Lab 8

Lab 7 introduces us to spatial interpolation techniques. These techniques take us through the process of predicting values of unknown observations and creating a surface, using preexisting data. The methods of interpolation we used are IDW (Inverse Distance Weighting), Kriging, and Spline. All three methods are unique and can be used effectively in various scenarios.

For this Lab, we used Los Angeles precipitation data from the county’s Water Resources homepage to determine the current amount of rainfall in LA County, as well as the normal rainfall values and the difference between these two values. Both values were interpolated using the IDW and Spline methods. To do this, I loaded the Los Angeles County shapefile to Arcmap, as well as an excel sheet with the rainfall data. I also marked the locations of the rain gauge stations on the map using display X-Y values. Spatial analysis tools let me calculate the values which were shaded into the map.

Based on my maps, I feel the IDW maps are better suited for this project. This method uses linear data points to find unknown values. This works in this lab because we have limited amounts of point on the maps. Because IDW is a deterministic process, it better shows us the rainfall values than Spline. Looking at my Spline maps, one can see a significant difference between the normal and total maps. This is another sign that the IDW interpolation technique works better for our data.

Lab 7

On August 26, 2009, a massive fire broken out in Los Angeles, California. The fire took the lives away from 2 men, as well has wiping out over 160,000 acres of land and destroying over 200 structures. Nearly two months later, the consuming fire was finally contained on October 16, 2009. This fire is know as the Los Angeles Station Fire.
To create my hazard map for the area of Los Angeles, California, I downloaded elevation data, fire perimeter data, and vegetation/land cover data online. Unfortunately, a last-minute computer malfunction has inhibited me from including my perimeter data and my reclassified items to my map. I was forced to only use with my first two maps; land cover and reclassified slope.
The Station Fire consumed the area of the Angeles National Forest in the City of Los Angeles. This area is shown on the map above as consisting of mostly light brush, medium brush, chaparral, and hardwood. They are depicted by the red, blue, light blue, and pink on the top map. All of this land cover in the area of the fire makes for great fuel for any fire. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much green and/or maroon on this section of the map. Green stands for rock and maroon stands for water. Both of which are not flammable and would help contain a fire of this mass.
The slope map shows us that the area where the fire took place is high in elevation, compared to the rest of the map. This must have helped the fire for two reasons. First, high elevations experience tougher climates like wind, which is detrimental for any fire. Second, the high elevation makes it tougher for fire trucks and other aid from getting to the fire. On a lighter note, the urban part of the map was located outside of the fire location so no neighborhoods were taken by the fire.

Lab 6

The oldest form a waste management, landfill, appears to be an effective way to remove trash. However, landfills are permanent; once you fill the land with trash it will stay there forever. When the trash begins to decompose, we face the risk that toxic substances will sink into our groundwater supply or even be released into our air. This is why all precautions should be taken in choosing where to install a landfill.
In recent news, a debate revolving around a landfill in Kettleman City, California has risen. Some would like the landfill to expand while others oppose it. It is believed that the toxic wasteland in central California is releasing arsenic into this farming town’s water supply. Arsenic has been shown to cause health problems when elevated levels enter the human body. A team has been sent to see if this is truly the case, and whether the landfill is safe enough to expand.
In Lab 6, we checked the suitability for potential locations to put a landfill in Gallatin County, Montana. Our suitability analysis included the counties slope of elevation, distance to landfills, soil drainage, stream buffers, and land cover. All this information helped us determine what part of Gallatin County could most safely accommodate a landfill.
One of the more important factors that we analyzed is the slope of elevation. Topography of an area is crucial in deciding where a landfill ought to go because it must be on relatively flat land so the waste will settle evenly. Another crucial factor is soil drainage. You would not want to put a landfill on weak soil with a shallow rock depth. This would inhibit growth and your landfill as well as cause harsh damage during earthquakes. I feel these two factors are the most important when deciding where to locate a landfill.
After completing Lab 6 and checking my analysis, I see potential spots in Gallatin County to place a landfill. I believe the planner of Gallatin County should create another landfill above the existing landfill in the Northeast part of the map. This area has little slope of elevation, good drainage, and doesn’t have a stream flowing through it. All these factors should make this an ideal location for a landfill.

No More Marijuana!!

The proposition to disallow Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within a 1,000 foot buffer from children-filled locations is vital to our future generation. A 2006 Monitoring the Future Survey found that 15.7% of 8th-graders have tried marijuana. These eight graders are barely in their teenage years, and yet they have experienced illegal drugs. This shows us that the banned substance, marijuana, is too easily accessible in our country. This, in part, is made possible by the countless amounts of marijuana dispensaries found in the City of Los Angeles. A recent look at Los Angeles tells us that there are close to 100 dispensaries in this weed-abundant city! Due to President Obama’s regulations to not persecute these marijuana dispensaries, it will be nearly impossible to ban them, but the least our city can do is disallow these establishments to be easily accessible to our younger generation of children. The only solution is to ban dispensaries within 1,000 feet of a school or park.
In the map above, I have geocoded the school and parks of the City of Los Angeles and included the proposed 1,000 foot buffer, in blue. I also geocoded the marijuana dispensaries in a section of Los Angeles. In the zoomed in box to the left of the map, one can clearly see that multiple dispensaries are located within these buffers. This allows the children who occupy these schools and/or parks easy access to get their hands on weed. The fact that these dispensaries are so close and attainable to these children is a source of temptation for them. If a 10 year old student walks passed a marijuana dispensary on his way home from school every day, he seems more likely to experiment with the banned substance than a child who rarely comes into contact with a dispensary. This is why we have devised such a plan to limit the locations of these establishments.
I am not saying to ban all of the dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles, but to carefully chose where their foundations can be built. Our future generations will eventually be taking care of us, and I am sure all of us would prefer our caretakers to not be marijuana abusers.