Week 9 &10: Mapping the Station Fire in ArcGIS

The maps above show the fire extent of the 2009 Los Angeles county fires. Each of the maps includes the fire extent of the 2009 LA County fires which endangered the surrounding communities. Included on some of the maps are the hospitals and freeways in LA County. These factors are included because they play important roles during and the aftermath of fires.

         In the first map, the digital elevation model is included with the locations of hospitals and freeways in the county of Los Angeles. The orange region represents the largest extent of the fires in 2009. The DEM is an important feature in that it represents the elevation of the areas that were affected by the fire and therefore provides an insight on what type of land was affected. According to the digital elevation model, the fires occurred along a decreasing elevation, presumably down the side of a mountain range or some other decreasing elevation feature. The fires occurred mostly in the Angeles National Forest that threatened homes from Acton to Altadena (LA Times). The Fire department was just able to prevent the fires spreading past the freeways in the southern part of the county. However, the freeways were still losed due to the proximity of the fire. This is very significant because freeways are a major routes out of an area, and if people need to evacuate, freeways are one of the most easily accessible and fastest ways to depart. Hospitals were also protected and therefore were able to continue operating and serving their communities in addition to treating any patients from the fires.

         The second map is simpler and therefore is able to be analyzed quicker and easier. Without the digital elevation model, the fire extent, hospital, and freeways are even more emphasized. The relationship between the hospitals, freeways and the fires are clearer without the background detail of the scale of elevation. The area of the fire (in orange) indicates how close the fire was to crossing the freeway and how it was already cutting off some modes of transportation for the people escaping the fires. As of August 31, 2009, there were estimated to be eighteen houses burned down in the Tujunga Canyon and two fire fighters who died in an accident due to these fires (Earth Observatory).

         The last map indicates the growth of the wild fires each day from the beginning on August 29, 2009 to when it reached its maximum extent on September 1, 2009. August 29^th fires, as indicated by the pink outline, shows the fires starting in two different locations and then spreading over the next four days. Between August 30^th and the 31^st, the fires doubled in size to 85,760 acres, as indicated by the green and blue outlines (LA Times, Earth Observatory). According to the Los Angeles Times, the fire was only 5% contained as of the morning of August 31^st. The last outline indicates the maximum fire extent reached by the 2009 Station Fires.

         The 2009 fires caused a great amount of scrutiny to be given to the US Forest Service and many people questioned their efforts in doing everything possible to prevent the wild fires. This included clearing extra brush and dead plants that would be easy fuel for a fire. However, according to Richard Halsey, director of the California Chaparral Institute, “‘The Station Fire is not the fault of federal land managers, firefighters, or environmental laws’...‘Huge wildfires will occur in Southern California regardless of how the government ‘manages’ its lands…they are an inevitable part of life here’” (California Chaparral Institute). This does not diminish the effects the fires had on the surrounding community. The fire threatened more than 12,500 buildings, and over 6,000 homes were given mandatory evacuation statements from the Fire department (LA Times). These maps are an illustration of the spread of the fire and its relations to common public services, such as roads and hospitals.

Bibliography

"Fires in Los Angeles County." NASA Earth Observatory. NASA Earth Observatory. Web. 8 Dec 2012. <http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40011>.

Molina, Genaro . "L.A. County fire doubles in size; more homes destroyed; Mt. Wilson threatened [Updated]." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] August 31, 2009, n. pag. Web. 8 Dec. 2012. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/la-county-fire-doubles-in-size-more-homes-list-mt-wilson-threatened.html>.

"Station Fire Perimeters – September 1st morning – AS IS." Los Angeles County Enterprise GIS Geospatial technology for the citizens of Los Angeles County (2012): n.pag. Los Angeles County Enterprise GIS. Web. 8 Dec 2012. <http://egis3.lacounty.gov/eGIS/>.

Sullivan, Danny. "California Wildfires: August & September 2009 Edition." SearchEngineLand. September 01 2009. Web. 8 Dec 2012. <http://searchengineland.com/california-wildfires-august-2009-edition-24126>.

"The 2009 Station Fire in the Angeles National Forest." CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE. California Chaparral Institute, September 04 2009. Web. 8 Dec 2012. <http://www.californiachaparral.com/2009fireinlacounty.html>

Week 8: Census Maps

Number of People, 2000: This map is a graphic image of the populations within the different counties on the continental United States in 2000. The population scale is represented by a descending shade of purple: the darkest purple represents the most populated counties while the lightest purple represents the last populated counties. As illustrated on the map, the highest populations live on the west side or on the east side of the country. The middle is the least populated part of the country, with most counties having a population between 107 and 9999 people. The most populated counties often contain the largest cities in the nation, which is logically feasible.

Difference, 1990 to 2000 Number of People: This map displays the changes in population that occurred in each county within the continental United States between the years 1990 and 2000. The color scale goes from dark green to a bright fuchsia color: the dark green being the largest gain in population and the fuchsia representing the largest loss in population. All the pinkish hues signify that there was a loss in population in the ten years and all the greenish hues denote that there were gains in the population within that time period. Similar to the previous graph, the highest numbers were near the big cities on the opposing coasts. It is interesting to note that the places that underwent the greatest increases in population also were the most populated areas at the end of the ten year period. This means that these areas are consistently increasing their populations over time.

Percent Change, 1990 to 2000 Total Population: This map illustrates the percent change in population within the counties in the continental United States of America. The color scale goes from dark purple to a bright gold-yellow: the dark purple being the greatest positive percent change in population and the gold-yellow representing the greatest negative percent change in population. The purple hues represent as the positive percentages, or the increasing number of population. The yellow hues signify the negative percentages, or the decreasing number of population over the time of the ten years. The patterns in this graph are slightly different from the previous two. There are higher changes in percent in the Mid-west (such as Nevada and Arizona) than the coasts. This means that these counties’ populations have increased the most in the past 10 years.

Population Density, 2000: This map displays the density of population in the counties of the continental United States. Density illustrates the concentration of people living in a certain measure of area. The color scale represent the decreasing density within the counties. The darkest blue signifies the highest density with the lowest density illustrated by the near white color. The scale goes from the darkest blue to lighter blue to green hues to off white. Not unexpectedly, the highest density counties are those that contain the biggest cities. This means that the people of the densely populated county live in closer proximity to each other than those that live in less densely populated counties. The denser populations mean that there are more people per square measurement of the county.

The census map series is a useful tool to see the changes over time of population growth. It provides a clear demonstration of the population of 2000, the difference over the ten years between 1990 and 2000, the percent change of total population over those ten years, and the population density in 2000. Overall, the exercise with the census data was very interesting and was a clear demonstration of the different uses of the features of maps. Color, labeling, and organization are all important in order to create an aesthetically pleasing, informative map easy for anyone to see and understand the purpose of it. This exercise with ArcGIS was a good introduction to try and build knowledge and experience with cartography. This program would be easier to navigate if there was a search engine for the system to find certain tools but overall it is a fairly easy system to work once the user knows where all the utilities are located. 

Week 7: DEMs in ArcGIS

The area, which was examined in this lab, was a region in Colorado in the United States. The extent was 39.8291666661 decimal degrees at the top, 39.3838888883 decimal degrees at the bottom, -105.788888889 decimal degrees at the left, and -104.969444445 decimal degrees at the right. The geographic coordinate system that was used was the North American GCS of 1983 (GCS_North_American_1983). The area in Colorado mostly consists of the Arapaho National Forest just west of the city of Denver. In the three-dimensional image, the elevation is shown to be inconsistent, therefore indicating that the area is most likely mountainous. The aspect model indicates that there is a variance in which way the features face, whether north, south, east, or west. The slope model indicates how steep or shallow the slope of a feature is.