Ground-Truthing the Habitat Inventory for the Fraser River: Status Report and Lessons Learned March 2007 Fraser River Estuary Management Program
Dec 31, 2015
Ground-Truthing the Habitat Inventory for the Fraser River:
Status Report and Lessons Learned
March 2007
Fraser River
Estuary
Management
Program
Presentation Outline FREMP Background Habitat and Planning Tools Groundtruthing Project 2006
Methodology Findings Database development & products Lessons Learned Next Steps
FREMP Background
Intergovernmental partnership program to coordinate the environmental management of the Fraser River estuary
Partners are federal, provincial and regional governments and port authorities; work with local govts
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 InventoryHabitat features of estuary (intertidal and riparian habitat)
FREMP Habitat ClassificationsMeasure of shoreline habitat productivity (red, yellow and green “colour codes”)
Area DesignationsAgreements with local govts to link habitat classifications with upland planning
2003 Habitat Inventory Update of 1988 inventory Developed from photo interpretation
using aerial photos Limited groundtruthing was possible 10,000+ polygons mapped in FREMP area Ecological Features and Functions
Approach used
2003 Habitat Inventory First Order Habitat (riparian and intertidal) Second Order Habitat (intertidal marsh,
sandflat, mudflat, riparian trees, riparian grasses and shrubs)
Community Dominant species Other information (e.g. bank type)
Groundtruthing Project 2006
BC Conservation Corps provided grant for two-person groundtruthing crew May-Oct 06
Project objectives were to: Verify accuracy of the 2003 inventory Apply a more refined inventory framework Gather additional field data, including observations of birds and
invasive species
Methods
Developed data dictionary for use in field, based on refined inventory
Identified technical needs/options Identified basic procedures Basic plant i.d. Undertook training
Data Collection ProceduresAccess 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 speciesI
Add supplemental information if necessary:Birds, Invasive Species, Wildlife, Wildlife Trees
Highlighted areas were groundtruthed in 2006
Database Development Inputs:
2003 Habitat Inventory polygons Refined habitat inventory 2006 field survey data – points and lines
Field crew identified 2003 polygons as “True”, “Change” or “False”
Examples of “Change” included: Vegetation of previously unvegetated areas Natural growth or succession (most common
reason) Cleared, developed or under construction
Database Development Step 1: Modify 2003 Habitat Inventory
Apply updated classification Drop some attributes
Step 2: Process 2006 Field Survey Data Check for ambiguities and errors Convert to scientific species names Modify 2003 polygon boundaries Determine which data will be used for direct
updates to polygons Overlay with 2003 polygons to establish link
Database Development Step 3: Merge 2003 and 2006 Data
2003 data overwritten or appended, depending on whether polygon was True, Change or False
Some True and all Change polygons were updated False polygons were revised using new information up
to level of dominant species
Remaining polygons classified as “Unverified” Result characterized as a “2006 Habitat
Inventory”, not as an update
Findings 26.2 % of 2003 habitat inventory was
groundtruthed (2776 polygons total; 728 on dry side of dike and 2048 on wetted side of dike)
Polygon boundaries generally correct 92.3% of polygons were correctly
classified up to community level67.6% were “True” polygons24.7% were “Change” polygons
Findings For polygons on wetted side of dike:
74.5% were classified as True (and in some cases, were updated)
17.0% were classified as Change and were updated
8.4% were classified as False and were amended based on refined habitat inventory
Final Products
2006 FREMP Habitat Inventory Metadata based on a standardized
template GIS data layers: Habitat polygons plus
point observations of Birds, Wildlife and Wildlife Trees
Installed on in-house FREMP GIS and on FREMP Atlas
http://www.shim.bc.ca/FREMP/main.cfm
Lessons Learned Improve pre-field work preparation:
Test field equipment (Archer-GPS) Finalize data dictionary format Familiarize field crew with original
dataset, field equipment and software Ensure field crews skilled in flora and
fauna identification (botanist) Field crew familiarity with land uses
before commencing groundtruthing
Lessons Learned In the field:
Observe polygons at low tide and consider boat access to some areas
Consider seasonal variability and blooming times
Ensure regular team feedback/check in Higher quality GPS (such as Trimble)
could provide more accurate spatial data and allow mapping of new polygons in field
Lessons Learned
Database development Database and GIS expertise critical Take the time to “clean up” field data Emphasize importance of database
integrity (typos, domains) Partner involvement key to success Allocate adequate time for project
Next Steps BCCC project in
summer 2007 Remap/map areas Promote dataset
as mgmt tool Invasive species
observations and management
www.bieapfremp.org
Fraser River
Estuary
Management
Program