Lab7: Mapping The Station Fire In ArcGIS

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_California_wildfires#Los_Angeles_County)

(http://www.massobserver.com/tag/station-fire/)

     On August 26, 2009, a fire (believed to be arson) started in the Angeles National Forest near a ranger station. Fifty-one days later, the fire was fully contained and extinguished with the help of the Los Angeles Fire Department and the California Department of Corrections along with moderate rainfall. The Station Fire is classified as the tenth largest fire in modern California history. Twelve thousand structures were at risk of being destroyed by the fire (http://inciweb.org/incident/article/9360/). However, only two hundred and nine structures (eighty nine of which were homes) were destroyed (http://inciweb.org/incident/article/9640/). Mandatory evacuations and the dedication of those who fought the flames, helped minimize the extent of devastation from the 160,557 acre fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_California_wildfires#Los_Angeles_County).

     The framed geographical images above titled "2009 Los Angeles County: Station Fire" reflect the burn patterns between August 29th and September 2nd 2009. August 29th was the single most devastating day with 57,160 acres destroyed, over half of the 94,000 total acres destroyed thus far. The next day, the fire only spread an additional 7,638 acres. August 31 saw about twice that amount at 13,644 acres. The first of September was another significantly high burn day with 21,400 acres burned, but luckily the second of September showed a drastic reduction in the number of acres burned with only 7,302 acres destroyed by the fire. Although the entire area destroyed by the fire was over 160,000 acres, sixty seven percent (107,144 acres) were burned during the 5 day time frame represented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StationFire4Sept.jpg).

     Surprisingly, the fire spread to the northeast; into the mountains as opposed to down into the heavily populated valley. The two dimensional overview of the spread shows that the only real interstate affected by the fire was Interstate 2. The 210 and 710 were at risk but not seriously affected by the burn pattern (http://Gis.ats.ucla.edu). Additionally, the images of highly populated areas in Los Angeles County, show just how small of a percentage of these areas were burned (http://planning.lacounty.gov/gis/download).

     I believe that although the fire occurred about 25 miles from the coast, the winds from the ocean are what pushed the fire into and across the mountains. I’m sure the strategy of the fire department was to deter the fire from the highly populated areas and so they focused a great amount of their efforts to controlling the fire from the west and southwest border. However, there is only so much that humans can do to contain a fire that size.

     A supplemental theory to the Station Fire burn pattern could be that along with the wind directing the inland, that the wind directed the flames towards luscious wooded areas on the Angeles National Forrest which fueled the fire. The winds blew just enough to direct the path upward and inward form the coast to cause damage to the wilderness, but not citizens of California.

 Reference

"2009 California Wildfires." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 27 Sept. 2009. Web. 29
     Nov. 2010.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_California_wildfires#Los_Angeles
     _County>.
GIS Section of the Department of Regional Planning. "Maps & GIS | Data | DRP."
     Department of Regional Planning. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://planning.
     lacounty.gov/gis/download>.
Molina, Genaro. "Mass Observer | Station Fire." Mass Observer | Eyes Wide Open. Los
     Angeles Times, 31 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.massobserver.com
     /tag/station-fire/>.
UCLA. GIS at UCLA. 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://Gis.ats.ucla.edu>.
U.S. Forest Service. "File:StationFire4Sept.jpg." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
     4 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Station
     Fire4Sept.jpg>.
U.S. Forest Service. "InciWeb the Incident Information System: Station Fire News
     Release." InciWeb the Incident Information System: Current Incidents. 26
     Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://inciweb.org/incident/article/9640/>.
U.S. Forest Service. "InciWeb the Incident Information System: Station Fire News
     Release." InciWeb the Incident Information System: Current Incidents. 31
     Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://inciweb.org/incident/article/9360/>.

Lab 6: Digital Elevation Model in ArcGIS

     The area represented in the digital elevation models are of a part of Flagstaff, Arizona in the northern part of Arizona. In this area, near Northern Arizona University, there is a ski resort called Snowbowl as well as some great hiking areas on the surrounding mountains. The graphic ranges from 35.301°, -111.888° at the top left, to 35.299°, -111.886° at the bottom right. The Datum used is D_North_American_1983. The images represent a shaded relief model of the area using a color-ramped DEM layered above a hillshade model, a slope map, an aspect map, and a 3D image of this particular area of Flagstaff.

Lab 5: Projections in ArcGIS

  

     Map projections are used to distort the surface of the earth into a two dimensional format that can be used for reference or navigation. There are numerous types of map projections such as conformal, equidistant, and equal area. Additionally, within each projection category, there are multiple ways to project the coordinate system for the respective map projection. Mercator and WGS 1984 PDC Mercator are two ways to maintain a constant linear scale in all directions, preserving the angles and distorting only excessively high latitudes on a conformal map projection. Equidistant conic and plate carree preserve distance from a standard point or line for equidistant map projections. Plate carree preserves distance from 0 degree parallel, while equidistant conic maintains scale along all meridians. Cylindrical equal area and Hammer-Aitoff preserve area by displaying the true proportions to the same areas on the earth for equal area map projections.
  
     Conformal maps, primarily Mercator projections, are often used for nautical navigation; however they are also often used by textbooks and for display purposes. This is impractical because it causes people to become familiar with a distorted world that has a grid coordinate system as opposed to a circular system. Equidistant maps are often used by atlases, airlines, and other aviation references. Similarly, equal area maps are commonly found in atlases and are used to reference regions that span in great directions such as Asia and the Pacific Ocean. Equal area maps are great when used to focus on a particular area, but are misleading when used to cover areas such as the entire earth.
  
     While completing this lab I noticed that while certain coordinate projections are classified under the same map projections, they won’t necessarily look the same. For example, Plate carree and equidistant conic appear significantly different although they both preserve distance. It’s just that they use different reference points.
  
     The true distance from Washington DC to Kabul, Afghanistan is approximately 6929.531 miles. As represented in each coordinate projection, the distance varies from 6,973.820 miles in the equidistant conic coordinate system, to 10,140.596 miles in the plate carree coordinate system. I found it strange how although they both use an equidistant map projection, their distances vary severely (by more than 3,000 miles). Besides the way the coordinates are projected or referenced, another reason for this discrepancy may be the way the distance was measured. When using a map of the world to determine distances between cities, it may be difficult to get the same exact reference point at each location when measuring the distance. A pixel off may affect the result by a hundred miles or more. Ultimately, from what I have learned in this lab, there are different projections for different situations and that it is best to use the most accurate projection in regards to the context for which you need the map, with the largest scale available.

Lab 4: Introducing ArcMap

 

     The tutorial for ArcMap was quite simple to follow in regards to executing the listed procedures. The tools were quite similar to what I have previously used in other image editing software programs so I didn’t need to familiarize myself too much with those methods. However, with the features I wasn’t familiar with; the tutorial explained them clearly and made it very easy to carry out those tasks.

     From what I have learned from my experience of going through the tutorial repeatedly, ArcMap is a program that allows for an extremely large amount of data to be represented many different ways. The program has so much potential to be utilized not just by geographers, but by professionals in a broad range of carrier fields. The tutorial focused on zoning and noise issues that in theory affected schools, homes, and businesses. City planners, government employees, school district personnel, families, architectural engineers and business professionals would all be interested in the information represented in the data generated in the tutorial because it applied to them in some way. It was also convenient to have tables pre-made stored in the database with information readily available to be integrated into the map data easily inputted into the visual representations.

     The only real downside I noticed, based on the features I used in ArcMap, was the fact that at times, there were just so many options and so many ways to represent data, that it was time consuming completing one task. The tutorial made it simple, but if I were on my own, I’m certain it would have taken significantly longer. Granted, it took less time the more familiar I became with the program, however I believe it’s still easy to get mixed up in different views, remembering what tabs to click on, or even just trying to decide how you want to represent your information. In addition, another pitfall of GIS is the fact that the data is only as relevant an accurate as you make it. There is a huge potential for inaccurate information being represented either through typing errors, or simply just not having the most current or most accurate information. The pre-made charts, boundaries, and other geographic representation I used were created by someone else. I had no way in verifying their accuracy. I just used what I had with the faith that it was all up to date and true. In major cities, construction is a daily occurrence. Roads and facilities are constantly changing and without the most up to date information, it could have a significantly negative impact for those who try to reference the bad data.

     Nevertheless, I believe the program is a tremendous asset and its benefits outweigh the drawbacks. As long as competent users generate the data with reputable sources, then more people would benefit. Everyone uses a map or some form of navigational or geographic medium on a daily basis and having easy access to those mediums enhance everyone’s standard of living.