Download
1 / 58
580 likes | 696 Views
Introductory Card. Name Affiliation Primary role in response Describe one way you’ve used ESI maps Email address/phone. Logistics. Hand-outs (name tag, agenda, roster, stickies , name tents & dots) Free stuff! Building logistics Lunch, coffee, soda, etc Breaks Internet access
E N D
Introductory Card Name Affiliation Primary role in response Describe one way you’ve used ESI maps Email address/phone
Logistics Hand-outs (name tag, agenda, roster, stickies, name tents & dots) Free stuff! Building logistics Lunch, coffee, soda, etc Breaks Internet access Moderators, “go-to” person
ESI Mapping the user’s point of view National Ocean Service Office of Response & Restoration Emergency Response Division Mobile, Alabama May 1 – 3, 2012
Florida Panhandle Shoreline, Wetlands, and Hydro – completed Biology and Human-use data collection and compilation – completed Data review – review trip and Adobe Connect meetings via conference calls and online are complete. Review comments due on or before May 3rd.
Florida South Shoreline, Wetlands, and Hydro – completed Biology and Human-use data collection meeting – completed Biology and Human-use data collection and compilation – in progress Biology and Human-use data collection digitization – in progress
Florida West Pen2 Shoreline, Wetlands, and Hydro – started April 17
Texas Shoreline and Wetlands – completed by TX A&M, HRI – being qa/qc’ed Hydro – in progress Biology and Human-use data collection meeting - completed Biology and Human-use data collection and compilation – in progress
Louisiana Shoreline and Wetlands – in progress Biology and Human-Use kickoff meeting - completed
Meeting Goals • The user’s point of view • Who are the users? • How do they currently use ESI maps & data? • What data do they find most/least useful? Why? • What data format(s) do they use most? • What can be done to improve their ESI “experience”
ESI User Survey • Results of the survey are posted around the room (also available as a PDF booklet) • Participants are welcome to vote during the workshop • The agenda roughly follows the flow of the survey • As we form breakout groups and enter discussions, keep in mind what others have said in the survey
Planning and response are the most frequently cited uses for ESI data. Is that a reflection of the audience or the data? Is there something we can/should do to make ESIs more useful in SCAT or NRDA?
PDFs and hard copy maps are still the most frequently used ESI product. While the format of the maps may need to change, we need to recognize that some sort of “map” is still needed. ESI’s in ERMA also scored high. Are we doing all we can to make ESIs useful in ERMA? Are there other on-line approaches that would be equally or more useful?
ERMA is very well known! Respondents who say they do not use ESIs in their regional/area response plans… Is that because they aren’t involved in developing response plans or is that a reflection of the data not meeting the needs for these plans?
Another core Data question…
and more core data satisfaction questions… hard copy map satisfaction…
how/what ESI data are (would be) used… (Tuesday morning session- Shoreline, Biology, and Human-Use Data Collection and Integration: Current Practices, Challenges, and Future Perspectives)
should include more/should include less! The problem with the ESI maps is that they include "everything" without really characterizing specific species sensitivity, habitat utilization and a finer scale of detail of distribution. For response purposes I need to know what habitat types are at the most risk, not that all habitat is at risk. If a decision needs to be made on the use of dispersants I need better detail on where a dispersed plume may or may not make landfall. The ESI maps do show "what" is there generically but not in the detail to give me a more accurate real time seasonal distribution and use… Need to expand ESI from just oil to all hazard approach like we did with the North Carolina ESI for the Wilmington area. ESI is a wonderful model and is used well for oil and hazmat purposes. But given the expense and time to maintain, I would like to see it evolve so it can support other management and scientific needs. Biological information is overwhelming and cluttered with relatively unimportant information. In most cases, there are only a few T&E species that would be of greatest concern to spill responders--other information on general use of sites by shorebirds, etc., can be gathered real-time in the field.
general… Shoreline classification is a great, quick, big picture of vulnerability. Very useful to experts and the lay person. ESI's need to match at state and atlas boundaries. This consistently presents problems when working with ESI data across multiple state boundaries. This holds true for both shoreline classification and biological resources. ESI is an excellent system, however, it is still tied to outdated items such as USGS quad index, paper maps and RAR model. Oblique, low altitude aerial images of shoreline are extremely valuable if available. In order to save money, they might be gotten in retrospect by using AUV's and added to the ESI digital data output, i.e. as part of the DVD. Recommend that maps show cultural/historical resources where applicable
. currency/easier updates…. I think anything you can do to make ESIs more dynamic (digital, etc). Coming up w/ a way to integrate new data before an update actually comes on line is a request I get all the time. It's all about having current information and adequate detail to be effective in response, cleanup and damage assessment. ANY WAY that can be improved should be the objective. an easier updating ability would be helpful Data refresh time is too long and makes some users question the usability of the data.
There were some clarifying statements that shoreline update needs varied based on dynamics of shoreline A five year refresh cycle seems to be the ideal
ESI use in contingency planning & response (Tuesday afternoon session)
Comments on how (if) ESIs are currently used in response plans….
All the ESI data and maps are included on every Digital Area Contingency Plan we produce in the Southeast US and Caribbean. They are a very important part of the planning and response framework. Very inconsistent across the country The PDF is often used to "add" response planning layers. These additions are often only available as a PDF and not as a GIS layer. Specific maps are incorporated by reference in the Area and Geographic Response Plans but not shown. They are used, but not across the board due to map data clutter, i.e. layers upon layers. AC Port partners don't have GIS staff to fully use at 100% level. We create the DACPs for the Coast Guard and these are integral. Additionally, we use these for agency commenting, zoning and permitting.
ESI data access and delivery: tools and on-line services (Wednesday morning session)
hard copy and PDF map products… (Wednesday afternoon session – what the future holds for the ESI hard-copy and PDF products)
Traditional ESI map product 11x17, quad based format Lots of information, including “hot-spot” species locations, “present throughout” information, shoreline classification, human use resources… Resource at risk numbers link to resource information on back of map This format has been in use for the last 30 years… As time has passed, data content has become richer and possibly made the map more difficult to read due to data overload
Most people seem reasonably satisfied with the orientation provided by the basemap and annotation, as well as with the detail of biological presence information. Users seem slightly less satisfied with the aesthetics of the map product, and a majority find the readability of the shoreline types less than “very good”
Lower satisfaction with the human use resource information content. Is this a reflection of the attributes or the resources that are mapped (or not mapped)?
Much simplified ESI map; does not map biology, but summarizes instead on back of map. Format is 8.5 x 11 One of first attempts to generate “maps on the fly” – intended for generation of seasonal maps
Overall, people seemed to like the simplicity, but were not satisfied with the detail of biological resources What map product would provide easy to read shoreline types, but still have sufficiently detailed biology?
Scale on this map is slightly smaller than the traditional map, as it is an 8.5 x 11 format. The area of coverage is not constrained by the quad boundaries so these maps can be produced at “any” scale. Biology information appears less than with the traditional, tabular data, but it is most likely more a question of presentation. Since the maps are “seasonal”, that is implied in the species report. This format does not include concentration.
Pros and Cons… I much prefer the simple map. The important features standout. The data sheet makes an RAR much easier to produce Sample map 113 – The shoreline is clear. I like the bluff/point and water body names, they are very helpful. Needs a locator map (not even lat/long lines). Also, I would like to see some bathymetry or navigational locators to the water (ICW, Ocean channels, etc)? Human use features (marinas/ramps/other points) need to be shown on the map. Have you thought of creating GeoPDFs? All 3 maps have a strength, If there were a way to combine the mapping and gridded fashion of species presence etc in the traditional map with the explanations provided simple map new river area, I think that would be ideal. .
I like seeing the species icons/points on the map. Just saying "Species Present in Area" doesn't tell me where. There's a big difference between where a whale might be and where a heron rookery might be. And I lose where a marina or popular beach is located. The traditional maps are great for a quick overall picture of what's in the area. That is lost on these 2 new map styles. I also like the traditional table "back of the map" layout. The species are their own line item and it's easy to scroll down the list. Having them all mushed together in one table cell is very difficult to read and loses its important information. I like the other layouts and I see some excellent potential for these as automated map products from ArcGIS. I don't think that one single product can fully support all circumstances, hence the need for multiple types and scales and I like the idea that I think this is presenting. If the cartographic presentation and reporting can be automated for "on-demand" production, then we're talking something very powerful (and useful!)
