In order to create the fire hazard model for the Station Fire, it was first necessary to do some background reading on the fire in order to allow for a basic understanding of the area. Important information that I ascertained was that the Station Fire occurred during the late summer of 2009 north of Los Angeles in the Angeles National Forest and was one of the largest wildfires of summer 2009 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/31/california.wildfires/index.html). The next step in the process was to find perimeter, elevation, vegetation, fuel rank, as well as any supplemental data in order to perform the analysis. Although I was able to find data for the Station Fire relatively quickly, it was difficult for me to decide what to include. The California Department of Forestry and Wildfires provides many different shapefiles concerning California wildfires. It was difficult for me to assess which data were important and relevant, and which were not. In the end, I decided that ultimately the perimeter, vegetation type, and digital elevation data were the most important to depict in my fire hazard map. Understanding the type of vegetation and the slope of the land, allowed for an analysis of fire susceptibility. Additionally I felt that including a small map showing the fuel rank of the land cover would also be useful in understanding the potential for fires. Although there was more data concerning surface fuels and other fire hazards, I wanted to overall highlight the effect that vegetation type has on propagation of fires.
After collecting the data needed, I began my analysis. The first step was to select the Station Fire perimeter from the shapefile containing all the Californiawildfire perimenters, and create a new layer. Using the Station Fire perimeter layer, the raster images of the digital elevation model, vegetation type, and fuel rank shapefiles were clipped. Clipping the raster images was a difficult process that required transformations and adjusting the settings for the raster images. A hillshade was created for the clipped digital elevation model, and was then overlayed with the vegetation type layer in order to display a slope-vegetation map of the Station Fire. Hydrological Tigerline data from the US Census website was also added to the map in order to show the location of various creeks. Other Tigerline data including major roads and areas of interest were going to be added, however, I found that there were few major roads and areas of interest within the Station Fire Boundary. Most of the area was encompassed by the AngelesNational Forest. After performing a slope-vegetation analysis, an additional map showing the fuel-rank for the land cover of the Station Fire was created. The categories of Non-fuel, moderate, high, and very high were ascribed to the different levels of flammability for the land cover. The final stages of the analysis included adding an inset window to show where the Station Fire occurred as well as including map elements (scale bar, title, north arrow, etc.).
Overall, the main purpose of my fire hazard map was to facilitate understanding as to possible factors that perpetuated the Station Fire as well as the potential for another fire to occur in this area. By evaluating the slope-vegetation map, it is clear that most of the area is covered by shrub at moderate elevation. By then comparing this map to the fuel-rank map, it is evident that the area covered by shrub correlates with a very high ranking as fuel for fires. Therefore, a potential theory for the intensity of the Station Fire could be that it originated in an area that contained high levels of vegetation that was extremely flammable. Understanding the underlying factors that may have contributed to the intensity of the Station Fire allows for greater awareness of fire potential in areas with the same conditions.
When evaluating landuse and possible locations for structures, it is important to analyze different areas and determine which areas will be most suitable. Suitability analysis is a useful tool in determining areas that are most suitable for specific uses. In particular, suitability analysis provides a visual display of areas most suitable for certain landuses based on a variety of factors. When running a landfill suitability analysis, the factors considered might include slope of elevation, distance of areas to landfills, soil drainage, proximity to streams (stream buffers), land cover, and an overall final analysis of the most suitable areas for landfills. Depending on the region being observed, other factors may also be analyzed such as population densities, protected areas, etc.
In this particular exercise, the aforementioned factors were classified with calculated ranges and then visually displayed on separate maps of the county in order to allow for individual analysis. Although most of the classifications and calculations were objective, the land cover classification was based upon my own perception of where a landfill would be most suitable based upon the overall extent and type of vegetation. Therefore, some degree of bias was introduced into the analysis. Additionally, a final analysis map was created which displayed the overall most suitable areas for landfills based upon weighted values for each of the factors.
Suitability analysis is especially useful when issues and concerns arise surrounding the location of damaging and toxic structures or facilities. In Los Angeles, there is currently a debate regarding the expansion of the Central Valley toxic waste landfill which is the largest in the state. High levels of arsenic have been found in the drinking water of nearby KettlemenCity and residents are concerned that high concentrations of toxins in the water and soil have contributed to birth defects. However, it is unclear whether the birth defects in KettlemenCity are attributable to the proximity to the landfill. Health officials have not observed higher than expected birth defects in relation to neighboring cities. Whether or not the birth defects are attributable to the landfill, it is important that residents are not exposed to any of the runoff from the landfill. The presence of high levels of arsenic in drinking water is cause for concern and should lead health officials to evaluate whether the landfill might already be too close to KettlemenCity and that the landfill’s expansion would magnify pollution levels that could then affect more cities. However, it is also important to understand the potential sites for other landfills and if it is feasible to implement new landfills in areas further away from cities.
In order to address these issues, it would be beneficial for health officials to run a suitability analysis for the region surrounding the landfill as well as statewide regions for potential landfills. Evaluating factors such as elevation, soil drainage, proximity to streams, vegetation type, and distance of nearby places to landfills, would allow for greater understanding as to the overall area that the Central Valley landfill affects as well as elements that may increase the range of pollution. By analyzing each factor individually, the cause for runoff from the landfill can be more clearly defined. For example, the KettlemenCity might be located relatively far from the landfill, however if it is at the bottom of a slope with the landfill at the top then there would be greater runoff entering the city. Suitability analysis could also be useful in this situation in determining other sites for potential landfills. If it was determined that indeed the Central Valley landfill was contributing to higher birth defects in Kettlemen City and therefore, it could not be expanded, then there would be a need for more landfills in other areas. Running a suitability analysis for California could provide a spatial overview of areas most suitable for landfills that would have the least amount of damage to people, the environment, and financially.
Overall, suitability analysis can provide visual evidence of the possible effects that the location of various places and structures may have on nearby areas. However, it is important to realize that suitability analysis is a model and not a perfect replication of reality. While it may be beneficial to use suitability analysis as a guide, in the end it is important to evaluate other aspects of an area when determining its suitability for a specific landuse. Additionally, the area should continue to be monitored to make sure that there is minimal damage to people and the environment, with minimal costs. Ultimately, suitability analysis is beneficial economically, environmentally, and socially.
I agree that medical marijuana dispenseries should be at least 1,000 feet from places where children congregate such as schools, libraries, parks, etc. in the city of Los Angeles. Although 1,000 feet may seem like a large area, after mapping out schools, parks, and institutions within the city of Los Angeles and creating 1,000 foot buffers around them, it was clearly displayed that there are many areas for dispensary locations. By limiting the dispensary locations, there will hopefully be less exposure to children and better peace of mind for parents. Costs would include that dispensaries would be a little more difficult to locate as well as less money generated by the industry. Additionally, other areas where children congregate may not be represented on the map. As a result, it is necessary to clearly define and map these areas in order to get a more precise idea of whether a 1,000 foot no dispensary zone is feasible and appeases those who wish to have more dispensaries and those wh0 do not. Other benefits to having 1,000 foot buffer zone is that there will be greater control over the overall distribution of the dispensaries. Areas with a high number of places exposed to children will have more no dispensary zones whereas areas where there are less children will be allowed to have more dispensaries. Overall, the primary concern surrounding the location of medical marijuana dispensaries should be how it will affect the children in the area. Limiting the exposure to dispensaries for children as well as having enough locations for dispensaries should be the optimal goal. By clearly identifying and labeling areas that have high exposure to children, there will be greater clarity regarding where dispensaries should be located. In the end, it may require that only areas with high densities of children (ex. schools and libraries) have no-dispensary zones; whereas areas with moderate or smaller densities (ex. museums, parks, etc.) will be allowed to contain dispensaries.
