Ground-Truthing the Habitat Inventory for the Fraser River: Status Report and Lessons Learned March 2007 Fraser River Estuary Management Program

Presentation Outline n FREMP Background n Habitat and Planning Tools n Groundtruthing Project 2006 q Methodology q Findings q Database development & products q Lessons Learned q Next Steps

FREMP Background n Intergovernmental partnership program to coordinate the environmental management of the Fraser River estuary n Partners are federal, provincial and regional governments and port authorities; work with local govts n Established in 1985

FREMP Area= Wetted side of dike, 540km of shoreline

FREMP Vision: A sustainable Fraser River estuary characterized by a healthy ecosystem, economic development opportunities and continued quality of life in and around the estuary.

Two Main Roles: 1.Policy Coordination Estuary Management Plan, 2003 Habitat & Planning Tools Water and Land Use Committee 2. Coordinated Project Review One-window environmental review of physical works in riparian area FREMP Environmental Review Committee

Habitat & Planning Tools FREMP Habitat Inventory Habitat features of estuary (intertidal and riparian habitat) FREMP Habitat Classifications Measure of shoreline habitat productivity (red, yellow and green “colour codes”) Area Designations Agreements with local govts to link habitat classifications with upland planning

2003 Habitat Inventory n Update of 1988 inventory n Developed from photo interpretation using aerial photos n Limited groundtruthing was possible n 10,000+ polygons mapped in FREMP area n Ecological Features and Functions Approach used

2003 Habitat Inventory n First Order Habitat (riparian and intertidal) n Second Order Habitat (intertidal marsh, sandflat, mudflat, riparian trees, riparian grasses and shrubs) n Community n Dominant species n Other information (e.g. bank type)

Groundtruthing Project 2006 n BC Conservation Corps provided grant for two-person groundtruthing crew May-Oct 06 n Project objectives were to: q Verify accuracy of the 2003 inventory q Apply a more refined inventory framework q Gather additional field data, including observations of birds and invasive species

Methods n Developed data dictionary for use in field, based on refined inventory n Identified technical needs/options n Identified basic procedures n Basic plant i.d. n Undertook training

Data Collection Procedures Access polygon on foot, or by vehicle, boat I ID polygon on Archer/ paper maps & observe vegetation I Polygon Check Point: polygon is True, False or Change (and % vegetation cover noted where appropriate) I Add Community Point to describe community and dominant species I Add supplemental information if necessary: Birds, Invasive Species, Wildlife, Wildlife Trees

 Highlighted areas were groundtruthed in 2006

Database Development n Inputs: q 2003 Habitat Inventory polygons q Refined habitat inventory q 2006 field survey data – points and lines n Field crew identified 2003 polygons as “True”, “Change” or “False” n Examples of “Change” included: q Vegetation of previously unvegetated areas q Natural growth or succession (most common reason) q Cleared, developed or under construction

Database Development n Step 1: Modify 2003 Habitat Inventory q Apply updated classification q Drop some attributes n Step 2: Process 2006 Field Survey Data q Check for ambiguities and errors q Convert to scientific species names q Modify 2003 polygon boundaries q Determine which data will be used for direct updates to polygons q Overlay with 2003 polygons to establish link

DatabaseDevelopment n Step 3: Merge 2003 and 2006 Data q 2003 data overwritten or appended, depending on whether polygon was True, Change or False l Some True and all Change polygons were updated l False polygons were revised using new information up to level of dominant species q Remaining polygons classified as “Unverified” q Result characterized as a “2006 Habitat Inventory”, not as an update

Findings n 26.2 % of 2003 habitat inventory was groundtruthed (2776 polygons total; 728 on dry side of dike and 2048 on wetted side of dike) n Polygon boundaries generally correct n 92.3% of polygons were correctly classified up to community level l 67.6% were “True” polygons l 24.7% were “Change” polygons

Findings n For polygons on wetted side of dike: q 74.5% were classified as True (and in some cases, were updated) q 17.0% were classified as Change and were updated q 8.4% were classified as False and were amended based on refined habitat inventory

Final Products n 2006 FREMP Habitat Inventory n Metadata based on a standardized template n GIS data layers: Habitat polygons plus point observations of Birds, Wildlife and Wildlife Trees n Installed on in-house FREMP GIS and on FREMP Atlas

Lessons Learned n Improve pre-field work preparation: q Test field equipment (Archer-GPS) q Finalize data dictionary format q Familiarize field crew with original dataset, field equipment and software q Ensure field crews skilled in flora and fauna identification (botanist) q Field crew familiarity with land uses before commencing groundtruthing

Lessons Learned n In the field: q Observe polygons at low tide and consider boat access to some areas q Consider seasonal variability and blooming times q Ensure regular team feedback/check in q Higher quality GPS (such as Trimble) could provide more accurate spatial data and allow mapping of new polygons in field

Lessons Learned n Database development q Database and GIS expertise critical q Take the time to “clean up” field data q Emphasize importance of database integrity (typos, domains) n Partner involvement key to success n Allocate adequate time for project

Next Steps n BCCC project in summer 2007 n Remap/map areas n Promote dataset as mgmt tool n Invasive species observations and management

Fraser River Estuary Management Program