Geodatabase creation for personal spatial project

Introduction

The purpose of this lab was to familiarize the reader with the process of Geodatabase creation and management methods used for a personal spatial project. The project started with personal research in the summer of 2017 which involved fieldwork and data collection. The area of interest is Eau Claire County, WI, and concerns Karner Blue Butterfly SAFE contract sites between the NRCS and local landowners. The personal data collected was used for analysis of map documents. Additional data used in this project was obtained from organizations, previous studies, and research done by individuals who are well versed on the topic. The geodatabase grouped all of this data into one convenient location. The vision and purpose of the GDB and project are to highlight the areas of Eau Claire County that are most favorable for Karner Blue Butterfly conservation sites. The data is contained within a file geodatabase, it was reasoned that a personal geodatabase may limit the potential of the map, and having an ArcSDE geodatabase would be unnecessarily large for the purposes of the project. 

Methods 

Prior to the creation of the file geodatabase, a new folder was created to house any information that would be potentially used in the project. The folder was then found in the catalog tree of ArcMap and the new file geodatabase was added. There were no domains added to the database, due to the data already being created and organized by previous owners. If domains were to be created, they would have served minimal to no functional purpose and thus creating them would be an inefficient use of time. Individual feature classes were brought into the geodatabase, where the projections were modified to match one another, and comparison between layers was used to ensure the spatial accuracy of data. The coordinate system used in the project was UTM_NAD_1983_Zone_15N, this coordinate system results in minimum distortion of Eau Claire County. As mentioned earlier, the geographic extent of the geodatabase is Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. This extent was chosen based on available data. Additionally, the Areas of Interest (SAFE sites) are all located within the county boundary, and data outside of the county would not have a use. The map scale used for most efficient display of output data is 1:250,000. No new topology was incorporated with any of the data as all polygons needed for the project were already created with topology rules established. Any new polygon/line/point features or layers were created from existing features. For the purposes of this project, an annotation is not necessary. The only description of the sites that could be expressed in annotation usefully would be landowner name, which violates confidentiality rules set by the NRCS. The confidentiality agreement set at the beginning of the research requires the final public output map to not show landowner name, exact locations of current sites, or the exact location of populations of the endangered Karner Blue Butterfly. Due to there being a personal connection with many of the data providers, file metadata will be updated with citations and sources. Along with this, the importance of maintaining confidentiality will be stressed. Personal information will also be entered into the metadata, as some of the data displayed are based on the summer research. Multiple layers were used in the geodatabase and are listed below:

                                                    i.     CRP_SAFE – polygon feature class – features represent the SAFE sites that I visited over the summer, they will be displayed according to the rank of success (discussed in project proposal) to show the relative location of highly successful sites, and the not so successful sites

                                                   ii.     CRP_SAFE_15 – similar to the above feature class, shows SAFE sites that are the result of more recent contracts, displayed the same way on the map as CRP_SAFE

                                                  iii.     Geology_Types – polygon feature class – soil type was an important factor in this project, as it heavily influences the success and growth of certain prairie plants (on which the success rank is based). This feature class was obtained from a university database and has been modified so that there are fewer and more general fields.

                                                  iv.     Geotagged_photos – point feature class – over the summer photos were taken of the different sites, adding the photos to the map makes the study more personalized and shows some of the work that went into data collection

                                                   v.     KBB_HPZ – polygon feature class – this shows the potential range of the Karner Blue Butterfly, which is an important factor in identifying where in the county SAFE sites should be located to have the highest success. This data was created by the student mentioned in 1a.

                                                  vi.     Projection1 – polygon feature class – a simple outline of Eau Claire County, which is the border of the AOI for this project

                                                vii.     Realslope – raster – shows the slope of Eau Claire County, it was hypothesized at the beginning of the summer that sites with a greater average slope would be more successful due to positive growth patterns of certain prairie plants when on slopes. After analysis, this hypothesis was proven incorrect. The slope value will play a role in identifying the best possible location.

                                               viii.     Sectionreproj and townshipreproj – polygon feature classes - both aided in identifying sites when assigning the rank value

                                                  ix.     Bestsiteslope – Badsiteslope = tables representing the average values of slope for each rank of the site, output values aided in determining cutoff slope measurement that is best for a potential site

                                                    X. Bestsitesoil – Badsitesoil = tables representing the most frequently encountered soil type for each rank of the site, output values aided in determining which soil types have the most successful site

There were no behavior settings created for this project. The NRCS provided feature classes that contained most of the information that I needed to complete the project. The only added field was “rank” which had values “null, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4” null was left valid for fields in the county that were not visited. There could have been a domain created for this field, but due to there being only one number per entry, I felt it was unnecessary. All values were checked within the table, and with the binder that contains all information from the summer. Additionally, all of the output values are generated into tables, where no domains or subtypes would be needed. The soil types we reconfigured in a way that setting up domains was again unnecessary. The soil types that composed the now large groupings were selected for and then merged, their general name was added in the attribute table to the individual polygons, and then the feature was exploded using advanced editing to establish that there were several large polygons of the same soil type. Soil type name was preserved, while feature area and shape were left to change.

Below shows the layout of the GDB discussed above. 

Discussion/Conclusion

The geodatabase used for this project facilitated in the generation of output values that are extremely beneficial to the project as a whole. With having a personal interest in environmental biology and conservation, the output of this project is very exciting. I would not have been able to accomplish set goals without the functionality and organization provided by the file geodatabase.