Application of GIS to
Rapid Inventory for Unit
Management Planning
Year 3 Summary Report
November 2006
Stacy McNulty,
Steven Signell,
Benjamin
Zuckerberg,
and
William Porter
on behalf of the
UMP-GIS
Consortium
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 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 third 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.
The partnership between DEC and the UMP-GIS Consortium has developed into a great success over the
past three years. Training of planners by both the UMP-GIS consortium and DEC has paid off in the
planners’ ability to access and interpret natural resource information. A wealth of resources is now
available to DEC planners, who regularly request inventory information and analyses.
Year 3 of the UMP-GIS project was characterized by maturation of tools and procedures. During year 3
we distributed several new data layers via the Master Habitat Data Bank (MHDB) and integrated
invasive species information into the GIS database. Tools such as Cost Path Analysis were expanded so
that planners could visualize alternative routes and compare statistics. Standardized maps included in
many recent UMPs are packed with information, yet clear and attractive. This report contains summaries
of the tools and datasets developed during year 3 and recommendations for new GIS data and tools to be
incorporated into MHDB during year 4.
Discussion with DEC and other UMP-GIS partners culminated in a list of priorities for year 4:
1. Continue to provide GIS training, analysis & maps for planners
2. Create user-friendly interface for cost path tool
3. Create Gap Analysis Program (GAP) data viewer tool
4. Continue digitization & spatial analysis of trail registry data
5. Finalize ELU Ecosystems map accuracy assessment
6. Update and maintain aquatic and terrestrial invasive GIS layers
7. Develop improved landcover dataset for GAP data viewer tool
8. Develop Adirondack natural vistas dataset
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.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
2
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.
Specific Deliverables for Each Objective
Objective 1. Assemble a GIS database describing the ecological content of the units
and significant ecological attributes of immediately adjacent public and private
lands.
Planners use the DEC Master Habitat Databank (MHDB) Data Selector to access GIS data. To
make data easily available to planners, we submitted the following data layers to the MHDB
which are now available to all DEC staff:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
30 meter digital elevation model (DEM)
30 meter Hillshade model
1916 Fire map
1995 Blowdown
Potential Deer Yard Model
Drainage
Erodibility
Spruce Grouse Habitat Model
APA Land Use and Development Plan Map
APA Covertype Wetlands
Box 1. List of UMPs for which GIS
information was provided, Year 3.
Taylor Pond WF
Sargent Ponds WF
Lake George WF
Wilcox Lake WF
Blue Ridge W
Saranac Lakes WF
Debar Mountain WF
White Hill WF
Moose River Plains WF
Raquette Boreal WF
West Canada Lake W
These layers each have associated metadata that aids in interpreting the usage and value of the
data. In addition to new or newly accessible data, the MHDB is changing. DEC is moving
toward Enterprise GIS Geodatabase and a Citrix GIS data server. The system will allow faster
access to GIS data in Regional Offices, and planners can login to the MHDB from anywhere.
AEC will also have a login instead of using an external hard drive with a static MHDB copy as
we have in previous years of the UMP-GIS project. This will benefit the project by providing
the most up-to-date data to both planners and AEC staff, as well as allowing AEC staff to “see”
exactly what planners see so that we may provide faster and more targeted assistance.
The UMPs with maps or analyses from the UMP-GIS project are listed in Box 1. In year 3 we
assisted with GIS data requests or provided supplementary analyses to deal with unit-specific
issues for nearly half of the UMPs that were initiated or in draft status as of June 2006.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
3
Cost Path Analysis: New Developments in Trail Placement
Planners working on several UMPs requested CPA analyses in selecting new hiking trail,
snowmobile trail or road access alternatives. We have added several tools into our CPA
analysis to provide greater detail and flexibility to planners. For example, we used Surface
Tools in ArcView 3.3 to create elevation profile maps showing potential routes in relation to
each other (Fig. 1). This toolset improves on the cost path tool by calculating "line slope", or the
change in elevation along a linear path. The current CPA model only considers maximum
slope, and does not account for the fact that a trail may travel along a contour, and thus have no
elevation change, even in high slope areas. Surface Tools also enables the user to calculate
useful statistics such as
average slope, maximum
slope, absolute elevation
change and cumulative
elevation change.
We
produced several maps
of CPA output for
inclusion in the Blue
Ridge,
Moose
River
Plains and Taylor Pond
UMPs (Fig. 2).
Figure 1. Comparison of slope of trail alternatives.
Figure 2. Map showing seven proposed snowmobile connector alternatives, closures and existing trails.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
4
Route Analysis
Cost Path Analysis is best suited for locating new trails where none currently exist. However,
for situations where a planner must select from one of several existing trails or roads, route
analysis may be more appropriate because this tool enables the user to easily summarize
characteristics of the various alternatives. A route is a linear feature that stores a measurement
system where each point along the feature is identified by its distance from the start point of the
feature. This measurement system allows the user to identify the proportion of a trail or road
that crosses sensitive habitat, travels across high slope areas or comes within a specified
distance of Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrences (EOs).
Table 1. Distance and proportion of road alternatives, Raquette Boreal UMP.
ROAD ALTERNATIVES
Road Segment
2
3
4
5
6
7
8*
Length (mi)
4.67
2.40
6.84
6.24
8.52
9.35
7.67
Distance in Potential
Spruce Grouse
Habitat (mi)
0.35
0.43
1.00
1.31
0.94
0.89
2.28
Distance in
Potential Deer
Yards (mi)
0.20
0.37
0.92
1.20
0.74
0.89
2.14
Percent of route in
Potential Spruce
Grouse Habitat
7.5%
18.1%
14.6%
21.0%
11.0%
9.5%
29.7%
Percent of route in
Potential Deer
Yards
4.2%
15.4%
13.5%
19.2%
8.7%
9.5%
27.9%
* A portion of Road Segment 8 lies approximately 20 feet from an NHP EO of Ophiogomphus aspersus (Brook Snaketail)
*A portion of segment 8 lies 7 meters from a Natural Heritage Point Occurrence of Ophiogomphus aspersus (Brook Snaketail)
For the Raquette Boreal UMP, we
tabulated the total amount and
proportion (distance in miles) of
potential deer yard and spruce
grouse habitat crossed by each road
and snowmobile alternative. We
also located all EOs within roughly
0.3 miles (500m) of each potential
route (Table 1).
Results show that Road Segment 2
contains the least amount of linear
distance in sensitive wildlife habitat,
although it is not the most direct
route, while Road Segment 8 not
only contains the highest proportion
of sensitive habitat but is also near
the habitat of a rare dragonfly.
The map (Fig. 3) shows alternative
road sections in relation to existing
roads and other features. Together,
the statistical and spatial tools
available give planners information
upon which to base decisions about
state land management.
Figure 3. Road Segment Alternatives in
Raquette-Boreal Wild Forest..
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
5
Invasive Species: Managing a Serious Threat
Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species have become a major threat to the integrity of the
ecosystem of Adirondack Park. Hilary Oles of the Adirondack Park Invasive Plant Program
(APIPP) and Steven Flint of the Adirondack Nature Conservancy collect data from several
organizations and volunteers around the Park. Despite the successful network of people
monitoring the park for invasive species, APIPP do not have sufficient staff to create and share
a GIS database of locations of infestations. The UMP-GIS initiative has agreed to provide GIS
services and maps for APIPP as well as DEC for Forest Preserve Unit Management Plans, so
that land managers have coordinated, up-to-date spatial information on invasive species.
Our first task was to merge the disparate data sets into one easy-to-use GIS database. Once this
was accomplished, we created maps for several UMPs showing invasive species occurrences on
the unit, as well as other locations in the immediate vicinity (Fig. 4). To date, we provided
invasive species maps for the following UMPs and adjacent lands: Taylor Pond, Sargent Ponds,
Lake George, Wilcox Lake, Blue Ridge, Saranac Lakes, Debar Mountain and White Hill. We will
work with APIPP to update the database as new data are collected.
Figure 4. Invasive plant locations near Saranac Lakes Wild Forest.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
6
Modeling Dam Failure
Like many manmade structures, dams deteriorate over time. Dam failure has become an issue
in several UMPs. In West Canada Lake Wilderness, for example, the 104-year-old dam at Cedar
Lakes is in poor condition and may fail without considerable reconstruction efforts. Dam
failure has both ecological as well as aesthetic implications. Two major concerns surrounding
the failure of the Cedar Lakes dam were: 1) whether the existing cold water fishery would be
sustained, and 2) the visual ramifications of a change in lake level (e.g., would leantos suddenly
be accessible to the water only across a muddy stretch of shore?).
We were asked to model the effects of the hypothetical failure of this dam. We accomplished
this by digitizing the bathymetry map found on the Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation
website, converting this into a digital elevation model of the lake floor, and then subtracting 3m
of elevation (the approximate height of the dam). With this data, we were able to produce a
map showing the current lake level along with a predicted elevation model of the post dam
failure lake (Fig. 5). The analysis predicted Cedar Lakes could lose 57% of shoreline and 50% of
its surface area if the dam fails. Leantos would be 10-40m further from water. The cold water
fishery would not be significantly impacted, though there would be less habitat for trout and
other species (and possibly entry of other fish from downstream). This technique could be used
in other situations with potential dam failure.
Figure
Figure
6. Current
5. Current
and future
and future
shoreline
shoreline
of Cedar
of Cedar
LakesLakes
if theifdam
the fails,
dam fails,
and depth
and depth
of water
of water
after after
dam failure.
dam failure.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
7
Objective 2. Interpret the context of the unit within the surrounding landscape.
Breeding Bird Atlas Analysis I
Birds have long been considered the “canary in the coal mine” with respect to monitoring
environmental changes, and for many years, agencies and planners have focused on using birds
as indicators of ecological health. With the culmination of the 2000 Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA)
project, a unique data set exists to examine changes in breeding bird distributions in the Park.
A common question from planners is: can Atlas data can be used to monitor avian population
change? We compared distributional changes in the BBA with abundance changes in the USGS
North American Breeding Bird Survey1 to identify those species that are changing in both their
distribution and their relative abundance throughout the Park (Table 2). We found that species
whose Adirondack range increased (i.e., were found in more blocks in the second Atlas) tended
to become more abundant as measured by the BBS, while species whose range decreased
tended to become less abundant. As an example, the Canada Warbler’s occurrence within Atlas
blocks within the Park declined by -22%. Over the same time period, their abundance steadily
decreased at a rate of -4.6 % per year (Figs. 6 and 7). This general agreement between species’
distribution and local abundance provides powerful evidence to planners that the changes seen
in the Atlas data are indeed reflecting true population changes at a local level.
Table 2. Species demonstrating some of the greatest change in number of blocks
occupied between the 1980 and 2000 Atlas, and their subsequent change in abundance
during the same time period (1980-2005).
Species
1980 Blocks
2000 Blocks
BBA Change (%)
BBS Change (%)
Common Raven
273
745
+172
+7.27
Mourning Dove
422
642
+52
+6.25
Canada Warbler
655
514
-22
-4.60
Eastern Kingbird
759
519
-32
-6.47
Bank Swallow
306
104
-66
-18.17
Abundance (# of individuals/route)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Ye ar
Figure 6. Abundance of Canada Warblers in Adirondack Park.
1Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding
Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006
Figure 7. Distribution in Adirondack Park.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
8
Breeding Bird Atlas Analysis II
Analyses that focus on groups of species can often be more valuable than analyses focusing on a
single species. These types of approaches focus on analyzing changes and patterns of entire
groups of species (i.e., guilds) which share similar habitat and environmental requirements.
Atlas data provide a perfect database for exploring changing patterns in groups such as forest
interior birds, declining species, or state-listed species. Such approaches have been successful in
examining the response of bird communities to gradients of human impact in the Adirondack
Park2. We are currently analyzing changes in various avian communities throughout the Park
and are identifying those units and regions that have a higher responsibility for maintaining
certain assemblages. To assist planners in visualizing the distribution of these “hot spots” of
species assemblages, we are aggregating the BBA data at unit level (Fig. 8). This representation
will allow planners to identify which UMP areas have a higher responsibility for incorporating
these species groups in their management plans.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Figure 8. The average proportion of species that are classified as neotropical migrants (A), forest interior breeding (B), earlysuccessional breeding (C), or exotic species by unit based on the 2000 BBA.
2Glennon,
M.J. & Porter, W.F. 2005. Effects of land use management on biotic integrity: An investigation of bird
communities. Biological Conservation 126:499-511.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
9
Ecosystems Map: Improving Land Cover Mapping
Planners have been frustrated by the lack of detailed land cover data for the Adirondacks.
Available land cover data sets often have classification schemes that are limited to coarse
descriptions (e.g., “Deciduous Forest”) or too inaccurate to use for planning. Over the past two
years we have worked with several agencies including The Nature Conservancy, Adirondack
Park Agency, Natural Heritage Program, and local community ecologists to develop the
Ecosystems Map. This map is based on TNC’s efforts to identify Ecological Land Units (ELUs)
that are discrete combinations of elevation, general land cover types, bedrock geology, and
topography. The resulting data layer would be useful to determine what makes a Forest
Preserve unit special – for example, one unit may contain the majority of a rare ecosystem such
as “Alkaline Cliff and Talus,” while another is the largest protected example of “Cove Forest” in
the Park.
Throughout the three years of the UMP-GIS Consortium, we organized several workshops to
identify which of these ELUs, or groups of ELUs, would support unique ecosystem types. This
expert-driven process has produced a final draft version of the Ecosystems Map (Fig. 9). We are
currently comparing our predictions to ground-based reference plots. Our assessment is based
on 924 plots scattered throughout the Adirondacks which will be used to test the accuracy of
our model in identifying and predicting unique ecological systems.
Figure 9. The ecosystems map model based on The Nature Conservancy’s Ecological Land Unit map and expert guidance.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
10
Objective 3. Provide training to DEC planners to enable future interpretation of GIS
data.
Training is an ongoing process and in year 3 was further refined to target specific needs of DEC
planners or units. At the most recent UMP-GIS Consortium partners’ meeting, there was
general agreement that the GIS skills of the planners had increased markedly and is evidenced
by more complete inventory in newer UMPs. DEC Forest Preserve Bureau staff and planners
deserve credit for embracing the technology and utilizing training opportunities.
For year 4, AEC staff will continue to meet the needs of individuals or groups of planners as
they arise. To further streamline training, one option is to designate specific staff in each Region
who will have the training on the tool usage and can distribute skills and knowledge to others.
Objective 4. Ensure protection and archival of data.
As each new GIS data layer is created and added to the MHDB, metadata (documentation) are
packaged together with the GIS data. In this way, planners and other DEC staff can fully utilize
spatial data and be cognizant of any potential issues or limitations of the data. This procedure
will remain unchanged for year 4.
The redesign of the DEC’s data serving system into one main MHDB server markedly improves
our ability to keep data updated, centralized and protected. In year 4 we will resume the
ongoing discussion about transfer of the information to DEC at the culmination of the project.
We will develop a plan and timeline for transfer. Another subject for discussion is whether and
how to provide non-sensitive, non-proprietary accessible data and maps to the public, for
instance on the Shared Adirondack GIS CD version 2 or the NYS GIS Clearinghouse.
Future Recommendations and Solutions – Building on Year 3
With input from UMP-GIS Consortium partners and DEC planners, we developed priorities,
recommendations and solutions to current challenges for the next project phase in year 4. Of
utmost importance is making the suite of GIS tools more useable so planners can run the
ArcGIS models to generate alternative management plans with minimal assistance.
The next step to make the CPA and elevation profile analysis more user-friendly is to automate
the ArcGIS Model Builder models. In year 4 we will create a simple “front end” graphical user
interface with VBA. Planners will input values into a short series of windows with pull-down
menus and run the models to quickly produce and compare alternatives. We will also create a
GAP data viewer tool so that information on wildlife-habitat associations is more useful (e.g.,
planners can summarize the probable wildlife species and habitat present in a unit). Both tools
will be built into the MHDB. Concomitant with these user-friendly interfaces will be training to
familiarize planners with running the tools themselves.
New GIS data also will be a focus in year 4 of the project. Human recreational usage and
invasive species data remain especially important to state lands planning. We will continue
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
11
digitization & spatial analysis of trail registry data and update and maintain aquatic and
terrestrial invasive GIS layers. We will develop an Adirondack natural vistas dataset, develop
an improved landcover dataset for the GAP data viewer tool, and finalize the ELU/Ecosystems
map accuracy assessment to quantify the utility of the ELUs for comparing units’ unique
features to the surrounding area.
We identified a number of GIS inventory data and software needs and potential solutions that
would improve state land planning and stewardship if addressed.
Data sharing and updating speed and accessibility continues to improve with the central
MHDB server system. DEC GIS staff typically send a periodic message to planners that
a dataset has been updated. However, the large number of datasets in the MHDB and
the inevitable changes to them means there is still a need for a highly-visible revision
date. Recommendation: include a revision date in the one-sentence description of each
dataset in the Data Selector window to indicate when a dataset is updated.
Accurate unit boundaries are critical as we develop statistics on land cover, species
distribution, and linkages between state and private lands. The APA Land Use and
Development Plan Map (LUDP) changes often, yet DEC unit boundaries do not always
match. Recommendation: DEC GIS and regional cartography staff can work with APA
to get a periodically-updated GIS layer of parcel boundaries in the LUDP map.
Recreational use information is more fully available for some, but not all, Forest Preserve
units. We will continue to convert non-digital trail registry and other recreation data to
electronic and/or spatial database form. Yet many trails do not have a registry, or are
not collected frequently enough to be meaningful data. Recommendation: DEC can
develop a plan to systematically gather information on recreational use on Forest
Preserve lands. A better data gathering system begins at the trailhead, boat launch, etc.
A more complete system of trail registries would help “fill in” the picture of how people
use the Forest Preserve seasonally and over time. The paper registries should be
scanned or entered digitally by DEC staff, allowing much more detailed analyses of
recreational usage than monthly use totals. DEC Forest Rangers can encourage Forest
Preserve users to fill out data sheets completely and properly. An Adopt-a-Registry
program could be instituted where Rangers or volunteers maintain the registry and
collect sheets regularly, ensuring registry data integrity.
Snowmobile trail location is a controversial issue in land use planning for the entire
Park. The potential corridors identified in the October 2006 Snowmobile Plan for the
Adirondack Park will be considered in development of trail alternatives to connect
communities. Yet these connections on both state and private land, based largely on
existing road/trail networks, need to include detailed assessment of environmental
variables along alternative trail sections. Recommendation: DEC GIS can use the Cost
Path Analysis and other route-generation tools to identify trail alternatives when
feasible. We also suggest including additional data in the analysis, such as the APA
Land Use and Development Plan map, tax map (land parcel) boundaries, slope, aspect,
significant natural communities, and other environmental factors important to trail
placement. We will provide assistance with snowmobile trail planning as needed.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 3 Report
12
Summary
The Adirondack Park is viewed by many as an ongoing experiment in wild lands protection
and human enjoyment of natural resources. 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.
In year 3 of the Unit Management Planning-GIS project, we improved ways to access existing
inventory data and bring natural resource expertise and analyses into the decision-making
process. Planners received training on GIS tools and datasets so that they can easily explore
alternative management options for Forest Preserve units, as well as compare units and contrast
unit characteristics with the surrounding matrix of land.
We distributed the tools, data layers, and results of contextual analyses to planners.
Standardized maps are becoming more common in draft and final UMPs. We initiated analyses
to identify areas within the Adirondacks that contain important suites of species, areas at risk of
degradation, and other management priorities. A variety of resources is now available and the
project is successful due to the continued interest by DEC planners in applying natural resource
inventory information. We enter year 4 of the UMP-GIS project ready to further enhance
existing tools and data for planning in the Forest Preserve.
View from Goodnow Mountain, by Annie Woods.
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
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 2 Report
13
Appendix 1. Meetings with DEC staff and Consortium Members.
Ray Brook 11-18-05
Present:
Steve Signell
Brian Finlayson (DEC)
John Barge (APA)
Notes: Purpose of meeting was to reconcile DEC UMP boundary and APA Land Use and
Development Plan map layers.
Delivered:
Boundary file matching APA LUDP to Brian
Received: N/A
Tasks: N/A
Warrensburg 12-2-05
Present:
Steve Signell
Paul Jensen
Notes:
Steve Met with Paul Jensen to deliver Parkwide map templates and datasets and to help Paul
transition to ArcGIS 9.1. Delivered wildlife datasets (see below) and Arc Map templates. Gave
Paul a brief tutorial on ArcMap, ArcCatalog and ArcToolbox. Showed him how to import, join
and query data in personal Geodatabases. I set up a geodatabase for him so that he could easily
create BBA reports for UMPs.
Delivered:
• Parkwide Map Template and datasets including:
o Pot. Spruce grouse habitat
o Potential deer yards
o Bicknell’s thrush habitat
o 30m SRTM DEM
Received: N/A
Tasks: N/A
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 2 Report
Appendix 1. Meetings, Continued.
Long Lake 12-12-05
Present:
Steve Signell
Jim Jennings, NYS Snowmobile Assoc.
Notes:
Purpose was to discuss snowmobile maps for private lands and helped Jim download the new
ALIS roads dataset.
Delivered: ALIS roads dataset
Received: N/A
Tasks: N/A
Newcomb 2-22-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Steven Flint
Notes:
Mr. Flint met with Steve regarding combining disparate datasets into a single GIS layer and
creating UMP maps for several units. Steven will supply excel spreadsheets and I will work on
creating GIS layer and maps.
Delivered:
Received:
Tasks: Create GIS layers upon receipt of spreadsheets.
Newcomb 3-14-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Steven Flint
Notes:
Steven delivered his excel spreadsheet of terrestrial invasive plant locations and we worked
invasive species maps for several UMPs (see list, below).
Delivered:
14
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 2 Report
15
Appendix 1. Meetings, Continued.
Received: Terrestrial Invasive species spreadsheet; Aquatic Invasive species spreadsheet
Tasks:
Create GIS layers from spreadsheets.
Combine various data sources into single spreadsheet.
Create invasive species maps for the following units:
• Taylor Pond Wild Forest
• Sargent Ponds Wild Forest
• Lake George Wild Forest
• Wilcox Lake Wild Forest
• Blue Ridge Wilderness
• Saranac Lakes Wild Forest
• Debar Mountain Wild Forest
• White Hill Wild Forest
Newcomb 5-23-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Keith Rivers
Gina Marchini
Notes:
Met w/Keith regarding placement of Indian Lake-Inlet-Raquette Lake Community Connector
Snowmobile Trail for Moose River Plains UMP. We explored various scenarios and came up
with 3 alternatives which Keith & Rick Fenton will now field check.
Delivered:
Received:
Tasks: Complete draft alternatives map for Keith & send.
Saranac Lake 5-26-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Paul Capone-ORPS
Notes:
Met w/Paul Capone of the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) regarding stand inventories
they conducted across the park in the early 1990's in conjunction with Ralph Nyland. Our
interest was in obtaining this dataset to help check the accuracy of our ELU model. Paul gave an
overview of the data, and we agreed that these data might be useful. Acquiring the data would
require signing a memorandum of understanding and returning to the office at a later time in
order to get digital copies of aerial photos showing stand locations.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 2 Report
Appendix 1. Meetings, Continued.
Delivered:
Received:
Tasks:
Sign agreement and arrange for return visit.
Warrensburg 6-1-06
Present:
Paul Jensen
Steve Signell
Gina Marchini
Notes:
Steve helped Paul with the transition from ArcView to ArcGIS. Gina made photocopies of the
summarized trail registry data for Lake George Wild Forest
Delivered:
Received: Trail register summaries for Lake George Wild Forest trails.
Tasks: Enter registry data and digitize register locations in a GIS.
Saranac Lake 6-8-06
Present:
Gina Marchini
Paul Capone-ORPS
Notes:
Gina traveled to the Saranac Lake ORPS office to obtain digital copies of digital aerial photos
(.tiff) containing stand locations for evaluating the accuracy of our ELU ecosystems model.
Delivered:
Received: digitized aerial photos
Tasks: Georeference photos and digitize stand locations.
Northville 7-11-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Rick Fenton
Gina Marchini
16
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 2 Report
17
Appendix 1. Meetings, Continued.
Notes:
Met w/Rick regarding trail registry data. He showed us the data they have. There has been no
systematic entry of the data as in Region 5. Gina and Steve spent the afternoon entering data for
Sargent Ponds trail heads and canoe carries for the year 2003.
Delivered: N/A
Received: Trail Reg. Data for Sargent Ponds Wild Forest, 2003
Tasks: Compile Sargent Ponds data and deliver to planner
Ray Brook 8-3-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Dan Levy
Notes:
Gave Dan a tutorial on transitioning from ArcView to ArcGIS. We worked on several of his
maps. He also wanted me to use our cost-path tool to develop another alternative for a new
snowmobile connector near Kelley Mt. in Taylor Ponds Wild Forest.
Delivered: ArcGIS Manual.doc
Received: Dan’s snowmobile route GPS files.
Tasks: Perform cost path & send map to Dan (completed)
Newcomb 8-30-06
Present:
Steve Signell
Keith Rivers
Notes:
Keith visited to work on a map of potential snowmobile and road alternatives for Raquette
Boreal Wild Forest.
Delivered:
Received: Map of Keith's revisions
Tasks: Complete revisions and send maps to Keith.
Application of GIS to Rapid Inventory for Unit Management Planning - Year 2 Report
18
Appendix 2. Presentations at Professional Conferences and Meetings.
Signell, S. GIS in Recreation Planning: Using ArcGIS Model Builder to locate new trail sections
in the Adirondack Park for Unit Management Plans. 22nd Annual New York State GIS
Conference, Lake Placid, NY, Oct 23 and 24, 2006.
Zuckerberg B., W. F. Porter, and K. Corwin. Can Atlas Data be Used to Monitor Avian
Population Change? 22nd Annual New York State GIS Conference, Lake Placid, NY, Oct
23 and 24, 2006.
Zuckerberg B., W. F. Porter, and K. Corwin. Can Atlas Data be Used to Monitor Avian
Population Change? 13th Annual Conference on the Adirondacks, Lake Placid, NY, May
24 and 25, 2006.
Zuckerberg B., W. F. Porter, and K. Corwin. Can Atlas Data be Used to Monitor Avian
Population Change? Northeast Natural History Conference IX, New York State
Museum, Albany, NY, April 20 and 21, 2006.
Zuckerberg B., W. F. Porter, and K. Corwin. Can Atlas Data be Used to Monitor Avian
Population Change? Conserving Birds in Human-Dominated Landscapes: Weaving a
Common Future. The Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, Eleventh Annual
Spring Symposium, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, April 27 and
28, 2006.