1 natural resource program center gis projects: 2009 priorities collective efforts of nrpc i&m...

1

Natural Resource Program Center

GIS Projects: 2009 Priorities

Collective efforts of NRPC I&MGIS Team

2


First, a brief review…

• In the event of questions or concerns who do you contact?

Before

3


What’s on tap?• Analysis of inventory products• NPScape (major focus of

presentation)• VSIMS core functionality• Support of IRMA functional

requirements and use case analysis (not addressed here)

4


Analysis of Inventory Products

Subtitle…

FANCY

5


“Back to the Future” in the sense

• Over the years, the I&M program has invested millions of dollar$ in Inventory Products

• True value of inventory data is realized when:– Used as a baseline for future efforts– Applied in park decision making

6


Initial Inventory Projects• Focus on “standard” inventory

products generated by soils, geology, base cartography, and other core inventories

• Work in concert with local (park) staff to identify management questions that can be addressed with available inventory data

7


Navajo National Monument (NAVA)

• Park status: small resource staff, limited GIS expertise and resources, units managed in context of surrounding tribal lands

• Project goals are to : – Produce a baseline GIS library in an easy to use

format (Theme Manager). – Generate summary statistics for data layers (PMIS

input)– Utilizing existing I&M inventory products to

develop an analysis of erosion risk within the landscape context of the monument.

– Provide training and documentation to NAVA for project products

8


NAVA Adjacent Land Use• Use base cartography (imagery) to

document change• Alteration to drainage patterns• Affects access to and stability of ruin

sites

1952 2007

9


NAVA Erosion Modeling

Using Revised Universal Soil Loss v2 (RUSLE2) parameters

Frames:

•Elevation•Slope•Flow Accumulation•Slope-Length•Erosivity•Soil Erodibility•Land Cover•NDVI•Cropping Factor•Erosion Risk

10


Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI)

• Park status: resource staff dealing with significant impact to resources due to border activities, history of monitoring in the park, need to inform park management and work with law enforcement on interdiction efforts

• Project goals are to : – Using good science, staff experience and existing

geospatial datasets, identify information gaps and vulnerable areas.

– Identify temporal (historic) and spatial disturbance regimes related to cross-border traffic. Use outputs to help focus inventory & monitoring, law enforcement efforts and research on the environmental impact of border-related disturbances.

11


Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI)

• Cost-surface modeling of border crossing:

Basic model Include pedestrian fence

12


NPScape Project

Objects near parks are closer and largerthan they appear

13


NPScape Project Overview•Project is intended to provide a view of parks in their larger ecological context•Focus is on a consistent, servicewide approach that still has relevance at park level•Utilizing geospatial data available on a nationwide scale•Careful attention to developing procedures that can be replicated•SOPs and tools are being developed that can be customized for local applications (acknowledging our “one size” might not “fit all”)

14


Suite of products for each metric

• Measure Development Summary (MDS)

• Data products• Standard Operating Procedures• Cartographic and other graphic

outputs• Tables and other summaries• Interpretation/summary by park

15


Project SOPs• Documentation ensures consistency and

adherence to project standards…• Hopefully dodge the “hit by the bus”

situation

16


Initial focus on four metrics

• Population• Land Cover• Conservation Status• Roads

17


Population Measures

• Recent change in population density (1990 – 2000)

• Historic change in population density (1790 – 1990)

• Recent population change• Etc.

18


Population and Housing MDS• Each MDS covers the following

topics:– Background (what are the monitoring

questions and ecological inferences)– Data sources and dimensions

(spatial, temporal, and thematic)– Derived metrics– Issues and assumptions considered in

the metrics

19


Population Data Sources• 1990 Census Block Groups

(geography and STF1 content)• 2000 Census Block Groups

(geography and STF1 content)• Waisanen & Bliss Historic

Population (1790 – 1990, county-based)

• Etc.

20


Population Processing SOPs• Perhaps the most important

project deliverable…• SOPs allow you to replicate or

customize process for local needs

21


SOP Content• GIS Components developed in ArcGIS Model

Builder (leverage standard geospatial tools)• Documentation consists of: how to run existing

models, data requirements, model logic and assumptions, quality checks, and how to customize models

22


Sample products: Historic Population Density

Different ways of representing content…depends on medium, e.g. print or web.

23


Ability to look at individual county-level detail

Average U.S. Population Density (2000) = 30.7 people/km2

24


Sample Products: Recent Population Density Change

Park1990 Population Density

(Persons/km2)2000 Population Density

(Persons/km2)BUFF 10 11GRSM 45 54KIMO 89 100MABI 24 26MISS 266 308PIPE 7 6SEKI 4 4WHIS 32 36

1990

2000

25


Land Cover Measures

• Percent Natural/Percent Converted• Change in percent natural/percent

converted• Area in impervious cover• Etc.

26


Land Cover Data Sources

• National Land Cover Data (NLCD)

• LANDFIRE• Gap Analysis Program (GAP)• NatureServe Ecological Systems• Etc.

27


Sample Output: Percent Converted

Park %ConvertedBUFF 24%GRSM 20%KIMO 40%MABI 14%MISS 65%PIPE 87%SEKI 3%WHIS 9% Green = Natural NLCD Land Cover Classes

Yellow = Converted NLCD Land Cover Classes

28


Sample Output: Land Cover Change (1992 – 2001)

Park Natural-to-Converted (%) Converted-to-Natural (%)BUFF 1.8 0.5GRSM 0.7 0.3KIMO 3.4 1.5MABI 1.4 0.2MISS 0.4 0.9PIPE 0.0 0.1SEKI <0.1 <0.1WHIS 0.2 <0.1

29


Conservation Status Measures

• Percent protected land• Conservation Risk Index (CRI)• Etc.

30


Conservation Status Data Sources

• Gap Analysis Program (GAP)• Protected Areas Database

(PAD-US)• Etc.

31


Sample Output: Percent Protected Land

Park %ProtectedBUFF 6%GRSM 19%KIMO <1%MABI 2%MISS 2%PIPE <1%SEKI 49%WHIS 13%

32


Sample Output: Conservation Risk Index (CRI)

• Utilizes input from Land Cover measure and a different Conservation Status measure

Converted land (%)CRI = --------------------------

Protected Land (%)

Unit % of Area Converted % of Area Protected CRIBUFF 24.2 6.6 3.67GRSM 19.9 19.2 1.04KIMO 40.1 0.8 50.13MABI 14.6 2.0 7.30MISS 65.8 2.1 31.33PIPE 87.5 0.7 125.00SEKI 2.9 49.9 0.06WHIS 9.4 13.5 0.70

33


Transportation Measures

• Distance to roads• Road density• Etc.

34


Transportation Data Sources

• ESRI StreetMap• TIGER Line Files• TeleAtlas• Etc.

35


ParkInterstates(km/km2)

Major Roads(km/km2)

Streets(km/km2)

BUFF 0.00 0.17 0.98GRSM 0.03 0.20 1.56KIMO 0.04 0.37 2.20MABI 0.08 0.20 1.20MISS 0.09 0.70 2.68PIPE 0.00 0.20 1.11SEKI 0.00 0.06 0.43WHIS 0.03 0.21 1.14

Sample Output: Road Density• Not all roads are created equal: treat

local streets, major roads, and interstates differently

• Calculate density for each road “classification”

Can add gridded densitiesfor each layer to obtain totalroad density.

36


Sample Output: Distance to Roads

• Surrogate for “road less” areas

Distance to major roads Distance to streets

Buffalo National River – 30km Buffer

37


Project Updates and Links to Data/Products

http://www1.nrintra.nps.gov/im/monitor/npscape/index.cfm

http://nrinfo

38


Vital Signs Internet Map Services (VSIMS)

• FY2009 Activities:– NRDT upload and map display functions

plus integration with IRMA– Development staff opening

• Demo during Weds Show and Tell session

39


Questions or Comments?

• Swap Meet• Happy Hour (Meet Brent in

back corner of bar, he’s buying!)

• Ad Hoc

1 natural resource program center gis projects: 2009 priorities collective efforts of nrpc i&m...

Documents