# data[].attributes.body
Satellite imagery from FDOT

# data[].attributes.body
We're in need of something like a marsh-mangrove mix, or more guidance as to when an area can be considered just "mangroves". Mangroves were present in our marshes during the first mapping effort 10 years ago, but were not included in the map. They are even more extensive now.

# data[].attributes.body
When we conducted our 2010 map we used imagery from our local property appraiser and Lidar.  For our updated map, we will use updated imagery and Lidar and incorporate UAS technology for ground truthing/ field verification.

# data[].attributes.body
Important to consider the marsh-to-mangrove transition and not the uplands-to-marsh or marsh-to-SAV transitions

# data[].attributes.body
Accessibility and concern for impacts to the marsh conducting AA. UAS helps overcome this.

# data[].attributes.body
NAIP, drone-based imagery for AA

# data[].attributes.body
Is salt marsh extent a proxy for demonstrating change and SLR impacts on ecosystem services

# data[].attributes.body
We need to be able to capture the marsh to mangrove transition.

# data[].attributes.body
Condition, drowning, basic marsh extent

# data[].attributes.body
Consider making the boundaries something consistent across Reserves, like the HUC 10, rather than the Reserve boundaries. That makes more sense ecologically and allows for comparisons across regions. (Kerstin, Elkhorn)

# data[].attributes.body
In 2012-2013 a contractor was hired to produce our HCM between 2002 and 2012. This work was submitted and in 2019 was verified and accepted for our reserve boundaries. This work also included an analysis for the entire watershed.

# data[].attributes.body
We would like to know the specific distribution of mangroves to monitor changes related with SLR, coastal erosion and episodic climate events as hurricanes

# data[].attributes.body
At least every 10 years

# data[].attributes.body
We are using UAS to map some areas of the reserve

# data[].attributes.body
To monitore mangrove and vegetation cover change in different areas of the reserve. To identify critical areas affected by coastal erosion and human impacts

# data[].attributes.body
We contracted someone to digitize our habitat map and conduct extensive groundtruthing/field verification.  The same person is willing to do an updated map but we need to find the funding.

# data[].attributes.body
10 years

# data[].attributes.body
Time consuming AA across a lot of acreage (second biggest NERR) and habitats that are hard to access. We second the UAS help for this part, but lacking in UAS expertise, equipment and analysis capabilities at ANERR currently.

# data[].attributes.body
Change in acreage of each habitat type overall, change in quality, identifying transition/ecotone habitats (not just one habitat or another, but mixed is the transition), change in sample areas and not nessessarily change across all of the Reserve (sample/focal areas to include restoration sites, areas of known max change or no change, sentinel or existing research/monitoring sites, Reserve owned-lands

# data[].attributes.body
Staff turnover in the midst of producing the map, misinterpretation of minimum mapping unit, time consuming AA with two draft maps (had to go through the process twice because of issues with the first two items mentioned).

# data[].attributes.body
Unknown, but probably determined by feasibility in reality (time, staff, funding, resources). If UAS or easier methods of habitat mapping are available then a shorter frequency would be more doable. Also, since unknown, it could be useful to detect change at some sample/focal sites more frequently than the entire Reserve's habitats. I think finding out the frequency of change (which is variable and likely to increase) would be that setting a certain interval would be hard.

# data[].attributes.body
FDOT or existing regional imagery. No in house UAS at this time unfortunately

# data[].attributes.body
Primarily changes in marsh habitats along ecotonal areas (e.g., marsh-upland boundaries).

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, how to we denote the actual lines? Habitat lines are already gray areas, and now those mixed ecotones need to be capture somehow.

# data[].attributes.body
As requested by regional project PIs or researchers.

# data[].attributes.body
10 years seems appropriate given the time and resources it takes to create the map. Another thing to think about is that the resolution of the product is coarse (0.25 acre MMU), which means you need a lot of change to have occurred to detect it with this approach.

# data[].attributes.body
We use drones to map some upland habitats that have invasive species issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Mostly in support of research projects conducted by our partners and potentially mapping change at some point. Although I don't think we will be able to map change when comparing to our original habitat map because of important differences in the classes and quality of the map.

# data[].attributes.body
Consider reducing the MMU and focusing on a smaller area within the Reserves (e.g., ecotones, Sentinel Sites) to map meaningful change.

# data[].attributes.body
A base map was created in 2005 but never submitted to CDMO and never had AA generated, so couldn't be used. Second base map was created from 2016 imagery, but it took a lot of staff time and we hired multiple GIS staff (over several years) to help complete it. The AA was a lot of work (e.g., kayaking to far reaches of the reserve; special permission to access remote portions of the uplands from neighboring land owners), but we had lots of volunteers/interns who could help.

# data[].attributes.body
Changes to marsh extent (e.g., highlighting areas where erosion to the marsh/unconsolidated edge has occurred). Changes to wetland type. Changes to salinity regime. For uplands, changes from land use on neighboring lands (we mapped our entire watershed not just our reserve).

# data[].attributes.body
Solely based on identifying habitat change (not including feasibility/staff time) every 5 years.

# data[].attributes.body
Currently whatever we can find in the public domain. We used NAIP for our 2016 maps. However, NAIP typically doesn't include 4 bands for our area.

# data[].attributes.body
We were (I think) the first (only?) reserve to heavily use modifiers. It made a huge difference in the value of our data. I would highly recommend the use of modifiers.

# data[].attributes.body
Habitat transition- in particular salt marsh loss and mangrove gain. Salt marsh loss via fragmentation and/or creek widening.

# data[].attributes.body
We're currently using it with a partner project to refine the state classification system (which uses CMECS - this has been complicated since the CMECS/NERRS crosswalk tool was pretty much useless in our case at least); as well as an inventory of lands that could use restoration/have been restored/should be considered reference sites (using a modifier that qualifies impounded, historically diked lands etc) . One of our modifiers was lands that were Sentinel Sites, so that has come in useful for quickly delineating those habitats. We've used it to look at habitats along the salinity gradient (using the salinity modifier). And looking at high marsh/low marsh habitats (using geoform modifier, which we informed using lidar and estuary specific height ranges for those habitats).

# data[].attributes.body
We used our watershed boundary since we're not isolated from the impacts of neighboring lands within our watershed (HUC 12). That has made a huge difference in how much our data is used.

# data[].attributes.body
10 years seems appropriate at the Reserve scale. It would be great to be able to carryout smaller scale change analysis with UAS at higher resolution and with more frequency, for example focusing on SSAM-1 veg transect locations or SAV beds.

# data[].attributes.body
Marsh loss/transition, pool evolution, total area of habitat types, invasive species.

# data[].attributes.body
I've been told the AA was very time consuming and maybe did not include as many points as were initially planned for.

# data[].attributes.body
Supporting research, monitoring restoration, tracking climate change impacts, supporting partners.

# data[].attributes.body
10 years

# data[].attributes.body
I remember having a difficult time matching our state classification scheme for freshwater tidal wetlands (13 categories for specific vegetation types) to the NERRS classification scheme. We somehow shoe horned it in, but we only use our classification system for our local management needs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Delaware: Impacts to marsh, difficulty to access, just the sheer scale. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Delaware: Impacts to marsh, difficulty to access, just the sheer scale. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Delaware: So much! Marsh inland migration, coastal forest retreat, phragmites (invasive) expansions (including into the forest and into the marsh). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Delaware: So much! Marsh inland migration, coastal forest retreat, phragmites (invasive) expansions (including into the forest and into the marsh). 

# data[].attributes.headline
Delaware: Probably 5 years but we are looking into this question (like if some transects can be added to the biomonitoring). 

# data[].attributes.subject
Delaware: Probably 5 years but we are looking into this question (like if some transects can be added to the biomonitoring). 

# data[].attributes.headline
Delaware: Our DE MAD Fellow is using LiDAR and some aerial imagery. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Delaware: Our DE MAD Fellow is using LiDAR and some aerial imagery. 

# data[].attributes.body
Process and protocols for developing a change map not clear

# data[].attributes.body
Marsh habitat and ecotone shifts, bog habitat

# data[].attributes.body
Aerials from Baldwin County Alabama and NAIP

# data[].attributes.body
Would like to see a classification for bog habitat as this habitat is unique and imperiled in our region

# data[].attributes.body
To track change as previously mentioned and to provide visiting researchers with the information as needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Like some of the others, there are concerns about impacts to sensitive marsh systems. Drones can help, but we also have limitations with those (especially over Federal property).

# data[].attributes.body
Five years (but we have a small reserve).

# data[].attributes.body
Whatever we can get our hands on. Satellite, aerial, drones, LiDAR (the latter is especially useful as elevation change in general is a big deal).

# data[].attributes.body
+1 to WKBNERR comment (re: process and protocols for assessing change).

# data[].attributes.body
changes in ecotones--marsh/water boundary (marsh erosion), low marsh/high marsh, high marsh/upland (migration). Washover fans on barrier islands. More difficult to quantify, but equally important(?), is condition of the habitats and how that is changing over time. We are getting some encouraging results estimating emergent marsh biomass (monospecific Spartina alterniflora) using multispectral UAS sensors. Could be a useful proxy of condition.

# data[].attributes.body
aerial imagery and LiDAR. Drones could be useful, but in extensive forested uplands, line of sight requirements become an issue.

# data[].attributes.body
using habitat change to inform resilience planning/prioritization

# data[].attributes.body
AA (over 600 points) and attempting to produce a map that adhered to the SOPs (especially with regards to the minimum mapping unit) while also trying to produce a map that allows our Reserve to measure meaningful change with regards to marsh migration. Mapping interior edges of Phragmites within our forested habitats was very physically challenging.

# data[].attributes.body
Lots. Ecotone "edges" (water to marsh, low to high marsh, marsh to forest). Evolution of pannes/pools and creek enlargement/widening. Expansion of Phragmites. Loss of live trees (expansion of "ghost tree" zones).

# data[].attributes.body
The ACE Basin NERR is large. We have a habitat map for only our sentinel site due to ground truthing requirements. If we were to try and create a habitat map for the entire ACE Basin that would be a significant effort. To undertake the change component for just the sentinel site will require additional funding.

# data[].attributes.body
5 years would be ideal (for habitat change), but logistically probably in that 5 to 10 year frequency.

# data[].attributes.body
State imagery, 1 foot resolution (Virginia Base Mapping Imagery) - acquired every 4 years for eastern portion of State (2013, 2017, 2021, etc). Supplement with imagery from fixed wing drone (eBee plus). LIDAR data when available from larger scale efforts (USGS) or local projects.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with South Slough. We benefitted greatly by using modifiers to break our data into additional habitats which would not have been captured at the class or subclass level.

# data[].attributes.body
Support of potential resiliency efforts, marsh modeling, and support internal and external research/monitoring efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree with GNDNERR - need to adjust the protocols (or methodology) to allow for capturing changes at smaller (finer) scales than the current MMU in the SOPs.

# data[].attributes.body
Staff/contractor turnover, lack of in-house expertise, accessibility and time to collect information for AA or ground truthing points

# data[].attributes.body
Marsh habitat changes, ecotones, upland changes or transitions

# data[].attributes.body
5 years if the reassessment is only focused on specific habitat changes. The time frame of 5-10 years, depending on the amount of detail in protocols or expertise/staff time needed for entire Reserve reassessments.

# data[].attributes.body
Support research, monitoring and restoration efforts as habitats change. As requested, provide the information to partners.

# data[].attributes.body
Capturing mixed habitats, such as ecotones, which are important for identifying change.