This slide presentation reviews the use of remote sensing to monitor the relationships between the urban development and water quality in Tampa Bay and the tributaries. It examines the changes in land cover/land use (LU/LC) and the affects that this change has on the water quality of Tampa Bay, Lake Thonotosassa and the tributaries, and that shows the ways that these changes can be estimated with remote sensing

Allhamdan, Mohammad

Estes, Maury

MorenoMadrinan, Max J.

Rickman, Douglas L.

NASA Technical Reports Server

Potential Relationships between 
Urban Development and the 
Trophic Status of Tampa Bay 
Tributaries and Lake 
Thonotosassa, Further the 
Potential Effect on Public Health 
Max J. Moreno Madriñán
Mohammad Z. Al-Hamdan
Douglas L. Rickman
Maury Estes
American Public Health Association's 138th Annual Meeting and 
Exposition in Denver, CO, November 10, 2010 
LT50170412009034EDC00 
2009/02/03 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110004360 2019-08-30T14:21:24+00:00Z
Presenter Disclosures
(1) The following personal financial relationships with 
commercial interests relevant to this presentation 
existed during the past 12 months:
<Max Jacobo Moreno Madriñán>
< “No relationships to disclose” >
Outline
• Background – Public Health
• Hypothesis
• Objectives
• Land Cover/Land Use change (LC/LU) 
using Coastal Change Analysis Program  
(C-CAP) - NOAA product
• Water Quality (WQ) analysis with 
emphasis on Turbidity  - Analysis of 
relationship between Remotely Sensed  
(RS) data from MODIS and in situ data 
from the Environmental Protection 
Commission of Hillsborough County 
(EPCHC) on turbidity on TB
• Preliminary conclusions
http://www.networkedblogs.com/p22486755 http://www.brennanbail.com/images/tampa-bail-bond.jpg
Tampa Bay 
Watershed
The 5,700 Km2 Tampa Bay 
watershed (TBW) lies within the 
Counties of Hillsborough, 
Pinellas, and Manatee and 
extends to parts of Sarasota, 
Pasco, and Polk Counties.
Tampa Bay (TB), is the largest 
open-water estuary in Florida. 
Stretches 1,030.81 km2 at high 
tide.
Average depth: 3.4 m
More than 128.75 km of deep-
water shipping channels –
the largest 13 m deep.
Three ports:  $15 billion to the 
local economy and support 
130,000 jobs.
Pinellas
Pasco
Hillsborough Polk
Manatee
Sarasota
Water Quality
• Improving since the early 80’s - effective 
environmental management strategies - upgrade 
to tertiary level in the waste water treatment 
plant  
• Ecological importance allowing the supportive 
function of ecosystems 
• Sport fishing, boating, kayaking, and wildlife 
watching support tourism and leisure of locals
• Public health
Fort De Soto
Fort De Soto
Fort De Soto
Hypotheses
• Change in LC/LU affects the WQ of Tampa Bay       
tributaries, Lake Thonotosassa and the Bay itself
• Both the LC/LU and WQ can be estimated with RS as well as 
the effect of their interaction 
Objectives
• Analyze for possible effects that LC/LU changes may cause 
in WQ of TB tributaries and Lake Thonotosassa
– Evaluate LC/LU change in TB using RS
– Estimate turbidity in TB water using RS
– Estimate association between LC/LU and WQ 
5 Sub-watersheds
• Lake Thonotosassa 
Watershed (LTW)
• Lake Thonotosassa 
(LT)
1. Hillsborough River (HR)
• Lake Thonotosassa 
Watershed (LTW)
5 Sub-watersheds
1. Hillsborough River (HR)
• Lake Thonotosassa 
Watershed (LTW)
2. Alafia River (AR)
5 Sub-watersheds
1. Hillsborough River (HR)
• Lake Thonotosassa 
Watershed (LTW)
2. Alafia River (AR)
3. Little Manatee River 
(LMR)
5 Sub-watersheds
1. Hillsborough River (HR)
• Lake Thonotosassa 
Watershed (LTW)
2. Alafia River (AR)
3. Little Manatee River 
(LMR)
4. Manatee River (MR)
5 Sub-watersheds
1. Hillsborough River (HR)
• Lake Thonotosassa 
Watershed (LTW)
2. Alafia River (AR)
3. Little Manatee River (LMR)
4. Manatee River (MR)
5. Tampa Bay watershed (TBw)
• TB West
• TB N. East
• TB. East
• TB. S. East
• TB
5 Sub-watersheds
1. Hillsborough River (HR)
2. Alafia River (AR)
3. Little Manatee River 
(LMR)
4. Manatee River (MR)
5. Tampa Bay watershed 
(TBw)
5 Sub-watersheds
C-CAP 1996: TBW
Class 
name
Area in all TBW 
in Km2
Change
1996 2001 Km2 Percent
Develop. 1264 1410 146 11.5
Agr./Grass 1617 1517 -46 -2.9
Forest 48 51 3.5 7.3
Scrub 247 156 -9.1 -36.8
Wetland 2348 2314 -34.4 -1.5
Uncons. 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -19.5
Bare Land 67 94 27 39
Water 1056 1052 -4 -0.4
C-CAP 2001: TBW
Class 
name
Area in all TBW 
in Km2
Change
1996 2001 Km2 Percent
Develop. 1264 1410 146 11.5
Agr./Grass 1617 1517 -46 -2.9
Forest 48 51 3.5 7.3
Scrub 247 156 -9.1 -36.8
Wetland 2348 2314 -34.4 -1.5
Uncons. 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -19.5
Bare Land 67 94 27 39
Water 1056 1052 -4 -0.4
C-CAP 2006: TBW
Class 
name
Area in all TBW 
in Km2
Change
2001 2006 Km2 Percent
Develop. 1410 1439 29 2.1
Agr./Grass 1517 1513 -58 -3.7
Forest 51 50 -1 -2.9
Scrub 156 152 -4 -2.4
Wetland 2314 2272 -41 -1.8
Uncons. 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.7
Bare Land 94 126 32 34.5
Water 1052 1095 44 4.1
Class 
name
Area in Tampa Bay 
Watershed in Km2 Change
in 
Km2
Pct. 
Change
1996 2006
Develop. 1264 1439 175 13.8
Agr./Grass 1617 1513 -105 -6.5
Forest 48 50 2 4.2
Scrub 247 152 -94 -38.2
Wetland 2348 2272 -76 -3.2
Uncons. 0.5 0.4 -0.1 -18.1
Bare Land 67 126 59 87.3
Water 1056 1095 39 3.7
Change in 
Land Cover/Land Use (LC/LU)
in the Tampa Bay Watershed
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
km
2
1996
2001
2006
Class 
name
Pct. Change from 1996 to 2006
HR AR LMR MR TB-West TB-
N.East
TB-East TB-S.East TB
Develop. 16 13.5 11.2 31.1 6.8 13.2 41.4 11.1 2.1
Agr/Grass -3 -4.3 -10.4 -8.1 -16.2 -23.2 -8.7 0 -0.3
Forest 7.1 -4.7 -17.1 8.9 -0.1 11.1 -100 0 0
Scrub -33.4 -35.2 -53.4 -42.2 0 -45.0 0 -49.1 -20.5
Wetland -2.2 -4.3 -4.4 -2.5 -4.2 -5.3 -4.8 -2.6 1.2
Uncons. 0 0 -9.0 -100 -47.4
Bare Land 86 56.2 356.6 92.7 -47.5 -100 149.4 65.2 -9.0
Water 23.7 28.5 23.5 16.0 1.7 15.6 43.5 25.2 0
Change in LC/LU in 
Tampa Bay Watershed by 
Tributaries
Class name
Area in  LTW 
in Km2
Change
1996 2001 Km2 Percent
Develop. 37.7 44.8 7.1 18.7
Agr./Grass 34.4 34.4 0 -0.1
Forest 0.1 0.1 0 -1.4
Scrub 10.1 4.9 -5.1 -50.9
Wetland 61.9 60.5 -1.4 -2.2
Bare Land 0.7 0.2 -0.5 -77.5
Water 4.6 4.6 0 0.1
C-CAP 1996: LTW
Watershed: 150 Km2
Lake: 2.5 km long, 1.5 km wide, and 
2.5 m depth 
Class Ill: Rule 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), 
human recreation and propagation  of fish and wildlife.
Class name
Area in  LTW 
in Km2
Change
1996 2001 Km2 Percent
Develop. 37.7 44.8 7.1 18.7
Agr./Grass 34.4 34.4 0 -0.1
Forest 0.1 0.1 0 -1.4
Scrub 10.1 4.9 -5.1 -50.9
Wetland 61.9 60.5 -1.4 -2.2
Bare Land 0.7 0.2 -0.5 -77.5
Water 4.6 4.6 0 0.1
C-CAP 2001: LTW
Class name
Area in  LTW 
in Km2
Change
2001 2006 Km2 Percent
Develop. 44.8 45.4 0.6 1.4
Agr./Grass 34.4 34 -0.4 -1.1
Forest 0.1 0.1 0 -10.3
Scrub 4.9 4.9 -0.1 -1.5
Wetland 60.5 59.7 -0.8 -1.3
Bare Land 0.2 0.4 0.3 174.9
Water 4.6 5.0 0.4 8
C-CAP 2006: LTW
Change in 
Land Cover/Land Use (LC/LU)
in Lake Thonotosassa Watershed 
Class 
name
Area in 
Thonotosassa 
Watershed in Km2
Change
in 
Km2
Pct. 
Change
1996 2006
Develop. 37.7 45.4 7.7 20.3
Agr./Grass 34.4 34 -0.4 -1.2
Forest 0.1 0.1 0 -11.6
Scrub 10.1 4.9 -5.2 -51.6
Wetland 61.9 59.7 -2.2 -3.5
Bare Land 0.7 0.4 -0.3 -38.1
Water 4.6 5.0 0.4 8.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Km
2
1996
2001
2006
Population Growth in the 
Tampa Bay Metropolitan Area
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
Po
pu
la
ti
on
Year
US Bureau of the Census (1990 – 2000)
http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2006-annual.html
That number is 
expected to grow by 
nearly 19 percent by 
the year 2015, as 
approximately 500 
people move to one 
of the three counties 
each week.
http://www.tbep.org/estuary.
html
Chlorophyll-α concentration
in Tampa Bay Water (1981- 2007)
Data from the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County
Mean Annual Concentration of Four Parameters of 
WQ in Water from Hillsborough River from 1996 to 
2006
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
M
ea
n 
A
nn
ua
lT
N
 (m
g/
L)
Year
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
M
ea
n 
A
nn
ua
l T
P 
(m
g/
L)
Year
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
M
ea
n 
A
nn
ua
l C
lo
ro
ph
yl
l-α
(µ
g/
L)
 
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006M
ea
n 
A
nn
ua
lT
ur
bi
di
ty
(N
TU
)
Year
The same procedure was followed with each one of the other 4 tributaries of TB
Mean Annual Ratio of TN:TP in Water 
from Hillsborough River and Lake 
Thonotosassa from 1996 to 2006
Decreasing ratios of TN:TP in inflow water may be a concern for 
potential favorable conditions leading to abundance of 
cyanobacteria in receiving water bodies  
Scaled Rate:  
-82.5 = 0.000165/-0.000002
0.00016
0.000165
0.00017
0.000175
0.00018
0.000185
0.00019
0.000195
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Ra
ti
o 
TN
:T
P
Year
HR LT
Scaled Rate: 
-10.6 = 3.5/-0.3309
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Ra
tio
 T
N
:T
P
In Situ Water 
Quality
Water quality monitoring 
sites in tributaries
Watershed Change km2
1996-2006
Pct. Change 
1996-2006
Scaled Rate: Range/Slope
Turbidity Chlorophyll-α TN:TP Ratio
HR 53.1 16 -43.9 34 -10.6
AR 18.4 13.5 -18 2343 -19.2
LMR 4.8 11.2 -16.8 -21.8 -25.4
MR 38.9 31.1 -71.2 25.7
TB West 30.8 6.8 -24.7 -7.2 -13.3
TB N. East 15.6 13.2 30.7 9.9 31.7
TB East 11.1 41.1 -260 -657 -29.7
TB S. East 2.9 11.1 -44.6 -48.6 -1714
TB 0.2 2.1 -13.7 (Site 14) 6875 (Site 14) -4 (Site 14)
LT 7.7 20.3 -42.4 118.7 -82.5
Percent change in developing land in  watersheds of TB tributaries and their corresponding 
trend in mean annual WQ variables.  Trends are obtained from plotting annual means
Change in Developing Land and
Regression Slopes of Water Quality
in Tampa Bay Tributaries
Trends of Mean Annual Ratios of 
TN:TP in Water from Site 14 in Tampa 
Bay for the time periods 1981-2007 
and 1999 - 2007
y = 0.1065x - 209.55
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
TN
:T
P 
Ra
ti
o
Year
y = -0.4857x + 976.91
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
TN
:T
P 
Ra
ti
o
Year
Estimating Turbidity with
Remotely Sensed Data
• Surface reflectance MODIS Terra daily 
product (MOD09GQ) Band 1 (620 – 670 
nm)  250 m
• Corrected for atmospheric effect
• Turbidity 
• Criteria:
1. Matching with a good quality satellite 
image of the same day
2. No mixed pixels
3. Water depth ≥ 2.4 m to avoid bottom 
reflectance contamination. 
• Ultimately, 294 data values from 33 
stations (in red) out of 5,262 from 56 
stations (red and yellow)
• In situ data provided by the 
Environmental Protection Commission 
of Hillsborough County (EPCHC)
Relationships between in situ
turbidity (NTU) and Rrs from MOD09GQ
Number 
of Days 
R2 Equation n
8 0.76 165.93 Rrs + 1.213 34
7 0.69 157.96 Rrs + 1.4746 60
6 0.55 161.43 Rrs + 1.6089 87
5 0.48 160.42 Rrs + 2.1492 114
4 0.47 162.94 Rrs + 1.9947 133
3 0.35 143.39 Rrs + 1.9064 195
2 0.35 144.19 Rrs + 1.8696 222
1 0.32 143.64 Rrs + 1.8413 260
0 0.32 142.28 Rrs + 1.7944 294
Cumulative analysis starting with all the matching pairs of data available 
according to the criteria and gradually decreasing the data set by increasing one 
day after rain event until eventually having only the matching pairs with 8 days or 
more after a rain event. All relationships were significant (P<0.0001) if normality 
is assumed.
Relationships between in situ turbidity 
(NTU) and Rrs from MOD09GQ (cont’d)
8 days after rain event
Same day of a rain event (cloud free sky) 
y = 165.93x + 1.213
R² = 0.7567
n = 34
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
In
 S
itu
Tu
rb
id
ity
 (N
TU
)
Rrs (645)
y = 12.053x + 2.269
R² = 0.003
n = 32
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
In
 S
itu
Tu
rb
id
ity
 (N
TU
)
Rrs (645)
Summary Table of Time 
Series from 2000 to 2007 in 
Tampa Bay water
Slopes of the Trends
≥ 8 days after rain
Reflectance -0.000003
In situ Turbidity
(NTU)
-0.001
In situ Chlorophyll-α
(mg/L)
-0.0004
In situ Total Nitrogen 
(TN)(mg/L)
-0.0003
In situ Total 
Phosphorus (TP) 
(mg/L)
-0.00003
These trends were 
calculated using both RS 
and in situ data from the 
same dates.  
Summary statistics for Time 
Period 2000-2007
Sub-Regions
Average
Turbidity 
(NTU)
SD-
Turbidity 
(NTU)
Average
Bottom 
Depth (m)
SD -
Bottom 
Depth (m)
Average 
Color (Pt-
Co Units)
SD -
Color  
(Pt-Co 
Units)
n
Hillsborough Bay 4.8 3.0 3.8 1.0 10.0 5.4 38
Old Tampa Bay 2.9 2.2 3.5 1.0 8.7 3.7 37
Middle Tampa Bay 3.2 1.9 6.2 2.0 7.9 4.4 135
Low Tampa Bay 3.9 2.7 6.4 2.6 4.4 2.0 84
Summary statistics of in situ data variables for the time period 2000-2007 by sub-regions of 
the Tampa Bay and using only data  matched up with Remotely Sensed Data
Preliminary Conclusions
• Areas covered with developed land, bare land, and open water 
increased in  the  TBW for the time period 1996-2006. 
• The Sub-watershed with the greater percentage of increase in 
developed land was Manatee River followed by Hillsborough 
River, Alafia River, Little Manatee River, and Tampa Bay 
tributary.
• Areas covered with agriculture, wetlands, and scrub/shrub 
decreased for the same time period. 
• The sub-watershed with the greater decrease in wetlands was  
Little Manatee River followed by Alafia River, Tampa Bay 
tributary, Manatee River, and Hillsborough River. 
• Lake Thonotosassa watershed showed an increase in 
developed land and a decrease in land classes agriculture, 
scrub, and wetland.
Preliminary Conclusions
• Except for Manatee River and few minor tributaries 
within the Tampa Bay watershed, ratios of TN to TP in 
the remaining tributaries suggest a decreasing trend. 
This may be a concern in regard to potential for 
cyanobacteria abundance.
• Turbidity is better estimated with RS with more days 
after rainfall. 
• Turbidity and  concentration  of TN, TP, and 
chlorophyll-α slightly decreased in  TB water for the 
time period 2000- 2006.  
• The Surface reflectance MODIS Terra daily product 
(MOD09GQ) showed to be operable to estimate 
turbidity in TB but not in Lake Thonotosassa. 
?
Presenter:
• Max Jacobo Moreno Madriñán, PhD, MEM
• NASA Postdoctoral Program fellow/ORAU 
Global Hydrology and Climate Center NSSTC/MSFC/NASA
320 Sparkman Drive
Huntsville, AL 35805
• max.j.moreno-madrinan@nasa.gov
• Office: 256-961-7742
• Cell: 813-505-9305


Potential Relationships Between Urban Development and the Trophic Status of Tampa Bay Tributaries and Lake Thonotosassa, Further the Potential Effect on Public Health

Potential Relationships Between Urban Development and the Trophic Status of Tampa Bay Tributaries and Lake Thonotosassa, Further the Potential Effect on Public Health

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server