Suwannee River Water Management District 19900101 vector digital data Live Oak, FL Suwannee River Water Management District Suwannee River Water Management District Alachua County, Baker County, Bradford County, Columbia County, Dixie County, Gilchrist County, Hamilton County, Jefferson County, Lafayette County, Levy County, Madison County, Suwannee County, Taylor County, and Union County. http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=319 This dataset contains 1988 Land Use Land Cover data for the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) Region. Land use and land cover in the SRWMD Region is based on three 1988 Landsat Thematic Mapper scenes (1:24,000). This land use, vegetation cover, and land form classification system is arranged in hierarchical levels with each level containing land information of increasing specificity. The various categories and subcategories listed and defined herein reflect the types of data and information which can be extracted from aerial photography of various type (panchromatic, natural color, or false-color infrared) and scales (large, medium, and small) and from airborne and satellite multispectral imaging systems. Color, shade, shape, size, texture, shadows, context, and, in the case of non-photographic imagery, multispectral and multitemporal characteristics, are some of the features used to implement land use/cover classification. Please note: The field names in the original attribute table from SRWMD were renamed by the GeoPlan Center. The original field names from SRWMD are listed in the Process Steps (Data Quality Section) and in the Attribute Definitions (Entity and Attribute Information section). All Water Management District land use datasets distributed via FGDL will contain these standardized field names, for ease of using land use data at the statewide extent. Analyses of Land Use - Land Cover GIS information provide environmental scientists an understanding of the relationships between human activities, land surface physiography and water resources. Land Cover Documentation for the Geographical Information System In 1989, the Suwannee River Water Management District (District) contracted with ERDAS, Inc. to use satellite imagery to determine the present landcover for the entire District. It should be clearly understood that the product was land cover and not land use. Land uses that were identified were typically associated with urban areas. They proceeded by initially purchasing three scenes of Landsat Thematic Mapper Imagery (TM) from EOSAT for North Florida. The dates of three scenes are listed below (Figure 1). Scene Date 17-39 April 14, 1988 17-40 April 19, 1988 18-39 April 5, 1988 These scenes were put into a format with the desired coordinate system (Florida State Plane, North Zone 3576) by STX. Initially, ERDAS performed the classification on pilot areas around Lake City and North Gilchrist County, Florida. During this time, we were able to refine the classification and determine the categories to be defined. Following completion of the pilot areas, ERDAS proceeded to classify the rest of the District. Since digital classification of satellite data is based on spectral characteristics, a landcover map is the result instead of land use, which is human interpretation of the landcover. In the landcover scheme, a grassy area is just that, whereas in a land use perspective, that area may be a residential lawn, a pasture, a fallow field, or even a lake bed (during a drought). Dominant reflections generally indicate predominant land cover, not dominant land use. Keeping this distinction in mind will lead to a clearer understanding of the database and landcover maps. The District selected the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS), developed by the Florida Department of Transportation, Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping Section, for defining the categories. The majority of the descriptions are taken directly from the FLUCCS document, dated September 1985, and have been modified where appropriate or needed to accurately characterize a particular land cover type. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM This land use, vegetation cover, and land form classification system in arranged in hierarchical levels with each level containing land information of increasing specificity. The various categories and subcategories listed and defined herein reflect the types of data and information which can be extracted from aerial photography of various type (panchromatic, natural color, or false-color infrared) and scales (large, medium, and small) and from the current generation of airborne and satellite multispectral imaging systems. Color, shade, shape, size, texture, shadows, context, and, in the case of non-photographic imagery, multispectral and multitemporal characteristics are some of the features used to implement land use/cover classification. In this project, a combination of data sources were used to delineate and classify land cover. The principal data source was TM. Additional data sources were: SPOT Panchromatic and Multispectral Imagery, United States (US) Department of Agriculture National High Altitude Photography--1983-1984 (NHAP), US Geological Survey 7.5 minute Quadrangle Maps, US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Maps, and site visits. This enabled ERDAS to classify categories for all the Levels that are described below. LEVEL I This level of classification is very general in nature. It can be obtained from remote sensing satellite imagery with supplemental information. Level I would normally be used for very large areas, statewide or larger, mapped typically at a scale of 1:1,000,000 or 1:500,000. At these scales, one inch equals sixteen miles (one centimeter per ten kilometers) and one inch equals eight miles (one centimeter per five kilometers), respectively. LEVEL II This level of classification is more specific than level I. Data for Level II classification are normally obtained from high altitude imagery (40,000 to 60,000 feet) supplemented by satellite imagery and other materials, such as topographic maps. Mapping typically might be at a scale of 1:100,000 or one inch equals 8,333 feet ( one centimeter per one kilometer). LEVEL III This level of classification is usually delineated from medium altitude photography flown between 10,000 and 40,000 feet. The mapping scale typically is 1:24,000 or one inch equals 2,000 feet (one centimeter per 0.24 kilometer). LEVEL IV This (The most specific) level of classification is delineated from low altitude photography flown below 10,000 feet. In comparison with the above mentioned levels, Level IV typically might be mapped at a scale of 1:6,000 or one inch equals 500 feet (one centimeter per 0.06 kilometer). It is important for the reader to realize that as the scale of the imagery increases, not only will the image analyst be able to make more specific assignments of ground features to particular land use/cover classes, but the increased scale will allow for the break out of smaller features. At Levels III and IV, relatively small ground areas form a significant portion of an image. For certain classes of ground cover, this may present difficulties. For example, on 1":500' images groups of three or four oak trees are easily delineated. While in and of themselves they do not form a forest, that particular polygon will still be assigned to the Upland Forest class. An even more extreme case is the delineation of just a few hundred square feet of herbaceous ground cover. While such an area clearly cannot support cattle, it is still assigned to the Rangeland classification. While this shortcoming of the classification system does not cause any real conceptual problems, we feel that the reader should be advised of these facts. LAND COVER CLASSES DETERMINED IN THIS PROJECT The first four classes, being of a land use nature, required .special attention. Residential and commercial areas were first extracted from the imagery and underwent a specialized classification (Kauth-Thomas transformation and band ratioing). Then these areas were edited using NHAP. Lake City was classified and edited using SPOT Panchromatic and Multispectral Imagery (May 2, 1988). Industrial and extractive sites were digitized directly from the TM imagery, using previous knowledge of the sites and NHAP as a guide. Transportation corridors (4-lane or greater roads) were digitized interactively on the Landsat imagery on the color monitor. The remainder of the landcover classes were digitally classified from the TM and edited using NHAP. The NHAP averaged five years older than the TM, 30 edits based on photo interpretation had to be done with this in mind. CLASSES GRID-CODE FLUCCS-ID DESCRIPTION 1 *110 Residential 2 *140 Commercial and Services 3 *150 Industrial 4 *160 Extractive 5 210 Agricultural--Cropland and Pastureland may include grass areas along roads or in recently clear-cut forest 6 320 Shrub and Brushland--may include pine plantations with young pine trees where shrub and brush are still dominant 7 322 Coastal Scrub 8 421 Xeric Oak 9 425 Temperate Hardwood 10 427 Live Oak 11 432 Sand Live Oak 12 434 Hardwood/Conifer Mixed 13 441 Coniferous Plantation--includes all sub-classes with 410 14 *510 Streams and Waterways 15 *520 Lakes 16 *540 Bays and Estuaries 17 611 Bay Swamps 18 613 Gum Swamps 19 614 Titi Swamps 20 615 Stream and Lake Swamps 21 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 22 618 Willow Wetlands 23 621 Cypress 24 624 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm 25 630 Wetland Forested Mixed 26 641 Freshwater Marshes 27 6411 Sawgrass 28 6421 Cordgrass 29 6422 Needlerush or black rush 30 6423 High Marsh/Salina 31 644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 32 6442 Spatterdock 33 646 Scrub/Shrub Wetlands 34 651 Tidal Flats 35 700 Disturbed Land/Exposed Rock/Sand--may include roads of less than four lanes 36 810 Transportation--highways of four lanes or greater, digitized from TM *Since these classes are extremely difficult to separate on spectral characteristics alone, these were manually distinguished. 100 URBAN AND BUILT-UP Urban and built-up land consists of areas of intensive use with much of the land occupied by man-made structures. Included in this category are cities, towns, villages, strip developments along highways and such areas as those occupied by mills, shopping centers, industrial and commercial complexes and institutions. Typically, only areas around cities are included in this classification. As urban expansion progresses, small blocks of land of less intensive or nonconforming use may become isolated in the midst of built up regions. Such occurrences will generally be incorporated into this land use category. However, agricultural, forest, or water areas fringing upon urban and built-up areas will not be included in the Urban and Built-Up class except where they are an integral component of low-density urban development. The Urban and Built-Up category takes precedence over other categories in areas around cities. For example, residential areas that have sufficient tree canopy cover to satisfy the Upland Forest (420) criteria will still be classified as Residential in the Urban or Built-Up category. In most cases in rural areas, the residential and urban areas were classified by the land cover categories. 1l0 Residential The three residential classes (110-130) listed below were combined into one category (110), due to the inability to delineate them using TM and NHAP. Areas classified residential were derived from a combination of imagery classification, editing of classified raster data, and digitizing appropriate areas based on the NHAP into the raster image. Typically, rural residential areas were classified according to landcover and not the use. Residential land uses range from high-density urban housing developments to low-density rural areas characterized by a relatively small number of homes per acre. The variation extends from the multi-family apartment complexes generally located in larger urban centers to single-family housing sometimes having lot sizes of more than one acre. Areas of low intensity residential land use (generally less than one dwelling unit per five acres), such as farmsteads, will be incorporated in other categories to which they related. Rural residential and recreational type subdivision will be included in the appropriate land cover category. In most instances, the boundary will be clear when new housing developments abut clearly defined agricultural area. Conversely, the residential boundary may be vague and difficult to discern when residential developments is sporadic and occurs in smaller isolated units developed over an extended period of time in areas with mixed or less intensive land uses. In these cases it was typically classified according to landcover. In the FLUCCS Manual, the residential categories are broken down as follows: 110 Residential, Low Density <Less than two dwelling units per acre> 120 Residential, Medium Density <Two-five dwelling units per acre> 130 Residential, High Density 140 Commercial and Services Commercial areas are predominantly associated with the distribution of products and services. This category is composed of a large number of individual types of commercial land uses which often occur in complex mixtures. The Commercial and Services category includes all secondary structures associated with an enterprise in addition to the main building and integral areas assigned to support the base unit. Included are sheds, warehouses, office buildings, driveways, parking lots, and landscaped areas. Other types of commercial areas include shopping centers and commercial strip developments. These areas have distinctive patterns which are readily identifiable on aerial photographs. Frequently, individual houses and other classes of urban land use may be found within commercial areas. It should be noted that commercial areas away from cities were typically classified according to the landcover and vegetation around the site. 150 Industrial Only a few industrial areas were identified as part of this project. Each of theses were digitized into the system based on the NHAP. The Industrial category embraces those land uses where manufacturing, assembly, or processing of materials and products are accomplished. Industrial areas include a wide array of industry types ranging from light manufacturing and industrial parks to heavy manufacturing plants. Also included are those facilities for administration and research, assembly, storage and warehousing, shipping, and associated parking lots and grounds. Typical examples of industrial types found in Florida are pulp and lumber mills, oil refineries with tank farms, chemical plants, and brickmaking plants. Stockpiles of raw materials, large power .sources, and solid waste product disposal areas are visible industrial features and are easily identified on conventional aerial photography. The Florida Power Corporation electric generating station at Ellaville and the Procter and Gamble cellulose mill near Perry are examples of the sites identified in this land use class. 160 Extractive Extractive areas encompass both surface and subsurface mining operations. Included are sand, gravel and clay pits, phosphate mines, limestone quarries, plus oil and gas wells. Industrial complexes where the extracted material is refined, packaged, or further processed are also included in this category The recognizable impacts of these activities on the landscape will vary from the unmistakable giant pit mines covering vast acreages to oil wells which cover only a few square feet. Obviously, consistent identification of all these diverse extractive uses with their varied degrees of photographic expression can be difficult from remote sending data alone. Flooded pits and quarries, which may be part of a mining operation, were typically not included in this category. The presence of water bodies does not necessarily imply inactive or unused extractive areas; ponds or lakes are often an integral part of an extractive operation. Abandoned or inactive mining operations are a part of the extractive category and were mapped in several cases. Areas of tailings and abandoned pits and quarries may remain recognizable for a long time. These areas may be barren for decades after deposition. Examples of areas that were input into the raster files were the Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products phosphate mines in Hamilton County, the E. I. Dupont Titanium mines in Bradford and Clay counties, and several large rock and sand mines in the District. The boundaries of the mines were digitized from NHAP. The following classification as included in the urban (140) or the residential (110) groups, depending on their physical location. 170 Institutional Educational, religious, health, and military facilities are typical components of this category. 180 Recreational Recreational areas are those areas whose physical structure indicates that active user-oriented recreation is or could be occurring within the given physical area. 190 Open Land This category includes undeveloped land within urban areas and inactive land with street patterns but without structures. 200 AGRICULTURE In the broadest sense, agricultural land may be defined as those lands which are cultivated to produce food crops and/or livestock. The sub-categories of Agriculture are as follows: Cropland, Pastureland, Orchards, Groves (except Citrus), Vineyards, Nurseries, Ornamental Horticulture Areas, Citrus Groves, Confined Feeding Operations, Specialty Farms, and Other Agriculture. Using the TM, ERDAS was only able to consistently make classifications based on the category 210. This was due to difficulties in the classifying of remote sensing data and that agriculture practices taking place in the spring such as plowing and planting were at various stages therefore giving off different spectral values when the imagery was taken. Also, the dates of the TM were selected with wetland classification foremost in mind, and are not conducive to classification of agriculture. 210 Cropland and Pastureland This includes agricultural lands which are managed for the production of row or field crops and improved, unimproved, and woodland pastures. Other agricultural land uses may have been included in this category due to similar spectral values. Cropland and Pastureland include: 1. Cropland harvested or land from which crops are harvested other than tree and bush crops and horticultural crops. 2. Lands on which crops and pasture grasses are grown in rotation with one another. 3. Pastureland used more or less permanently for livestock grazing. Numerous variables must be recognized in identifying crop and pasture uses of land in different parts of Florida. Field size and shape are highly variable depending upon topographic conditions as well as soil types, size of farms, kind of crops and pastures, capital investments, labor availability, and other conditions. In Florida, supplemental irrigation of cropland and pastureland by use of overhead rotary sprinklers can be detected from photography where distinctive circular patterns are created. Drainage or water control on land used for cropland and pastureland sometimes creates a recognizable pattern that may be helpful in identifying this type of land use from photography. The duration of crop growth in the field may be rather limited. A false impression of non-agricultural use in a field may result if conditions of temporary inactivity are not recognized. However, this can be substantiated by field checking areas which are in question. Pastures may be drained and/or irrigated lands. Where the management objective is to establish or maintain stands of grasses such as bahia, pangola, or bermuda grass, either alone or in mixtures with white clover or other legumes, land is categorized as pastureland regardless of treatments. Much of the "permanent" pastures in the District occur on land which usually is not tilled or used as cropland. Topographically rough land, streams, floodplains, wooded areas, and wetlands often may be used for pasture more or less permanently. It should also be noted that cropland and grasses may include grass areas along roads or in recently clear-cut forests. The following classifications were not used but are referenced in the FLUCCS manual. They usually were grouped into the category 210. 211 Improved Pastures 212 Unimproved Pastures 213 Woodland Pastures 214 Row Crops 215 Field Crops The agriculture categories listed below were not delineated separately, but were typically classified with areas having a similar spectral value. In some cases, they were identified as category 210. 220 Tree Crops 230 Feeding Operations 240 Nurseries and Vineyards 250 Specialty Farms 260 Other Open Lands <Rural> 300 RANGELAND Historically, rangeland has been defined as land where the typical or natural vegetation is predominantly grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs and is capable of being grazed. Management practices may include brush control, regulation of grazing intensity ,and season of use. If revegetated to improve the forage cover, it is managed like native vegetation. Generally, this land is not fertilized, cultivated, or irrigated. The definition of Rangeland used in the CONSERVATION NEEDS INVENTORY by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior is used in this classification scheme and describes the natural potential (climax) plant cover as being composed of principally native grasses, forbs, and shrubs valuable for forage. This category includes Grassland, Shrub and Brushland and Mixed Rangeland. In some cases, it is necessary to deviate from this definition of rangeland. When large-scale imagery is employed in a land use/cover inventory, small areas of herbaceous or shrubland become evident and significant. Although these small areas cannot support cattle, they are included in this category. However, it is worth noting that such areas may be used extensively as wildlife forage areas. 310 Herbaceous Herbaceous areas were not classified but were typically included in category 320. This category includes prairie grasses which occur on the upland margins of the wetland zone and may be periodically inundated by water. Generally, it is the marginal area between marsh and upland forested areas. These grasslands are generally treeless but in wet areas would have many types of soils resulting in a variety of vegetation types dominated by grasses, sedges, rushes and other herbs while dryer grasses areas would by dominated by wire grasses with some saw palmetto present. 320 Shrub and Brushland This category includes saw palmettos, gallberry, wax myrtle, coastal scrub, and other shrubs and brush. Generally, saw palmetto is the most prevalent plant cover intermixed with a wide variety of other woody shrubs as well as various types of short herbs and grasses. Pine plantations with young pine trees where shrub and brushland are still the dominant cover may be classified as 320. Also included in this cove class may be some types of scrub/shrub wetlands, abandoned or older agriculture fields, and parts of road right of ways. Identification of some scrub/shrub wetlands as 320 (rather than 646) seems to depend on site hydrology and its influence on plant species composition, vegetation condition, and the corresponding spectral reflectance characteristics. Herbaceous areas (310) and mixed rangeland (330) are included in shrub and brushland. 322 Coastal Scrub This scrub category represents a conglomeration of species found in the coastal zone. A few of the more common components are saw palmetto, sand live oak, myrtle oak, sand pine, yaupon, rosemary, wax myrtle, salt bush, railroad vine, bay bean, sea grape, spanish bayonet, and prickly pear. Coastal scrub vegetation could include pioneer herbs and shrubs composed of such typical plants as sea purslane and sea oats without any one of these types being dominant. This cover type is generally found in dune and white sand hill areas on the coast. This community type is largely found northeast of Cedar Key in coastal Levy County, but small patches of this cover type may also be found in coastal Dixie and Taylor counties as well. 330 Mixed Rangeland This category was included in the Shrub and Brushland category 320. When more than one-third intermixture of either grassland or shrub brushland range species occurs, the specific classification is changed to Mixed Rangeland. Where the intermixture is less than one-third, it is classified as the dominant type of Rangeland, whether grassland or Shrub and Brushland categories. 400 UPLAND FORESTS This category of land cover is reserved for those upland areas which support a tree canopy closure of ten percent or more. The Upland Forests include both the xeric (dry site) and mesic (moderately moist site) forest communities. Wetland, or hydric, forest communities fall under the forested wetland category. Also included in the Upland Forest category are areas in which timber harvesting has occurred but which exhibit no evidence of being developed for other intended uses (clear-cuts in an are in which rotation forest management is practiced is a prime example of such a case). Florida's forests serve as a vital resource from not only a commercial view point, but also from an aesthetic and recreational view point. In Florida, slightly less than 50 percent of the land base (17 million acres) is identified by the United States Forest Service as forest land. Approximately 40 percent is commercial timber land. A very significant portion of this land is allocated to pine plantation monoculture. Based on the 1980 Forest Service inventory, there are approximately six and one-half million acres of pure natural and planted longleaf and slash pine stands in Florida. There are also many stands of pure hardwood species groups occurring in Florida. However, the majority of forest lands occur as mixed communities of tree species and species groups. For purposes of classification, a given forest stand is assigned to a particular species or species group only if 66 percent or more of the total canopy can be assigned as such. Otherwise, the mixed categories (434 and 438) are used. Note here that the classification of forests is based upon the species composition of the tree canopy using homogeneous sites to classify areas with similar reflectance. 410 Upland Coniferous Forest These categories were usually included in the Pine Plantation (441) category due to difficulties in classification with the Landsat data. Any natural upland forest stand whose canopy is at least 66 percent dominated by coniferous species is classified as a Coniferous Forest. 411 Pine Flatwoods 412 Longleaf Pine-Xeric Oak 413 Sand Pine 414 Pine-Mesic Oak 419 Other Pines 420 Upland Hardwood Forests This classification of upland forest lands has a crown canopy with at least a 66 percent dominance by hardwood tree species. This class, like the Upland Conifer class, is reserved for naturally generated stands. 421 Xeric Oak This forest community is similar to and occupies the same sites as the Longleaf Pine-Xeric Oak (412) community except that the pines, if present, are not the dominant species. In many cases, longleaf pine may have historically been present in significant numbers, but were harvested and never regenerated. Sometimes this cover class is referred to as xeric hammock. Species common to this class include bluejack oak, turkey oak, sand post oak, and sand live oak Old fields and pine plantations with high proportions of oaks and other hardwood species in the canopy were sometimes included in this category. 423 Oak-Pine-Hickory Oak-Pine-Hickory were included in the Temperate Hardwood category 425. 425 Temperate Hardwood This forest cover type may be referred to as low or mesic hammock or temperate hammock. Common components of this community may include, depending upon the location, a wide variety of oaks, red bay, sweetbay, magnolia, sweetgum, sugarberry, hickories, cabbage palm, hollies, Vaccinium spp., and cedar. Various pines are minor associates. Areas defined with this category were typically more diverse in species than in categories Live Oak 1427) or Sand Live Oak (432) and occurred in lower/wetter areas than some of the other categories. Oak-Pine-Hickory (423) areas were included in Temperate Hardwoods (425). 426 Tropical Hardwoods This was not included in our categories. 427 Live Oak Often referred to as upland temperate hammock, this forest community is one in which live oak (Ouercus Virginiana) is either pure or predominant. The principle associates of this cover type include sweetgum, magnolia, holly, and laurel oak. This community is common along the upper banks of Florida's lakes and streams. Live oak areas may be included in Temperate Hardwoods (425) and Sand Live Oak (432). The following categories, if found in the Distinct, were combined with other upland forest categories. 428 Cabbage Palm 429 Wax Myrtle-Willow 430 Upland Hardwood Forests Continued 431 Beech - Magnolia This category was not included in the classification. 432 Sand Live Oak Sand live oak predominates in this cover type. Associates are cabbage palm, southern red cedar, and southern magnolia with smaller quantities of chapman oak, myrtle oak, red maple, red bay, and holly. This cover type is generally found on old coastal dune and white sand areas. Conditions were typically more xeric than Live Oak (427) and these communities are also referred to as xeric hammocks. 433 Western Everglades Hardwoods No areas associated with this definition in this District. 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed This class is reserved for those forested areas in which neither upland conifers nor hardwoods achieve a 66 percent crown canopy dominance. Typically, areas delineated as this cover type were more mesic (wetter) than most of the above sites. Laurel oak, water oak, and sweetgum associated with loblolly and/or slash pine characterized this land cover type. The following categories were not broken out. More information about them may be obtained in the FLUCCS manual. 435 Dead Trees 437 Australian Pine (not found in the District) 438 Mixed Hardwood 440 Tree Plantations Florida is part of one of the most productive timber producing regions of the world, due in large part to the monoculture management practices prescribed by its private and industrial professional foresters. Therefore, large parcels of land are devoted to tree plantations. 441 Coniferous Plantations These pine forests are typically artificially generated by planting seedling stock or seeds. These stands are characterized by high numbers of trees per acre and their uniform appearance. Although row patterns often stand out, this is not always the case, especially where stands are as a result of aerial seeding. Various types of natural Upland Coniferous Forests (410) were typically included in this category because of similar spectral values. This classification (440) includes both xeric (dry site) and mesic (moderately moist site) forest communities vegetated with pine plantation. Certain types of wetland, or hydric, forest communities may sometimes fall under this category. Also included in this class are areas in which timber harvesting has occurred but which exhibit no evidence of being developed for other intended uses (clear-cuts in an area in which rotation forest management is practiced is a prime example of such a case). The categories listed below were not broken out. 4411 Sand Pine Plantations 4412 Christmas Tree Plantations 442 Hardwood Plantations 4421 Eucalyptus Plantations These areas were not delineated but were included in Pine Plantations (441), or Shrub and Brushlands (320). 443 Forest Regeneration Areas 444 Experimental Tree Plots Theses areas may be included in Pine Plantations (441), Shrub and Brushlands (320), or Agriculture (210). 445 Seed Plantations 500 WATER The delineation of water areas depends upon the scale and resolution characteristics of the remote sensing imagery used for interpretation. Those portions of the water body having emergent vegetation or observable submerged vegetation are placed in the Wetlands category (600). The categories are extremely difficult to separate on spectral characteristics alone and were, therefore, manually distinguished using NHAP. 510 Streams and Waterways This category includes rivers, creeks, canals, and other linear water bodies. The boundary between streams and lakes, reservoirs, or the ocean is the straight line across the mouth of the stream. 520 Lakes The Lakes category includes extensive inland water bodies. Reservoirs (530) were included in Lakes (520). Islands within lakes that are too small to delineate will be included in the water area. The delineation of a lake will be based on the size of the water body at the time the remote sensing data was acquired. 530 Reservoirs This category was included with Lakes-520. 540 Bays and Estuaries For the purposes of this project, bays and estuaries were those areas seaward from land and not considered as a stream or waterway. ERDAS made visual estimates as to where the bay and estuaries began. It was not determined using any salinity or other related data to identify the boundaries. The following categories were not delineated. 550 Major Springs 560 Slough Waters 600 Wetlands Wetlands are generally defined as those area where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface for a significant portion of most years. The hydrologic regime is such that aquatic or hydrophytic be nonvegetated. Wetlands are frequently associated with topographic low lying areas. Examples of wetlands include marshes, mudflats, emergent vegetation areas, and swamps. Shallow water areas with submerged aquatic vegetation are usually, but not always, classed as water and not included in the Wetland category. Extensive parts of some river floodplains qualify as Wetlands. These do not include agriculture land where seasonal wetness or short-term flooding may provide an important component of the total annual soil moisture necessary for crop production. But uncultivated or unmanaged wetlands yielding products such as wood or which are grazed by livestock are retained in the Wetlands category. Wetlands drained for any purpose belong to other land use categories, whether they be Agriculture, Rangeland, Forested Uplands or Urban and Built-Up. When the drainage is discontinued and such ceases, classification reverts to Wetlands managed for wildlife purposes may show short-term changes in vegetation type and wetness condition as different management practices are prescribed, but they are properly classified as Wetlands. The user of this manual should be aware of the fact that the above definition of a wetland is tailored to the limitations imposed upon image analysis which must classify wetlands according to evidence recorded by remotely sensed images. In the absence of direct field inspection, imposing a more definitive definition of wetlands proves to be infeasible. Strict adherence to the definitions in federal, state, and Water Management District laws and procedures using remotely sensed images cannot be achieved. 610 Wetland Hardwood Forests Wetland Hardwood Forests are those wetland areas which meet the crown closure requirements for forestland as outlined under the Upland Forest Classification (400-minimum 10 percent closure). To be included in the Wetland Hardwood Forest category, the stand must be 66 percent or more dominated by wetland hardwood species, either salt or freshwater. 611 Bay Swamps This category is composed of dominant trees such as loblolly bay, sweetbay, red bay, swamp bay, slash pine, and loblolly pine. Gallberry, dahoon holly, fetterbush, wax myrtle, and titi are typical components of the understory vegetation. 612 Mangrove Swamps Mangrove swamps were not found using the TM. District staff is aware of small areas of mangrove around Cedar Key, (southwestern Levy County). This coastal forested wetland community is composed predominantly of black mangrove in the District. Major associates include marsh elder, salt bush, cabbage palm, and sea grape. 613 Gum Swamps This forest community is composed of swamp tupelo (blackgum) or water tupelo (tupelogum) which is pure or predominant. Associate species may include bald cypress and a variety of hydric hardwood species. 614 Titi Swamps This community is composed of often extremely dense stands of black titi and cyrilla which are either the pure or predominant species. Major associated species include bays, cypress, tupelos, and other wetland hardwoods. Titi swamps were located principally in southern and western Taylor County. 615 Stream and Lake Swamps (Bottomland) This community, often referred to as bottomland or stream hardwoods, has been restricted to those areas adjacent to rivers and .streams. Mixed Wetland Hardwoods (617) and Wetland Forested Mixed (630) are very similar to this category in terms of species composition in the tree canopy. It is a conglomeration of a wide variety of predominantly hardwood species of which some of the more common components include red maple, river birch, live/laurel/overcup and water oak, sweetgum, willows, tupelos, water hickory, hays, water ash, and buttonbush. Associated species include cypress, slash pine, loblolly pine, and shortleaf pine. 616 Inland Ponds and Sloughs This category was not classified. 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods This category is reserved for those wetland hardwood communitied which are composed of a large variety of hardwood species tolerant of hydric conditions yet exhibiting an ill-defined mixture of species. It is very similar to Stream and Lake Swamps (615), but was typically used to describe hardwood dominated wetland areas not contiguous with rivers and streams. 618 Willow Wetlands Coastal plain willow and/or black willow were the principal components of these wetlands. Other species present included buttonbush, wax myrtle, and various other wetland shrubs. This category is similar to Scrub/Shrub Wetland (646), but contains a dominance of willows. 620 Wetland Coniferous Forests Wetland coniferous forests are wetlands which meet the crown closure requirements for coniferous forest (see 400 and 410) and are the result of natural generation. These communities are commonly found in the interior wetlands in such places as river flood plains, bogs, bayheads, and sloughs. 621 Cypress This community is composed of pond cypress or bald cypress which is either pure or predominant. In the case of pond cypress, common associates are swamp tupelo, slash pine, and black titi. In the case of bald cypress, commonly associated are water tupelo, swamp cottonwood, red maple, American elm, pumpkin ash, Carolina ash, overcup oak, and water hickory. Bald cypress may be associated with laurel oak, sweetgum, and sweetbay on less moist sites. Note that some authorities do not distinguish between the two varieties of cypress. The following category was not broken out. 622 Pond Pine Pond Pines were typically included in the Pine Plantation (441) category since thls species is planted in some of the wetter areas of the District. 623 Atlantic White Cedar This category was not located. 624 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm This community includes cypress, pine and/or cabbage palm in combinations in which no species achieves dominance. Although not strictly a wetlands community, it forms a transition between moist upland and hydric sites. It was found to be primarily associated with the transitional flatwoods areas landward of coastal marshes. 630 Wetland Forested Mixed This category includes mixed wetlands forest communities in which neither hardwoods nor conifers achieve a 66 percent dominance of the crown canopy composition. Pines were more prevalent in the canopy of this community type. Typically, the species found in the Stream and Lake Swamp Wetlands (615) were also seen in Wetland Forested Mixed (630). Hydrology was the principal difference between 615 and 630, in that the 615 forests were influenced directly by river/stream flooding, whereas 630 forests were inundated by high ground by high groundwater, surface runoff, or lake flooding. It should also be noted that the 630 class denoted areas distinctly wetter than Hardwood/Conifer Mixed (434) or Temperate Hardwood (425). 640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands Vegetated, non-forested wetlands include marshes and seasonally flooded prairies and meadows. These communities are usually confined to relatively level, low-lying areas. This category does not include areas which have a tree cover which meets the crown closure threshold for designation as a forested class of land cover. When the crown cover is less than the threshold for wetland forest or is non-woody, it will be included in this 640 category. Sawgrass, cattail, and various broadleaved aquatic plants tend to be common species in freshwater marshes while cordgrasses and needlerush are common species in the saltwater marsh communities. 641 Freshwater Marshes The communities included in the category are characterized by having one or more of the following species predominant: Sawgrass -Cladium jamaicensis Cattail -Typha domingenis -Typha latifolia -Typha angustifolia Arrowhead -Sagittaria spp. Maidencane -Panicum hemitomon Buttonbush -Cephalanthus occidentalis Sand Cordgrass -Spartina bakeri Switchgrass -Panicum virgatum Bulrush -Scirpus americanus -Scirpus validus -Scirpus robustus Softrush -Juncus effusus Common Reed -Phragmites communis -Phragmites australis Arrowroot -Thalia geniculata If the community is 66 percent or more dominated by a single species (by cover), one of the following level IV classifications will be employed. 6411 Sawgrass These areas were not broken out. 6412 Cattail 6413 Spike rush 6414 Maidencane 6415 Dog fennel and low marsh grasses 6416 Arrowroot 642 Saltwater Marshes The communities included in this category will be predominated by one or more of the following species: Cordgrasses -Spartina alterniflora -Spartina bakeri -Spartina patens -Spartina spartinae Needlerush -Juncus roemerianus Seaahore Saltgrass -Distichlis spicata Saltwort -Batis maritima Glassworts -Salicornia spp. Fringerush -Fimbristylis castanea Salt Dropseed -Sporobolus virginicus Seaside Daisy -Borrichia frutescens Salt Jointgrass -Paspalum vaginatum If the community is 66 percent or more dominated by a .single species by cover, one of the following level IV classifications will be employed. 6421 Cordgrass 6422 Needlerush or black rush 6423 High Marsh/Salina This category is described as salt marshes along the landward edge of the coastal marsh that were inundated infrequently by spring tides. The habitat may include bare areas (salt barrens). Typical vegetation includes marsh hay cordgrass, seashore salt grass, salt dropseed, salt jointgrass, seaside daisy, glassworts, salt worts, sea purselane, various sedges, and occasional shrubs such as marsh elder, christmas berry, salt bush, and wax myrtle. 643 Wet Prairies Wet Prairies were included in the categories Freshwater Marshes (641) and Saltwater Marshes (642). This classification is composed of dominantly grasaes and grass like vegetation (sedges and rushes) on wet soils and is usually distinguished from marshes by having less open water and/or shorter hydroperiods. Wet prairies will typically include a mixture of the following species: Sawgrass -Cladium jamiacense Maidencane -Panicum hemitomori Cordgrasses -Spartina bakeri -Spartina patens Rushes -Juncus spp. Sedges -Carex spp. Spike Rushes -Eleocharis spp. Beak Rushes -Rhynchospora spp. Fringe Rushes -Fimbristylis spp. St. Johns Wort -Hypericum spp. Yellow-eyed Grass -Xyris spp. Bog buttons -Eriocaulon and Lachnocaulon spp. Blood root -Lachnanthes caroliniana Whitetop Sedge -Dichromena colorata 644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation This category of wetland plant species includes both floating vegetation and vegetation which is found either partially or completely above the surface of water. In some cases, wet prairies or grassy ponds may be included in this category. 6442 Spatterdock -Nuphar sp. These categories were not classified: 6441 Water Lettuce -Pistia stratiotes 6443 Water Hyacinth -Eichhornia sp. 6444 Duck Weed -Lemna sp. 6445 Water Lily -Nymphaeacea sp. 645 Submergent Aquatic vegetation This category of wetland vegetation is composed of those aquatic species or communities found growing completely below the surface of the water. It was not classified. 646 Scrub/Shrub Wetlands Scrub/Shrub Wetlands are dominated by a low canopy of shrub vegetation with less than 25% trees. Shrubs included in this category are titi, wax myrtle, dahoon holly, fetterbush, button bush, and groundsel tree. Trees that may be seen are coastal plain willow, planer elm, pop ash, and occasionally widely scattered hardwoods (less than 10% total cover). This category is typically wetter and the canopy species may be different than the Shrub and Brush Land (320) category. This category was generally included with the High Marsh/Salina class (6423). Non-vegetated wetlands are those hydric communities on which vegetation is lacking due to the erosional effects of wind and water transporting the surface material 90 rapidly that the establishment of plant communities is hindered or the fluctuation of the water surface level is such that vegetation cannot become established. Additionally, submerged or saturated materials often develop toxic conditions of extreme acidity or salinity. Tidal flats and intermittent ponds are the main components of this category. 651 Tidal Flats This category is composed of that portion of the shore environment protected from wave action, as in the case of estuaries, comprised primarily of muds transported by tidal channels. An important characteristic of the tidal flat environment is its alternating tidal cycle of submergence and exposure to the atmosphere. Most tidal flat areas are found seaward of the saltwater marshes on the coast. 700 BARREN LAND Barren land has very little or no vegetation and limited potential to support vegetative communities. In general, it is an area of bare soil or rock. Vegetation, when present, is very sparce and patchy. However, caution should be exercised since barren land may temporarily exist due to human activity. Generally, such land is incorporated in another land use/cover category; examples of this include areas of agricultural land temporarily void of vegetation cover due to tillage practlces and areas of extractive and industrial land use which have dump sites for tailings and waste materials. Barren land categories include Beaches exhibiting little or no evidence of human encroachment, Sand Other than Beaches, Exposed Rock and Disturbed Lands. Some roads, beaches, limestone outcrops, borrow pits, and freshly cleared land may be included in this category. 800 TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND UTILITIES 810 Transportation Transportation facilities are used for the movement of people and goods; therefore, they are major influences on land and many land use boundaries are outlined by them. Only major four-lane highways were included in this category. These were digitized as vector files directly from the TM and then overlaid on the other vector landcover files. SECTION 1 LIST OF WORK ACCOMPLISHED AND DELIVERED PRODUCTS 1. Three 1988 Thematic Mapper scenes geometrically rectified to 80-foot pixels and referenced to Florida State Plane coordinate system, north zone 3576. Scene ID numbers: 5150515311, 5150515314 and 5149615372. 2. Three color prints of a 1:250.000 digital mosaic of the Thematic Mapper imagery for the 14-county area. 3. 1988 land use/cover in ERDAS raster format on 9-track tape. 4. Color thermal-print maps for verification purposes. 5. 35mm color slides of the raster landcover for each county and the entire study area. 6. An oral presentation illustrated by slides and exhibits presented to the District's governing board. 7. 1988 land uses/cover in ARC/INFO vector format, "stair-stepped" and smoothed versions. 8. 1:24,000 mylar plot of the 1988 ARC/INFO land cover/use and the SML's used to create them. 9. 1:250,000 DEM data on 9-track tape to cover the 14-county area. 10. A loaner copy of ERDAS, pcARC/INFO (starter kit, arcPLOT, arcEDIT and Data Conversion), a 13 inch color monitor and a 512x512x32-bit image processing board. 11. A two-way workshop is still pending and is presently scheduled for January 29th and 30th, 1990. This final reports describes consulting work performed by ERDAS, Inc. for the SRWMD during 1989 and 1990. Landcover mapping from 1988 satellite imagery was performed on the full fourteen counties which are in part or wholly within the Suwannee River Water Management District. The various supplemental tasks are listed in SECTION 1. Other companies involved in the effort were Enviro-Plan, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida and STX Corporation of Lanham, Maryland. Enviro-Plan compiled training samples for the landcover classification, mapped cloud-obscured areas which were discovered on the imagery and played a major role in the classification accuracy assessment. STX performed geo-correction of the three Landsat Thematic Mapper scenes and produced a color-corrected mosaic of the three scenes. SPOT Image provided a multispectral scene and a panchromatic scene covering Lake City for more detailed analysis of the urban area. The Three Landsat TM scenes were obtained from EOSAT. The report consists of the following: SECTION 1. List of work accomplished and delivered products. SECTION 2. Overview of the mapping process and an outline flow chart of procedures. SECTION 3. A description of findings and difficulties encountered during the course of the landcover classification process. SECTION 4. A detailed discussion of the ERDAS raster to ARC/INFO vector conversion process. SECTION 5. Landcover Documentation Manual---an important aid to understanding the mapped information produced by SRWMD with help from ERDAS. SECTION 6. Summary statistics of landcover for each of the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles, which make up the district. SECTION 2 Overview Of The Mapping Process In order to map the district area, three Landsat Thematic Mapper scenes of April 1988 imagery were acquired, which had been georeferenced to the north zone of the Florida state plane coordinate system with a cell size of 80 feet by 80 feet. In referencing the entire district are to this one zone, the SRWMD GIS section avoided splitting the area into two or more zones and producing a discontinuity of the database across the district. The three scenes were mosaicked and then subset to limit the data to the study area and reduce the amount of processing time in all phases of the project. To increase classification accuracy across the rather large study area, the district was divided into six physiographic regions: rich uplands, flatwoods and swamps, Suwannee River Valley, Big Bend Karst, northern peninsula plains and sandhills. These regions were extracted from the Landsat TM scenes for individual processing during landcover classification, after which they were mosaicked back into one database. In order to determine the feasibility of the entire classification, conversion and mapping process, a pilot study was performed. Enviro-Plan, Inc., a sub-contractor which did most of the field work, SRWMD and ERDAS personnel met at the district headquarters in Live Oak, Florida to take training signatures, evaluate the signatures and begin the classification process for the pilot study areas. There were two pilot study areas, one at Lake City, Florida and the there at the confluence of the Suwannee and Santa Fe rivers. The pilot locations provided a wide range of landcover types necessary for a proper test of the methodology. Since the methodology for the successful pilot study and the ensuing project covering the entire district were much the same except for improvements made along the way, they are described together. The classification scheme used for the project was based on the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. In order to extract as much information as possible from channels 1,2,3,4,5 and 7 of the TM imagery, very detailed training sites were examined in the field and documented to the third and, in some cases, the fourth level of the four level classification. The first level of the classification system is composed of eight general landcover classes. The fourth level which has the greatest detail is made up of individual species of cover vegetation. See Section 5 for an in-depth look at the FLUCCS landcover classes. Consolidation of classification process occurred where necessary to maintain accuracy levels, but when possible, the extra detail of levels three and four was kept, surpassing the level two classification specified in the contract. The final list of landcover classes which were obtained is shown in TABLE 1. TABLE 1. Final Landcover Classes 1. 110 Residential 2. 140 Commercial and Services 3. 150 Industrial 4. 160 Extractive 5. 210 Agricultural 6. 320 Shrub and Bush Land 7. 322 Coastal Scrub 8. 421 Xeric Oak 9. 425 Temperate Hardwood 10. 427 Live Oak 11. 432 Sand/Live Oak 12. 434 Hardwood/Conifer Mixed 13. 441 Pine/Pine Plantation 14. 510 Streams and Waterways 15. 520 Lakes 16. 540 Bays and Estuaries 17. 611 Bays Swamps 18. 613 Gum Swamps 19. 614 Titi Swamps 20. 615 Stream and Lake Swamps 21. 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 22. 618 Willow Wetlands 23. 621 Cypress 24. 624 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm 25. 630 Wetland Forest Mixed 26. 641 Freshwater Marsh 27. 6411 Sawgrass 28. 6421 Cord Grass 29. 6422 Needlerush 30. 6423 High Marsh/Salina 31. 644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 32. 6442 Spatterdock 33. 646 Scrub/Shrub Wetland 34. 651 Tidal Flats 35. 700 Disturbed Land/Exposed Rock/Sand 36. 810 Transportation Some of the level two classes required special attention, particularly those which were defined by land use rather than land cover characteristics. Residential and urban commercial areas were first extracted as individual rough polygons. A Kauth-Thomas tassle cap transformation and 4/3 ratio was then performed on each of theses polygonal areas. The brightness channel of the transformation and the 4/3 ratio were placed into a two channel data file on which an unsupervised classification was run. The results of this classification were then classed by checking NHAP color infrared photography. The industrial and extractive classes were compiled through previous knowledge of the sites and from the NHAP photography. Urban classes for Lake City were classified from SPOT Pan and XS imagery with its higher spatial resolution. The three water classes were separated by interactive editing since they ware not spectrally separable. The transportation class, which was limited to highways of four lanes or greater, we digitized directly from the Landsat TM on the color monitor using the ERDAS-ARC/INFO Live-Link. After the initial classification, random classification accuracy test blocks were generated. These three-pixel by three-pixel blocks were stratified according to class prevalence, were checked partial on the ground and partially by helicopter. Thermal print maps detailing the location of each accuracy test block were given to the consultant biologist along with a list of location coordinates for the ground and helicopter field work. During the checks by helicopter, some areas along the Gulf Coast which were obscured by clouds in the imagery were mapped in conjunction with the NHAP color infrared photography. 1:24,000 mylar overlays were made to delineate the clouded areas which needed to be mapped. To bring the full land cover classification to the required 90% overall accuracy, interactive edits were performed using the NHAP photography and the findings of the accuracy tests as references. Once the raster land cover GIS was complete and met accuracy requirements, most of the small "salt and pepper" polygons were removed by performing a majority SCAN using a three by three pixel window. The resulting data was thus smoothed and simplified. Sections were then cut out corresponding to each of the 172 USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps which made up the study area. These quads were cut out with overlap at the edges to ensure proper processing of polygons along the quad edges during conversion from a raster GIS to a vector data base. Each of the oversized quads was then processed separately to avoid problems which might occur due to too many arcs per polygon, and to keep files at a more manageable size. The initial step in the raster to vector conversion was GRIDPOLY, and ARC/INFO program which made a polygon vector file with the stair-stepped look of the raster file from which it was converted. This process produces a vector database which is useable at that point. Each polygon is described by a "grid-code" number which corresponds to the class number of that polygon in he ERDAS raster GIS. One of the requirements of the project was to smooth the vectors of the ARC/INFO data base to produce maps with a more conventional hand-drafted look. This was accomplished by generalizing and splining all arcs within the quad data bases. The drawback to this processing is the interactive edits which must be done to maintain the topology. Another required step which was performed before the completion of the conversion process was the elimination of polygons less than 2.5 acres in size. The exact quad area for each USGS 7.5 minute quad was clipped from the oversize quad coverages. Borders for each USGS 7.5 minute quad were then matched at every intersection along every edge. Transportation, consisting of highways of four lands or greater, which was digitized as ARC/INFO coverages directly from the imagery on the color monitor, was overlaid on the completed vector coverages. The final quad coverages, after being checked at several stages, were plotted on mylar at 1:24,000 scale. Other products were produced during the project. A 1:250,000 color print of the original imagery with channels 4,5, and 3 displayed as red, green and blue, respectively was composed with a legend, scale bar and other annotation. Color slides of the raster landcover were taken for each of the fourteen counties within the district. References Florida Department of Transportation, State Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping Section. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. September 1985. Brooks, H.K. Guide to the Physiographic Divisions of Florida, pp. 1-11. 19880405 19880419 publication date Complete As needed -84.076798 -82.026495 30.672222 28.989561 None 1988 1990 WMD LULC Land Use Land Cover ISO 19115 Topic Category imageryBaseMapsEarthCover planningCadastre None Columbia County Dixie County Lafayette County Suwannee County Bradford County Madison County Union County Levy County Alachua County Hamilton County Suwannee River Water Management District Baker county Gilchrist County Jefferson County Taylor County None SRWMD Note: This data was created by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) to be used for planning purposes only. SRWMD shall not be held liable for any injury or damage caused by the use of data distributed as a public records request regardless of their use or application. SRWMD does not guarantee the accuracy, or suitability for any use of these data, and no warranty is expressed or implied. In no event will the SRWMD, its staff, or the contributing agencies be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or other damages, including loss of profit, arising from the use of these data, even if the District has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Users of this data should therefore do so at their own risk. For more information please contact the SRWMD at 386-362-1001. Suwannee River Water Management District mailing and physical

9225 County Road 49

Live Oak FL 32060 US 386-362-1001 386-362-1056 M-F 8am-5pm Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) Version 6.2 (Build 9200) ; Esri ArcGIS 10.7.1.11595 Suwannee River Water Management District Data Directory http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=319 http://fl-suwanneeriver.civicplus.com/gisdata/landcover1988_SRWMD.zip GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the attribute information within the original data. This data is provided 'as is'. GeoPlan relied on the integrity of the original data layer's topology This data is provided 'as is' by GeoPlan and is complete to our knowledge. This data is provided 'as is' and its horizontal positional accuracy has not been verified by GeoPlan This data is provided 'as is' and its vertical positional accuracy has not been verified by GeoPlan 24000 onLine Spatial and Attribute Information Generalized LANDCOVER Process Steps: In order to map LANDCOVER in the District area, three Landsat Thematic Mapper scenes of April 1988 imagery were acquired. The classification scheme used for this project was based on the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System. In order to extract as much information as possible from channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the TM imagery, very detailed training sites were examined in the field and documented to the third, and in some cases, the fourth level of the four level classification. ERDAS raster data was converted to ARC/INFO vector data. Sections were then cut out corresponding to each of the 172 USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps which made up the study area. The initial step in the raster to vector conversion was GRIDPOLY, an ARC/INFO program which made a polygon vector file with the stair-stepped look of the raster file from which it was converted. Each polygon is described by a 'grid-code' number which corresponds to the class number of that polygon in the ERDAS raster GIS. The final quad coverages were plotted on mylar at 1:24,000 scale. Detailed Process Steps for the three Landsat Thematic Mapper Scenes: These scenes were put into a format with the desired coordinate system (Florida State Plane, North Zone 3576) by STX. Initially, ERDAS performed the classification on pilot areas around Lake City and North Gilchrist County, Florida. During this time, we were able to refine the classification and determine the categories to be defined. Following completion of the pilot areas, ERDAS proceeded to classify the rest of the District. Since digital classification of satellite data is based on spectral characteristics, a landcover map is the result instead of land use, which is human interpretation of the landcover. In the landcover scheme, a grassy area is just that, whereas in a land use perspective, that area may be a residential lawn, a pasture, a fallow field, or even a lake bed (during a drought). Dominant reflections generally indicate predominant land cover, not dominant land use. Keeping this distinction in mind will lead to a clearer understanding of the database and landcover maps. The District selected the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS), developed by the Florida Department of Transportation, Topographic Bureau, Thematic Mapping Section, for defining the categories. The majority of the descriptions are taken directly from the FLUCCS document, dated September 1985, and have been modified where appropriate or needed to accurately characterize a particular land cover type. Polygon data was converted from raster GIS data; lines were smoothed and edgematched. Each polygon is labeled with a Fluccs. The FLUCCS code was converted from the Grid-Code item. In order to map LANDCOVER in the District area, three Landsat Thematic Mapper scenes of April 1988 imagery were acquired. The classification scheme used for this project was based on the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System. In order to extract as much information as possible from channels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the TM imagery, very detailed training sites were examined in the field and documented to the third, and in some cases, the fourth level of the four level classification. ERDAS raster data was converted to ARC/INFO vector data. Sections were then cut out corresponding to each of the 172 USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps which made up the study area. The initial step in the raster to vector conversion was GRIDPOLY, an ARC/INFO program which made a polygon vector file with the stair-stepped look of the raster file from which it was converted. Each polygon is described by a ‘grid-code’ number which corresponds to the class number of that polygon in the ERDAS raster GIS. The final quad coverages were plotted on mylar at 1:24,000 scale. ERDAS, Inc. 19880101 GIS DATABASE COVERAGE DESCRIPTION COVERAGE DATA FORM COVERAGE NAME: LC (quad#) PATH NAME: COVERAGE TYPE: poly COVERAGE AREA: District GENERAL COVERAGE CLASSIFICATION: Land Use/Cover DATUM: NAD 27 COORDINATE SYSTEM: FSP DATUM SOURCE: Landsat Thematic Imagery FORMAT RECEIVED: Digital/Maps DATE OF DATA: 1988 DATE CREATED: 1988-1990 METHOD CREATED: See Comments SCALE CREATED: 1:24,000 PROJECTION: North Zone MEDIA TYPE: Imagery ORIGINAL COVERAGE CREATED FROM: 3 Landsat TM scenes, April 1988 Satellite Imagery ACCURACY: 30 meter spatial resolution COMMENTS: Raster to Vector conversion so that data could be used as an ARC/INFO coverage. DOCUMENTATION DATE: 3/93 CUSTODIAN: Paul Buchanan SRWMD 19930101 Reprojected from NAD 27 State Plane Zone North to NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Florida_North_FIPS_0903_Feet Renamed layer from LC(quad#) to landcov88.shp Metadata imported. SRWMD 20090323 The GeoPlan Center downloaded the original Suwannee River Water Management District 1988 Land use and land cover dataset (see below) via the District's Data Directory Website (see below) on May 31st, 2011. Suwannee River Water Management District Data Directory http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=319 http://fl-suwanneeriver.civicplus.com/gisdata/landcover1988_SRWMD.zip The data set was originally named landcov88.shp, GeoPlan renamed the layer to lu_srwmd_1988.shp in order to match the LU naming schema used in FGDL. GeoPlan Reprojected the data from NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Florida_North_FIPS_0903_Feet to the Florida Geographic Data Library Projection Albers Conical Equal Area (aka NAD83 HARN) Below is the original district-wide SRWMD file structure: AREA PERIMETER LANDCOV89_ LANDCOV891 FLUCCS FEATURE Below is the crosswalk table between the original file structure and the new file structure: AREA - Deleted PERIMETER - Deleted LANDCOV89_ - Deleted LANDCOV891 - Deleted FLUCCS - Same FEATURE - Renamed to LANDUSE_DE Additionally GeoPlan added and populated the following fields: OTHER SOURCE SOURCE2 FLUCCS_L1 LEVEL1 FLUCCS_L2 LEVEL2 FLUCCS_L3 LEVEL3 FLUCCSCOMP ACRES DESCRIPT FGDLAQDATE Next GeoPlan ran the Integrate GeoProcessing Tool at a tolerance of 1m, in order to remove any sliver polygons. Next GeoPlan ran the Repair Geometry GeoProcessing Tool 3x, in order to repair any geometry issues cause by the Integrate process. Finally the records in the attribute table were UPPERCASED. GeoPlan 20110531 Vector GT-polygon composed of chains 147788 NAD 1983 HARN Florida GDL Albers 24.0 31.5 -84.0 24.0 400000.0 0.0 coordinate pair 0.0001 0.0001 meter D North American 1983 HARN GRS 1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 LU_SRWMD_1988 LU_SRWMD_1988.DBF SRWMD OBJECTID Internal feature number. ESRI Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Feature geometry. ESRI Coordinates defining the features. FLUCCS The land use and land cover classification code as defined in the Florida DOT's FLUCCS classification system, LUCODE. SRWMD OTHER The following represents the original secondary land use land cover field from the source Water Management District Layer. GeoPlan LANDUSE_DE Character description of the LUCODE, Land use / land cover description. SRWMD SOURCE Water Management District of Coverage/Origin. GeoPlan SOURCE2 Other contributing source. GeoPlan FLUCCS_L1 The highest level (level 1) designation in a hierarchical coding scheme containing 4 levels. GeoPlan LEVEL1 Level 1 land use description, based on the FDOT classification schema. GeoPlan FLUCCS_L2 The second highest level (level 2) designation in a hierarchical coding scheme containing 4 levels. GeoPlan LEVEL2 Level 2 land use description, based on the FDOT classification schema. GeoPlan FLUCCS_L3 The third highest level (level 3) designation in a hierarchical coding scheme containing 4 levels. GeoPlan LEVEL3 Level 3 land use description, based on the FDOT classification schema. There is a possibility that the FDOT Level 3 description does not match that of the Water Management District, for those occurrences this discrepancy has been identified in the FLUCCSCOMP field. GeoPlan FLUCCSCOMP This field represents a comparision between the dataset's FLUCCS code description and the FDOT FLUCCS code description. Where these two descriptions differed a number one was inserted. GeoPlan ACRES Number of Acres. GeoPlan DESCRIPT Based on field LANDUSE_DE. GeoPlan FGDLAQDATE The date FGDL acquired the data from the Source. GeoPlan AUTOID Unique ID added by GeoPlan GeoPlan SHAPE.AREA Area in meters GeoPlan SHAPE.LEN Perimeter in meters GeoPlan FLUCCS SRWMD LAND USE DESCRIPTION [LANDUSE_DE] 1100 - RESIDENTIAL 1400 - COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES 1500 - INDUSTRIAL 1600 - EXTRACTIVE 2100 - AGRICULTURAL 3200 - SHRUB AND BUSH LAND 3220 - COASTAL SCRUB 4210 - XERIC OAK 4250 - TEMPERATE HARDWOOD 4270 - LIVE OAK 4320 - SAND - LIVE OAK 4340 - HARDWOOD - CONIFER MIXED 4410 - PINE - PINE PLANTATION 5100 - STREAMS AND WATERWAYS 5200 - LAKES 5400 - BAYS AND ESTUARIES 6110 - BAY SWAMPS 6130 - GUM SWAMPS 6140 - TITI SWAMPS 6150 - STREAM AND LAKE SWAMPS 6170 - MIXED WETLAND HARDWOODS 6180 - WILLOW WETLANDS 6210 - CYPRESS 6240 - CYPRESS - PINE - CABBAGE PALM 6300 - WETLAND FOREST MIXED 6410 - FRESHWATER MARCH 6411 - SAWGRASS 6421 - CORD GRASS 6422 - NEEDLERUSH 6423 - HIGH MARSH - SALINA 6440 - EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION 6442 - SPATTERDOCK 6460 - SCRUB - SHRUB WETLAND 6510 - TIDAL FLATS 7000 - DISTURBED LAND - EXPOSED ROCK - SAND 8100 - TRANSPORTATION Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) mailing

431 Architecture PO Box 115706

Gainesville Florida 32611-5706 US Mailing list for FGDL: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdl-l.html FGDL Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfaq.html For FGDL Software: http://www.fgdl.org/software.html Technical Support: http://www.fgdl.org/fgdlfeed.html Web site: http://www.fgdl.org DOWNLOADABLE DATA The Florida Geographic Data Library is a collection of Geospatial Data compiled by the University of Florida GeoPlan Center with support from the Florida Department of Transportation. GIS data available in FGDL is collected from various state, federal, and other agencies (data sources) who are data stewards, producers, or publishers. The data available in FGDL may not be the most current version of the data offered by the data source. University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no guarantees about the currentness of the data and suggests that data users check with the data source to see if more recent versions of the data exist. Furthermore, the GIS data available in the FGDL are provided 'as is'. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no warranties, guaranties or representations as to the truth, accuracy or completeness of the data provided by the data sources. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center makes no representations or warranties about the quality or suitability of the materials, either expressly or implied, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. The University of Florida GeoPlan Center shall not be liable for any damages suffered as a result of using, modifying, contributing or distributing the materials. A note about data scale: Scale is an important factor in data usage. Certain scale datasets are not suitable for some project, analysis, or modeling purposes. Please be sure you are using the best available data. 1:24000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the county level. 1:24000 data should NOT be used for high accuracy base mapping such as property parcel boundaries. 1:100000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the multi-county or regional level. 1:125000 scale datasets are recommended for projects that are at the regional or state level or larger. Vector datasets with no defined scale or accuracy should be considered suspect. Make sure you are familiar with your data before using it for projects or analysis. Every effort has been made to supply the user with data documentation. For additional information, see the References section and the Data Source Contact section of this documentation. For more information regarding scale and accuracy, see our webpage at: http://geoplan.ufl.edu/education.html 20200303 Suwannee River Water Management District mailing and physical

9225 County Road 49

Live Oak FL 32060 US 386-362-1001 386-362-1056 M-F 8am-5pm FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time