Development of CARI · CARI Dataset California Water Quality Monitoring Council Data Users Cities . Counties . Special Districts . Regional Parks . State Parks . NGOs . Universities

Development of CARI California Aquatic Resource Inventory

Kristen Cayce

San Francisco Estuary Institute June 20, 2012

What is CARI?

• Statewide map of surface waters and riparian areas

• Coordinated effort that integrates across spatial scales

• Tool in the CA Wetland and Riparian Areas Monitoring Plan

LOCAL REGIONAL STATE NATIONAL

Why do we need CARI?

• Standardized map across the state • Contemporary map that meets local

management needs • Consolidate multiple mapping efforts • Support emerging state Wetland and

Riparian Areas Protection Policy – Emphasis on landscape/watershed

context for management

Fundamental building block for aquatic resource management

Where are our wetlands?

One Wetland Map

Process to get to CARI • Pilot projects

– Bay Area and Southern California Coast – Proposition 50 funding

• Developed and implemented draft mapping standards – Drew heavily from NWI and NHD

anticipating integration • Generated stream and wetland pilot

datasets demonstrating the mapping methods

Bay Area Aquatic Resources Inventory

BAARI available on gis.sfei.org/geofetch

Map Elements • Stream Network

– Natural and artificial features – Stream order – Flow direction

• Tidal Polygonal Wetlands

– Marsh habitat elements

• Non-tidal Polygonal Wetlands – Natural and artificial features – Seeps and springs

• Riparian Functional Areas

– Vegetation riparian – Hillslope riparian

9

Mapping Data Sources

• Primary Source data – 2009 National Agricultural

Imagery Program (USDA NAIP)

• Collateral Data – ArcHydro drainage network – Digital Topographic Map

1:24,000 scale DRG (USGS) – National Elevation Dataset 10m resolution DEM (USGS) – LiDAR-derived products – Hillshade – Google Earth – Available local data

• Standards have been vetted by

Science Advisory Group and NWI

Stream Network Standards • Scale:

– Non-tidal = 1:5,000 – Tidal = 1:2,500

• Minimum Mapping Unit

– Natural Channels = 50 m – Artificial Channels = 25 m * except body of water connectors

• Channel types

– Channel (tidal & non-tidal) – Ditch (tidal & non-tidal) – Subsurface drainage – Artificial channel

Polygonal Wetland Standards

• Scale: – Non-tidal = 1:5,000 – Tidal = 1:2,500

• Minimum Mapping Unit

– Non-tidal = 100 m2

– Tidal = 50 m2

• 9 major wetland types

Complete BAARI mapping standards can be downloaded at: www.sfei.org/baari/methods

Stream Network Mapping Flow Chart

ArcHydro

Is the possible channel in the NHD?

NO YES

Digitized based on NAIP Is the possible channel in the DRG or NED?

YES NO

Is the possible channel evident in the NAIP?

Digitized based on NAIP

YES NO

If the possible channel is hidden or there is

a strong evidence of its existence

Then Digitized based on DRG

Is the possible channel evident in the NAIP?

YES NO

Digitized based on NAIP NO channel

Part 1

14

NAIP

Is the possible channel in the NHD? NO YES

Digitized based on NAIP

Is the possible channel in the DRG or NED?

YES NO

Digitized based on NAIP

NO channel

Part 2

Is the possible channel indisputably evident in NAIP? * This is a rare situation when the DRG or NED is so wrong that

it fails to indicate the existence of a channel that is clearly evident in the NAIP

YES

Digitized based on NAIP

NO

Stream Network Mapping Flow Chart

Draft Map

BAARI Quality Control

Draft Stream Network Six Randomly Selected Areas for QA 10% of

total area

SFEI QA Mapping to standard

Comparison of draft to standard quantified/scored

QAQC Results

QUAD NAME # QAQC ALIGNMENT (%) OVER

MAPPED (%) UNDER

MAPPED (%) CLASSIFICATION

(%)

Rutherford 1 32 31 22 20

2 18 18 14 15

Napa 1 10 11 14 14

Cordelia 1 12 4 22 18

2 2 3 7 5

Any quad with >15% error returned for correction

QAQC Overview

• 1:10k • Quick review • Entire draft map • ID and edit major

errors

Merge and Post-Processing

• Data management • Topological assessment • Application of stream order • Flow direction • Planarize

Comparison of Methods

BAARI

Process to CARI • Tested draft methodology

in other regions – Lake Tahoe Basin – Sacramento-San Joaquin

River Delta • Adjusted methods to

accommodate regional differences – Typically classification

CARI Technical Advisory Team

• Mapping, GIS, database technicians • Experience in large-scale wetland or

vegetation mapping project • Series of all-day meetings to outline

the nuts and bolts of mapping protocol for the state

CARI Technical Advisory Team • Representatives from local, regional, state and

federal agencies – USGS, National Hydrography Dataset – USGS, Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee – USFWS, National Wetland Inventory – State Regional Water Board – State Coastal Commission – CA Dept of Fish and Game – CA Dept of Water Resources – Bay Conservation and Development Commission – So Cal Coastal Watershed Research Program – San Francisco Estuary Institute – Marin County Planning Department

CARI Mapping Standards • Primary and Ancillary datasets

– Required and recommended • Scale • Targeted Mapping Units • Geometry • Projection • Quality Control process • Workflow • Technology specification • Delivery of maps

CARI the Evolution

• It’s a continuing process • v0 = best available data • v1 = elevate datasets nearest to

CARI standards to the standard • CARI workgroup for on-going

governance • Outreach, outreach, outreach

CARI Workgroup

Members Cities Counties Special Districts Regional Parks State Parks NGOs Universities State Agencies Federal Agencies others

Data Management Funding Standards and Protocols Changing Technology Coordination Training Data Delivery Etc.

CARI Dataset

California Water Quality Monitoring Council

Data Users Cities Counties Special Districts Regional Parks State Parks NGOs Universities State Agencies Federal Agencies others

2 Levels of Stewardship

Local • Improve CARI by

incorporating local knowledge and data

• Better understand local map and GIS needs

• Develop a mechanism for a “living map”

• Pilot project with Special District

National • Facilitate state/federal

coordination • Integrate CARI into

NWI and NHD • Leverage existing

tools • Pilot project with NWI

CARI Applications

• Basemap for interactive websites – EcoAtlas (aka Wetland Tracker) – Greenbelt Mapper – My Water Quality Portals

• Net Landscape Change • Status and Trends • Research and Modeling

– Sediment budgets – Spartina monitoring

EcoAtlas formerly Wetland Tracker www.californiawetlands.net

EcoAtlas

Data rich, Meaningful information

Data rich, Meaningful information

Data rich, Meaningful information

Data rich, Meaningful information

CARI Applications Sample frame 1. Probabilistic

sample designs

CARI Applications NHD CARI

Developer claims 5,000 linear feet of creek in project area

22,600 linear feet 4.5x more channel

Impact Assessment

Thank you [email protected]

Bay Area Aquatic Resources Inventory (BAARI) www.sfei.org/baari Tahoe WRAMP http://tahoemonitoring.org/tahoe-wramp.html Southern California Wetland Mapping Project http://www.socalwetlands.com/website/main.htm Wetland Tracker http://www.californiawetlands.net/tracker/ California Water Quality Monitoring Council http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/mywaterquality/monitoring_council/index.shtml California Wetland and Riparian Protection Policy http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.shtml