Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning · 2007-05-02 · Application of...

Adirondack Ecological Center SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry 6312 State Route 28N, Newcomb NY 12852 (518) 582-4551 voice (518) 582-2181 fax

www.esf.edu/aec

AApppplliiccaattiioonn ooff GGIISS ttoo RRaappiidd IInnvveennttoorryy ffoorr UUnniitt

[email protected]

MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPllaannnniinngg YYeeaarr 11 SSuummmmaarryy RReeppoorrtt OOccttoobbeerr 22000044 Stacy McNulty, Jennifer Gagnon, Benjamin Zuckerberg, and William Porter

on behalf of the UMP-GIS Consortium

Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 1 Report 1

Background The Adirondack Park consists of a patchwork of publicly- and privately-owned land. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is responsible for stewardship of units of publicly-owned land collectively called the Forest Preserve. Stewardship of the units is guided by a Unit Management Plan (UMP), which conforms to guidelines set forth in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP). An inventory of the natural resources and physical characteristics of a unit is required to provide an understanding of the significant biological resources the DEC is charged with managing, and to ensure optimal siting of proposed facilities such as trails and campsites. Only after inventory has been completed can DEC planners identify management objectives to protect the resources and allow public use consistent with the unit’s carrying capacity. The UMP-GIS Consortium arose from the need to assemble existing digital data into a Geographic Information System (GIS) and develop datasets and tools to facilitate the inventory portion of the UMP process in the Adirondack Park. Overview We report here on the first year of the five-year cooperative UMP-GIS project. The objectives were to:

1. Assemble the GIS database describing the ecological content of the units and adjacent lands. 2. Interpret the context of the unit within the surrounding landscape. 3. Provide training to DEC planners to enable future interpretation of GIS data. 4. Ensure protection and archival of the data.

This report contains concise summaries of the GIS tools and datasets developed during year 1 of the UMP-GIS project, the outline for future in-depth training, and recommended solutions to current challenges. We provided an efficient method to access existing inventory data, bring natural resource expertise and analyses into the process, and to evaluate Forest Preserve units within the surrounding matrix of land. During year 1 we also defined protocols and mechanisms for data sharing, established relationships with Consortium partners, and readied the GIS tools and datasets for deployment to all planners. Tools such as Cost Path Analysis, Site Selection Analysis, and a Data Dictionary for Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) will enable us to organize data into an easily accessible, standardized format and work with planners who develop management objectives and alternatives as the project continues. Analyses we initiated in year 1 to identify areas within the Adirondacks that contain important suites of species, areas at risk of degradation, and other management priorities will be further refined in the coming year. Evaluation of the initial version of the tools is currently underway; distribution to all planners will occur over the next several months. Successful implementation of the variety of resources now available is dependent upon continued engagement of DEC planners with the UMP-GIS Consortium and encouragement by DEC officials to use UMP-GIS data and tools in the plans. The GIS database is a tool that provides a “first cut” at a comprehensive natural resource inventory. The database allows planners to characterize the natural resources and biodiversity within a unit and in the surrounding area, something that the DEC has recognized as integral to good Forest Preserve stewardship. Although existing GIS data will not address every data requirement for comprehensive inventory, the UMP-GIS database will allow DEC planners to focus on filling in information gaps and access an objective information base to support the decision-making portion of the UMP process.

If there is a unifying theme to the master plan, it is that the protection and preservation of the natural resources of the state lands within the Park must be paramount. Human use and enjoyment of those lands

should be permitted and encouraged, so long as the resources in their physical and biological context as well as their social or psychological aspects are not degraded.

~ Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan, Introduction page 1


Summary Report The goal of the Unit Management Plan–GIS (UMP-GIS) Project is to augment the state land planning process in the Adirondack Park by increasing the quantity and improving the quality of geographical, ecological, and recreational data available to the DEC. The approach is to assemble existing digital data into a GIS database, to develop products to facilitate the inventory portion of the Unit Management Plan process, and to increase communication between planners and technical experts from universities, state agencies and non-government organizations that cooperate via the UMP-GIS Consortium. This group formed under the auspices of the Adirondack Research Consortium. To meet the goal, we addressed four objectives in year 1. 1. Assemble a GIS database describing the ecological content of the units and significant ecological

attributes of immediately adjacent public and private lands.

Action: We formed a Consortium consisting of members of universities, state agencies, and non-governmental organizations to serve as a technical advisory group. Our team based at SUNY ESF’s Adirondack Ecological Center led the development and maintenance of an integrated GIS (Appendix 1). The team consists of a project director, project coordinator, full-time GIS specialist, research biologists, graduate students, and numerous Consortium natural resource experts who can be called upon to function as technical assistants to planners. The Consortium convened two annual meetings as well as meetings of technical and ecological experts and with DEC planning staff (Appendix 2). Deliverables: We produced protocols for data sharing and management including a metadata form for data submission, a Memorandum of Agreement signed by Consortium members, summary documents arising from Consortium meetings, and a methodology of discrepancy/conflict resolution of data. If conflicts arise, we will examine the data, metadata, and other reference documents, such as digital orthophotos. We will consult with experts from the Consortium, and make recommendations on data usage to planners, who in turn make the final decisions regarding usage of the data. We established a distribution mechanism for data and updates that included production of data CD-ROMs and integration into the DEC’s existing Master Habitat Data Bank (MHDB), which is available on each planner’s desktop. We also developed a method for quality assurance/approval of data. Action: We developed tools and maps to assist planners with the development of Unit Management Plans, working with GIS software (ESRI’s ArcGIS and ArcView platforms). Deliverables: Several tools, including Cost Path Analysis, GPS Data Dictionary, land cover summaries, a potential habitat map for deer winter yards, Site Selection Analysis, and standards for maps are described below. Cost Path Analysis: Least cost path analysis is an ArcINFO model designed to determine the least expensive path from one point to another. This analysis is particularly useful for new trail siting (e.g., snowmobile trails, hiking trails). The inputs are any number of data layers to which cost is assigned. For our purposes, ”cost” is not monetary, but cost indicates relative risk to wildlife habitat or ecosystems in the unit or adjacent lands. We used existing trail and road data, Natural Heritage Program data (including exemplary communities and sensitive wildlife areas), wetland data, topography, and APA land classification data as the basis for the cost layers. The planner assigned to each layer the cost of traveling over different features on a scale of 1 (lowest cost) to 10 (highest cost). We assigned boundaries such as impassable rivers a “null” value. There is no limit to the number of data layers that can be included. The analysis is repeatable, and the planner can change the cost assigned to a layer for multiple scenario testing (Fig. 1). For example, an existing trail might be assigned a 1, a wetland or special management unit might receive a 10, and a new, unbuilt trail might receive a range of values for evaluating cost of different route alternatives.


Figure 1. One iteration of the Cost Path Analysis applied totrail siting in the Vanderwhacker WF Unit overlaid ontodigital orthoimagery. This analysis included ecological data,rivers, trails, roads, special management areas, and slope todetermine the lowest cost trail (in yellow) from A to B.

A

B

Data Dictionary: This tool allows planners to organize data collected with GPS units. It is a text file that, when loaded into a Trimble GPS unit, structures data in the proper format as it is collected (and ultimately exported into the GIS). The format is consistent with the DEC State Forest Infrastructure Development Handbook. The Data Dictionary will enable more efficient GPS data collection and development, as it will no longer be necessary to reformat the data before integration with the MHDB. Land Cover Summaries: We produced a park-wide analysis of the distribution of land cover classes (based on U.S. Geological Survey National Land Cover Data) across Adirondack Park. We calculated the percentage of the park’s land cover in each unit and also calculated the percent of each land cover class within each unit. For example, 12.7% of the park’s deciduous forest is located within the boundaries of the Black River Wild Forest unit, while 75.8% of the Black River WF is deciduous forest. Potential Deer Yard Model: Results of the potential deer winter yard habitat model are now available to all planners. This overlay analysis includes suitable elevation, slope and land cover types using criteria based on published deer research and deer studies cin the central AdirondThis data lacan also be compared with historic (1960s-70s) and current (2003-04) deer yards (J. Hurst, SUNY ESF, 2004). This model is useful for evaluating possible disturbances to a yard (Fig. 2).

onducted

acks. yer

Figure 2. Potential deer winter yard habitat (shaded)overlaid with historic and current deer yards. Plansshould consider potential habitat on state land withinthe context of the adjacent suitable habitat.


Site Selection Analysis: We have developed GIS tools for identifying potential areas for campsites or new facilities. Any number of data layers can be used to identify ideal areas for new facilities or to detect those areas that should be avoided. Using the APSLMP, the planner decides the input criteria, and existing data are used to find areas that meet desired conditions. This analysis is repeatable and can be modified as new or better data become available. Possible criteria for campsite placement include distance to other recreational points, distance to roads or trails, slope, soil type, distance from water bodies and wetlands, avoidance of important wildlife habitat, points of interest, distance to access points, and maintenance of viewsheds (Fig. 3). The final suitability map depends on whether the goal is to place a new recreational facility close to a road, or far from existing campsites or other facilities. Standard Map Legends, Colors, and Markers: We have been working with the DEC Regional Cartographer to develop a set of tools and guidelines to help planners make maps consistent with the maps and figures in all UMPs. These include legends, colors, markers, fonts, and scale guidelines. The map standards are available for all planners.

2. Interpret the context of the unit with the

surrounding landscape.

Action: We developed data layers that allow the planners to assess and inventory natural resources and possible impacts of land use on adjacent lands. Deliverables: Many of these data layers, described below, are in progress and will be further developed in year 2. Breeding Bird Atlas: We developed several data layers using the New York State Breeding Bird Atlas and the USGS Breeding Bird Survey data. These data layers show “hot spots” of declining species, forest breeding birds, state-listed species, and species richness (Fig. 4). We will provide these data layers, at a park-wide and individual unit scale, to assist planners with identification of important areas for conservation and recreational

Figure 3. Preliminary results for campsite selection inSiamese Ponds Wilderness. Suitability Class 1 containsareas most suitable for new campsites and Class 5 areas areleast suitable. This analysis included potential Bicknell’sThrush habitat, slope, distance to trails, and distance fromwater, wetlands, and existing campsites.

0 - 24%

24 - 44%

44 - 55%

55 - 67%

67 - 90%

Figure 4. Birds requiring continuous forest, bypercent of all species in each BBA block, and fourForest Preserve units with the largestconcentration of forest birds.


potential (e.g., birding areas). Important Bird Areas: This data layer from the Audubon Society of New York represents a preliminary introduction of Important Bird Areas (IBA). In general, a site is recognized as an IBA if it meets at least one of the three IBA criteria relating to threatened species, habitat-species assemblages, and congregations of birds. IBA selection is based on grassroots nomination and subsequent GIS analysis. We will provide this data layer, at a park-wide and individual unit scale, to assist planners in identifying areas critical to regional bird conservation. Ecosystems Map: This map is based on an innovative Ecological Land Unit (ELU) approach developed by The Nature Conservancy where environmental information (i.e., elevation, bedrock geology, surficial geology, and hydrology) is used to predict where unique ecological systems occur within the Adirondack Park. This map is an ongoing collaborative effort involving the Adirondack Ecological Center, Adirondack Nature Conservancy, Adirondack Park Agency, and the New York Natural Heritage Program. We will provide each unit planner with this data layer at various scales: unit, unit plus adjacent lands or inholdings, watershed, Adirondack Park, and beyond the Park boundary where appropriate. The map will help planners identify areas of unique natural resources as well as similar ecosystems found in different Forest Preserve units. New York Gap Analysis Program: We have adapted and altered data layers developed by the New York Gap Analysis Program depicting areas of species richness of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians within the Park. We will provide these data layers, at a park-wide and individual unit scale, to assist planners in identifying important areas of biodiversity for conservation and areas susceptible to negative impacts from human recreation or other factors. GIS Tools for Conservation Planning: This software package consists of three tools developed by the USGS for conservation planning. These tools are available and downloadable to the ArcView 3.x platform, and allow planners the ability to rapidly assess landscape attributes and link these attributes with species-habitat information. We are developing the use of the New York Gap Analysis land cover map and species-habitat relation data for integration into this software. These tools and extensions will allow planners to interactively make specific changes to a land cover map and re-examine species-habitat relations. We will provide these tools, land cover, and habitat relation data to allow planners to evaluate the merits and possible effects of proposed management scenarios on multiple wildlife species.

3. Provide training to DEC planners to enable efficient use and interpretation of GIS data. Action: We worked with DEC to identify the most important training needs of DEC planners. Deliverables: The level of GIS skills diverges widely among planners. Some planners are quite comfortable using ArcView software, and others are not. Consequently, training must be tailored to the abilities of the individual planner. Consortium members agreed that during year 1, training would be limited to an informal, one-on-one, dataset-specific approach and that a more formal, inclusive approach would be implemented beginning in year 2. We are developing and will be offering 2-3 half-day training sessions to allow planners of any skill level the opportunity to refine their GIS skills (Appendix 3). Planners with previous GIS skills will build on those skills, learn new skills, and take advantage of available software and data to improve data access for preparation of UMPs. Planners with more limited GIS skills will gain new skills and an understanding of the theory behind GIS analysis. Throughout the duration of the project, we will continue to be available to assist all planners with data interpretation and analysis services.


4. Ensure protection and archival of the data. Action: We identified data resources, mechanisms for ensuring data quality and appropriate metadata, locations for archiving and indexing of data, and protocols for the protection of individual data sets and access to data by the Consortium and the public.

Deliverables: We have begun the compilation of data and metadata, and have developed a mechanism for indexing and searching data by adapting to the structure of the DEC’s MHDB. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed that details the specifications of data protection specifically for Natural Heritage Program data, due to the sensitive, non-public nature of some NHP information. As per the separate Memorandum of Agreement signed by Consortium members, only the creator or original owner of the data has the right to share data with a third party. At this time, data are not shared with other Consortium members via the AEC, nor are datasets made public. In this way, security of datasets is assured and there is no question as to the quality or accuracy of data. At a future time to be determined by the Consortium, the question of public access will be revisited. Initial ideas included serving the data via a DEC server or using the NYS GIS Clearinghouse web site. Ultimately, it may make sense to provide data publicly, but no plans have been made as to sharing data outside the scope of this project.

Action: We determined a timeline for scheduled updates and data review.

Deliverables: APA, DEC, and NHP data are housed centrally at AEC on a non-networked external hard drive. This drive contains the entire MHDB and is updated at least quarterly, unless a more significant change to one or more data layers occurs, in which case the drive is updated as needed. Scheduled updates to datasets are variable, as listed in metadata. Datasets will be revisited when new base layers are made available (e.g., new land cover or updated soils datasets).

Future Recommendations and Solutions – Beyond Year 1 The Adirondack Park contains the largest and most intact forested ecosystem in the eastern U.S. UMPs are the documents guiding stewardship of the natural resources on public land and are key to maintenance of ecosystem health and retention of the variety of recreational opportunities available. Year 2 of the UMP-GIS project promises to be an exciting time for planning in the park. We developed priorities, recommendations and solutions to current challenges for the next phase of the project.

Action: We regularly communicated with DEC planning staff to understand their needs. Evaluation: We identified a number of GIS inventory data and software needs and possible solutions that would greatly improve state land planning and stewardship if addressed. Accurate land cover/ecosystem data have been requested by every planner with whom we have interacted. There is a land cover data set available through the MHDB, but it is in raster format (see Software below) and is nearly a decade old. Solution: the U.S. Geological Survey will be releasing a new land cover data set within the year. In addition, we are working with The Nature Conservancy and other experts to develop an Ecological Land Unit map that will be more detailed informative than USGS land cover data (see Objective 2, Ecosystems Map).


Recreational use information is a very important component of planning. Planners must address future recreational demands to effectively protect the resources within the unit. We are currently consulting with Dr. Chad Dawson, an expert in recreation planning at SUNY ESF, the possibilities of making new recreational use data accessible to planners via the GIS database. However, this dataset only covers certain units. Trail registry information may be of some use, but based on DEC evaluation this dataset is currently incomplete and of questionable quality because of its voluntary nature. Recreational use assessment is a subject of obvious importance to planning for the future of the park. Solution: We recommend that a plan be developed by DEC to systematically gather information on recreational use on Forest Preserve lands. Accurate facilities data are imperative to fully investigate recreation potential and impacts on the ecosystem. Solution: We are working with DEC Lands and Forests GIS staff to compile a facilities database by cleaning and reformatting the data previously collected by planners and DEC-contracted engineering firms. Although planners have collected location, condition and other facilities attributes, the dataset is not complete for all units. We created a Data Dictionary (see Objective 1, Data Dictionary) that will help planners collect this data with GPS units. Software, especially the Spatial Analyst Extension for ArcView, is needed. Rasters, datasets stored in grids (e.g., Digital Elevation Models, or DEMs), are not fully supported by standard ArcView software. Solution: the Spatial Analyst extension is needed for raster data calculations (e.g., identifying the elevation within a DEM cell or calculating slope). This software extension would enable planners to use more of the available data in the planning process and perform many relatively simple analyses at their desks. Several of the models and analyses we have performed for planners use raster data, including land cover analyses, cost-path analysis and overlay analysis for campsite selection. We have converted the results of these analyses and others into vector format (discrete point, line and polygon data), so that planners may use them, but vector data are limited relative to raster data. Action: We identified additional challenges to successful Unit Management Planning and offer possible solutions.

Evaluation: Many of plans with which we assisted were close to completion. It is difficult to fully employ the tools and analysis capabilities we have developed in later-stage draft UMPs, because the tools require revisiting earlier stages of planning. However, plans in their final stages have been our top priority thus far. Given the timing of this project relative to the initiation of the current round of UMPs in 1999, this is not surprising. Solution: Incorporating GIS into the planning process as early as possible is time and cost efficient, and resulting management alternatives and decisions will be more comprehensive. GIS can be used successfully to assist with controversial issues in plans close to completion, but entire plans could be dramatically improved if GIS is fully utilized from the earliest natural resource inventory stages. Increasingly complex analyses may require more time and GIS computing skills than planners currently possess. Solution: We will continue to offer GIS analyses and access to experts in ecological disciplines as services to planners. We also intend to develop a more automated process using scripts and input variables that will allow planners to focus on the selection of criteria for analysis rather than the technical aspects of GIS analysis. The key for year 2 is to work with the planners to enable them to make use of the variety of tools and datasets produced during year 1 of the UMP-GIS project.


Ecological system function is a concept that helps guide land use planning. In year 1, the systems approach received less focus than it will receive in future years. We have worked to provide tools and training to planners to meet their inventory needs quickly. The information needs to be evaluated as a whole. In other words, instead of evaluating songbirds independently, followed by rare ecological features, pollution effects, and finally facilities, the UMP-GIS Consortium can help planners shift toward integration of this information. Solution: Planning for recreational uses and protection of public lands will be greatly enhanced when all of the known ecological information is brought together into a complete picture. UMPs will always be limited if, for instance, the forest/shoreline interface is treated as a non-porous boundary; good planning incorporates terrestrial and aquatic resources in combination to look at the system as a whole.

Evaluation: Contextual analyses are a critical component of future Unit Management Planning efforts. Because Forest Preserve boundaries are not “hard,” and are undoubtedly influenced by land uses and changes on adjacent lands (Fig. 5), we will continue to pursue the development of innovative data layers and approaches. Solution: Roads analysis will be of great value to state lands planning. Incorporation of data that reflect ecosystem processes or system-wide impacts, such as air pollution and acidic deposition, is another avenue that will be of value to UMPs in the future. Because the scope of some of these contextual analyses is beyond the intent of the original UMP-GIS project, a related follow-up proposal is in development to address these important questions. For example, the Breeding Bird Atlas 2000 Project is nearing completion and will offer a unique opportunity to analyze the temporal and spatial changes of bird populations within UMP areas, especially those changes related to the development of interior forest bird habitat. We will pursue the use of a computer software program CAPS (Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System) to analyze the Ecosystems/ELU map to identify Adirondack ecosystems with a relatively high degree of human-induced land use change, and to identify those land uses most affecting biodiversity at multiple spatial scales (i.e., local, UMP, regional, and park-wide).

Figure 5. All state land within Adirondack Park, 2003.


Appendix 1. Consortium representatives and affiliations and natural resource experts available for consultation. Consortium representatives and affiliations: Bill Porter, Adirondack Ecological Center/ESF Stacy McNulty, Adirondack Ecological Center/ESF Jennifer Gagnon, GIS specialist, Adirondack Ecological Center/ESF Ben Zuckerberg, Adirondack Ecological Center/ESF graduate student Karyn Richards, DEC Forest Preserve Bureau Peter Frank, DEC Forest Preserve Bureau Rob Messenger, DEC Forest Preserve Bureau Kurt Swartz, DEC Public Lands Bureau Katherine Barnes, DEC Wildlife Habitat Inventory Bureau Greg Edinger, New York Natural Heritage Program Craig Cheeseman, Adirondack Nature Conservancy Graham Cox, New York Audubon Society Mike DiNunzio, Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks Kevin Prickett, Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks Jaime Ethier, Adirondack Council Andy Keal, Wildlife Conservation Society Michale Glennon, Wildlife Conservation Society John Barge, Adirondack Park Agency GIS Jon Erickson, University of Vermont School of Natural Resources Natural resource experts available for consultation: Bill Brown, Adirondack Nature Conservancy Ray Curran, Adirondack Park Agency Chad Dawson, SUNY-ESF Don Faber-Langendoen, SUNY-ESF Charles E. Ferree, The Nature Conservancy James Gibbs, SUNY-ESF Sunita Halasz, Adirondack Park Agency GIS/state lands team Timothy G. Howard, New York Natural Heritage Program David Hunt, Consulting Ecologist Mark Lomolino, SUNY-ESF Hilary Oles, Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program Josh Royte, The Nature Conservancy Dan Spada, Adirondack Park Agency


Appendix 2. Meetings with DEC staff and Consortium Members.

• 10/30/03: Initial meeting of Natural Resource Inventory of Forest Preserve Lands in Adirondack Park: UMP - GIS Project. Kicked off project. Developed consortium structure and inclusion of initial members, drafted a Memorandum of Agreement for review, and discussed metadata, initially available datasets and likely timeline for project.

• 1/14/04: Ben Zuckerberg and Stacy McNulty met with Bill Brown, Craig Cheeseman of the Adirondack Nature Conservancy, Josh Royte of The Nature Conservancy Maine Chapter, and Graham Cox of the NY Audubon Society. The objective was to talk to Josh about his work with various stakeholders in the Green and White Mountains (VT and NH) with ELU mapping to protect biodiversity, and to talk about how ANC can help the UMP-GIS project.

• 4/29/04: Bill Porter, Jenny Gagnon, Ben Zuckerberg, and Stacy McNulty met with Karyn Richards, Peter Frank, and Robert Messenger of DEC Lands and Forests Forest Preserve Bureau. Graham Cox of NY Audubon Society and Dave Gibson of Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks also attended. The purpose was to introduce Jenny to everyone, discuss progress on the project, show some potential GIS analyses and tools, and discuss future steps.

• 6/2/04 – 6/3/04: Ecological Land Unit Workshop Adirondack Ecological Center. Objective: to differentiate ELUs or groups of ELUs that form distinctive ecological surrogates for communities, ecosystems, or otherwise distinctive landscape types.

• 8/4/04: Year 1 Review meeting of Natural Resource Inventory of Forest Preserve Lands in Adirondack Park: UMP - GIS Project. Objective: Gather UMP-GIS Consortium partners (technical/GIS and other representatives) to report on progress during project year 1 and discuss future project objectives.

Meetings with DEC planners and staff:

• 2/04/04: Stacy McNulty and Benjamin Zuckerberg spoke to DEC Unit Management Planning staff at Minnowbrook, Blue Mountain Lake, NY. Topics: Consortium partners, who we are, project objectives, approach, and examples of how we can help the UMP process.

• 5/6/04: Jenny Gagnon and Stacy McNulty met with Tom Martin, Paul Jensen, Stu Brown, Mike Curley, Tad Norton. Provided polygon land cover data for Vanderwhacker WF, Wilcox WF, Siamese Ponds W, and Lake George WF units. Discussed analyses available for choosing camp and trail sites. Discussed relevance of historic deer yard data, possible model for potential winter habitat. Will work with Paul to develop analyses and comparative statistics applicable to every unit (regarding wildlife). Will apply cost path analysis to Vanderwhacker WF snowmobile issue beginning on 5/10/04. Data in Lake George WF will be available after the 17th (meeting 5/21/04).

• 5/10/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Mike Curley to discuss parameters of cost path analysis in Vanderwhacker WF. Met with Paul Jensen. Met with Stu Brown.

• 5/11/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Brian Finlayson, DEC, to discuss map standards. Met Dan Levy, DEC planner discussed UMPs for Lake Champlain Islands and Taylor Pond WF. He collected recreational data using questionnaires at Lake Champlain Islands.

• 5/21/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Tad Norton and Kurt Swartz in Warrensburg to start on formatting and cleaning the Lake George WF data.

• 5/23/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Stu Brown in Warrensburg to get acquainted/assess needs. • 6/21/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Tad Norton in Warrensburg editing LGWF data. • 7/23/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Tad Norton, Mike Curley, Kurt Swartz, and Rob Messenger in

Warrensburg; discussed improved format for facilities data, and discussed the possibility of coordinating our training and data collection efforts.

• 8/10/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Stu Brown in Warrensburg delivered land cover data. • 8/11/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Stu Brown in Warrensburg discussed UMP status possible uses

of GIS, i.e., land cover maps and erodibility data.


Appendix 2. Meetings with DEC staff and Consortium Members, continued. • 8/25/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Stu Brown in Warrensburg to deliver erodibility maps. Also

met with Paul Jensen to deliver the potential deer yard habitat map version 2, and Land cover statistics for the park. Discussed helping him with GIS part of American marten study.

• 9/02/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Tad Norton at Siamese Ponds Unit to test Data Dictionary; discovered challenges and discussed solutions.

• 9/02/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Tad Norton in Warrensburg to test Data Dictionary download and export ArcView; discovered some problems and discussed potential solutions.

• 9/16/04: Jenny Gagnon met with Mike Curley to discuss alternative parameters for cost path analysis in Vanderwhacker WF. Also discussed work to begin on Wilcox WF GPS data from Clough Harbor. Cleaning, compiling and reformatting data is necessary.


Appendix 3. GIS training session structure and objectives.

Three half-day training sessions will be conducted focusing on the following areas: • Data Management and Display - Although planners are not responsible for creating all maps for

their UMPs, it is extremely important during decision making for them to be able to view the existing and proposed facilities data along with other data on natural resources. This training session will include some information on data storage and the foundations of GIS.

o Planners will learn the following skills: Set properties of view window Check data projection View data attributes (tables) Display data by different attributes Create layout Create legend Change display options (types of legends) Create scalebar Print map

• Editing data (GPS) - since planners often collect GPS data of their areas, it is very important that they be able to edit and attribute this data correctly, so that it may be incorporated into the MHDB and made available to the rest of the DEC. All planners are likely to benefit from training on editing.

o Planners will learn the following skills: Generate point and line data Select features Export features Add/delete/sort/calculate fields and attributes Spatial editing of line data Spatial editing of point data

• Analysis - This is an area vastly underutilized because of a lack of training and understanding of basic GIS principals. In addition to training planners to perform basic analyses with ArcView, all planners will benefit from a better understanding of the foundations of GIS.

o Planners will learn the following skills: Buffer (zone of a specified distance around features useful for proximity

analysis) Export features, tables, or selections Query (select data based on one or more attribute values) Select by themes (features ‘overlap’ with features from another data set) Join (appending fields of one table to another table, based on a common field) Geoprocessing (altering data, e.g. merging two data sets, clipping, or spatially

joining data) Lectures

The lectures will draw heavily from existing ESRI materials and the ArcView Help Documents, which are already readily available to planners when they are working with ArcView. Lectures will follow the topics outlined, and discussion and questions will be encouraged.

Exercises

Following the lecture, planners will be asked to apply the skills learned to their own data and management units with guidance from the instructor.


Appendix 3. GIS training session structure and objectives, continued. Resources needed to conduct a training session:

• Laptop computer with data and ArcView software • One instructor • One room with one computer for each planner attending • Transportation (from Newcomb) to and from planners’ office • Lodging (if training is scheduled for two or more consecutive days) • LCD projector • Projection screen • Color printer • Paper • CD’s

Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning · 2007-05-02 · Application of...

Documents

Transcript of Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning · 2007-05-02 · Application of...