GOALS & OBJECTIVES |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
METHODOLOGY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To achieve the three goals that our group determined, we had decided to develop a uniform method of classification. This allowed the three goals for our group to be consolidated into one final evaluation map which we could then use to create the final land use plan. This method of classification we created, is the CONSERVATION PRIORITY RANK (CPR). This ranking system was based on a scale with values from one to six, one being the lowest (comprised of those areas that where within our study area, yet held minimal conservation value) and six being the highest (areas that had the highest ranking in our data value sets). Each subgroup (one for each goal) would rank their data layers, following this CPR system. They would then combine their data layers into one subgroup layer, also ranked with CPR values. Once each subgroup had a final map that was comprised of all the data they had used and was ranking according to CPR, we then began the process of combining our three goals into the CONSERVATION ANALYSIS MAP. This was acheived by using a weighted system. Our process for determining how we would weight the subgroups, relied on evaluating the overall intent for our project, (to protect the water quality and quantity of the Ichetucknee Springs basin - see home page), and how its relation to our conservation group's goals and objectives. Based on this, we developed the following weighted system: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It should be stated that some of the same data layers where used within the development of each subgroup's map. These, however may have been given a different rank within those subgroups based on its importance to the sub-groups goal. For example, Suwannee Water Management District's Land use for 1995 would be used by both the Biodiversity Flora & Fauna (BFF) and the Public Conservation Resource (PCR) subgroups to derive forest types, but might have a different value for a particular forest type within the data. The BFF subgroup would give forest features it ranking based on its fire maintenance status, while the PCR subgroup would look at its occurrence level within the study area to determine its value on the CPR. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Specific: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The GIS software we used to create the CPR was ESRI's Arcview, utilizing the Spatial Analyst extension. This is a software package which uses raster based data layers to model spatial information. Our Group converted some data from vector to raster based data. We used a 200 meter cell size uniformly to present our data. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO SEE MORE ABOUT HOW WE DEVELOPED OUR MAP CHOOSE A SUBGROUP: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONSERVATION FINAL ANALYSIS MAP |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This map, as mentioned in the general methodology was created using a weighted system to combine the conservation's group three subgroups into one final map based on this final map we the began to design our future land plan based on the information that this map provided. We used the CPR values on this map to develop that type of land use that our conservation data would support. They were as follows: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our evaluation map had given us specific geographic information about our conservation goals. In this process, we had to weigh this information and apply it to developing a future plan. This would require a generalizing of some areas. We sought to locate those areas that contained extensive amounts of area that were represented by higher priority values (6-4) and give them greater protection in our land use plan. These areas would consist of the (CEAQ) and (CE) land use types. Then we looked for the most extensive areas that were represented by moderate values (4-2) and gave them moderate protection under (BLM) or (PLM) land use types. Some of these areas may also have been included in the (CEAQ) or (CE) high priority areas, or devalued to the low priority areas. This was typically caused by the need to find large contiguous areas for our land use types or by the relative minimal size of the area which could place it in the low priority land use type. One factor taken into consideration at this level was to insure that a level 2 value contained within the surface basin boundary [SEE STUDY AREA] would not be devalued to a low priority status, because this would conflict with our primary goal to protect water quality in the basin. We then determined the low priority (1) areas which could be used by any of our land use types. These areas would be organized in a way to conform to existing land use patterns and seek to protect the areas defined by the high and moderate priority classes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONSERVATION FUTURE LAND USE PLAN |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Based on the data from our evaluation map we created a future land use plan for our study area. This map would protect the most important conservation priority areas, define those areas that are sensitive for conservation, and provide areas that are acceptable for other uses (i.e. Agriculture and urban development). The following is a list of our land use types and the descriptions for each type: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
