Difficult to differentiate Sub-tidal from Inter-tidal given available imagery Difficult to differentiate Unconsolidated shore vs. Unconsolidated bottom Impossible to determine bottom types when obscured by turbid water in imagery Difficult to determine some geoform types given available imagery and data Continuous and discontinuous cover modifier categories are different between SCHEME and CMECS and could not be resolved without precise percent cover Recommendations for Further Testing: This pilot demonstrated CMECS enabled higher resolution of ecological units and classified types than the local classification systems. Protocols for implementing multiple data sources in producing CMECS maps should be developed. CMECS could also benefit from further testing and development of major components, specifically the emerging water column geoform components of the classification. Development of application guidance and mapping guidance for CMECS is needed and will be promoted and enhanced by further pilot testing. CMECS Pilot Study Abstract Name of Pilot Project: Muir Inlet