Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
CHAPTER 5 Beta Test of the C40A Tool: Eco-Plan Eco-Plan The C40A team provided the C40B2 team with a beta test of Eco-Plan. The beta test consisted of an exercise for both Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced; there were a series of steps to follow, and a questionnaire followed the exercises. The C40B2 focus group conducted the beta test. The GIS/Remote Sensing Lead at MoRAP and the Councilâs focus group members each reviewed the national tool for navigation, interpretation, and data interoperability. Below is a summary of the results of the beta test. In terms of navigation, the Map Gallery, the associated functionality of the theme maps, and the narrative accompanying the theme maps works very well. These maps are more intuitive than maps under the âGet Startedâ portion of the site. The fact that the users can be sure they are getting federal data layer feeds straight from the source is an added benefit. . Regarding interpretation, on the home page, there seem to be a lot of options to choose from, and it may be difficult to determine which option is most relevant to the userâs needs. The home page would benefit from enhanced narrative regarding the content of the page, such as a heading or explanation about the three main icons. The âLearn moreâ link should not be in that location. Taking a new user to that link so early would lead to a great deal of confusion. Perhaps the ArcGIS Online (AGO) links could be located off to the side, with specific descriptions the content or purpose of the link. Since the intent is to engage low-level GIS users, it is critical to make the main page as easy to move through as possible. Simplicity of use is helpful to the novice or non-GIS user. The testers saw the need to clarify and streamline the âGet Startedâ page. Perhaps âGet Startedâ needs a longer explanation or a rephrased title. It seems to refer to getting started with the IEF, when a user might assume it means to get started with the web tool. The Eco-Plan explanation at the bottom should be at the top of the page as part of the introduction to the site. Moving all AGO-related links and text to one location would be an alternative; perhaps the bottom of page would be good. Interoperability of the data on site was very good; in particular, the theme maps were interoperable. However, testers noted that some of the data were not up to date. That could be a result of either simply an old data set or state agencies not reporting updates in a timely manner, but the data are the best available on a national level. While the Council testers benefited from a workplace with a dedicated GIS staff, other smaller planning organizations would benefit from real-time access to the data. The website could be a resource to Council staff members who do not have ArcGIS installed on their computers. The Council has limited ArcGIS licenses, so not all staff members have access to the software. Staff members who wish to take a cursory look at national-level data sets and protected 35
areas in the region could use Eco-Plan. Also, the explanatory information and metadata provided are helpful so that users know what they are looking at and the limitations of the data. Eco-Plan Advanced A majority of the feedback on Eco-Plan Advanced focuses on data interoperability. Some of the best aspects of Eco-Plan Advanced are the speed of data upload and display, as well as the good selection of basemaps and overlays. The tool accomplishes the intended purpose fairly well. Even though the best available data are being used, it is important for users to understand that many of these data sets are out of date and mapped at a fairly coarse resolution. Nothing can be done about this, but users must be aware of this fact and use the data appropriately. Given the fact that the data layers are accessed via web services, limited functionality of the data is inherent in that approach. To get the full functionality of the data, one would have to download the data directly to a computer, but the issues regarding file size constraints and real- time access to data updates quickly become an issue, which leads back to the initial need for the national data tool. A task that can be completed in Eco-Plan Advancedâbut that cannot be carried out in Eco-Planâis highlighting areas of concern. However, adding map notes, marking up the maps, and changing the color of markups is possible, but this would be disjointed and not likely to be commonly used. Additional functions recommended for Eco-Plan Advanced include access to more basemap layers, a more robust, customizable user experience, and the ability to save your project with the data you want. Another desirable function of Eco-Plan Advanced is the ability for an entity to upload data through ArcGIS Online (AGO) and establish a community of participants who could access the data through their own AGO accounts. Users could create maps that display critical areas and local ecological data in the region and make those accessible to fellow AGO users at regulatory and resource agencies. However, the limitations associated with AGO costs and crediting system hinder this option. At this time, the Council is not planning to acquire a paid AGO account and take on the cost associated with storing data and covering costs for related downloads and report generation. The Council currently uses the free version offered by Esri to contractual ArcGIS users. Eco-Plan is a more premade approach for the novice users, and Eco-Plan Advanced is a tool suited to someone more comfortable with GIS and who wants to tailor a project to his or her specific needs. Smaller MPOs that do not have the technical capacity and do not have money to spend on ArcGIS would use the tool if it was at no cost. County-level staffs in transportation and planning departments are potential users as well. Lastly, an ideal scenario from the Councilâs perspective would be the ability to upload and store the Ecological Initiative tool on Eco-Plan, thereby making the regional tool publicly accessible. Additionally, a clip-and-ship option for users would be beneficial as well. This technique would allow users to select an area, presumably a project study area, and have a shapefile generated of just the study area containing the pertinent data from the data layer 36
displayed. That file could then be downloaded to a userâs computer at a fraction of the file size of the data layer being accessed. Eco-Plan Advanced Pilot Area Test The Eco-Plan Advanced website was demonstrated during the C40B2 February 2014 steering committee meeting. As a part of the demonstration, staff logged onto the agencyâs existing ArcGIS AGO account and went to My Content to show a list of Eco-Plan maps zoomed in to the extent of our region and previously saved to the agencyâs account. The map icon in the header bar brought a default view of the continental United States and the âFind address or placeâ search to navigate to Saint Louis, Missouri was used. Making the map default to a location based on a detected IP address would be an improvement. Data layers were then added by querying âEco-Planâ in the Add > Search for Layers dialog box to access data available through Eco-Plan Advanced. The USGS Protected Areas data layer was added. Staff members then uploaded a zipped shapefile of long-range transportation plan projects from a local server. The upload was successful. Within ArcGIS AGO, symbols were modified and various basemaps were tried out. The default imagery basemaps were not as good as our own imagery, so the Councilâs regional 2012 orthophoto image web service was added to the map for reference (Add > Search for layers > Gateway > EWGateway2012_6inch). The Councilâs ecological significance data was added. Testers zoomed in to an area where a proposed transportation project appeared to intersect a high-significance area and used the Measure tool to identify the coordinates for potential field review. This feature is nice if a user wishes to conduct a visual inspection of actual field conditions. Another test was conducted using the pilot areas boundaries. Since ArcGIS AGO could not be accessed from within the Eco-Plan Advanced site, testers logged in from the ArcGIS AGO site, went to My Map > Add > Search for Layer, and searched for Eco-Plan. USFWS Critical Habitat was selected from the list of layers returned by the query. Minimal information was displayed for the Saint Louis region in that layer. Next, the USGS Protected Areas data layer was selected from the query results. That layer showed more features in our region, though it was noted that some recently acquired/protected lands were not present. Data from pilot areas were uploaded using the Add Layer command from the File dialog box. Again, the upload was successful. The screencap below in Figure 5.1 shows the pilot areas in transparent blue overlaid on the USGS Protected Areas Database in the default symbols for the layer. Other various Eco-Plan layers were explored in relation to the pilot areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) EnviroAtlas data was added but did not display even after attempts were made to see the data at various scales and extents. USFWS Riparian Data were added, but the data did not display. Notifications like âNo features in your extentâ or âService is temporarily unavailableâ would be helpful in these situations. After going to âItem Detailsâ it was discovered that the Riparian Data is a subset of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data that includes Riparian types, and an option to âOpen Mapâ was provided. Despite clicking on 37
that option, AGO would not allow a new map to be opened without closing and losing data in the existing map, as apparently only one map can be open at a time. Finally, the USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data were added. These data were one of the data sources used by MoRAP to develop the ecological significance data. As shown below in Figure 5.2, this data display provides a reminder of the great improvement the Council has made in the refinement of our regionâs land cover data over the course of the Initiative. The NLCD raster data seem crude and simplistic when viewed by planners accustomed to our more detailed land cover data set available through the Ecological Initiative tool. Figure 5.1. Pilot areas displayed over USGS Protected Areas Database. Transferability of Eco-Plan The tool seems to fulfill the goals of the C40A project. However, as an agency with a strong investment in desktop GIS, it is unlikely that the Council will use it the tool to conduct an analysis of long-range planning activities. There are several skilled GIS users on staff who know how to access national-level data, if they are needed for analysis. The Councilâs ability to edit and analyze locally stored data outweighs the convenience of a web-based mapping system. There is some utility in the sharing of interactive maps with partners, but nothing that extends 38
beyond the capacity the Council already has through other tools. Eco-Plan may be useful for planning agencies without robust GIS resources or very large organizations where GIS skills are cloistered in one department. Figure 5.2. I-44 Pilot area displayed over NLCD_2006. While the functionality of Eco-Plan made a good impression on steering committee members, very few were ArcGIS AGO users, and they would not be in a position to use the Eco- Plan Advanced component of the tool. The benefit is for local government users who may not have access to national-level data sets. The overarching concern of the steering committee is the accessibility of the tool, how users will access it, and what entity will host the site. Regarding functionality, there are two ways Eco-Plan Advanced could be enhanced for better integration in regional and transportation planning: one, if greater freedom to extract data from national data sets was available; and two, if the tool could host the Ecological Initiative tool, thereby improving accessibility of the local geospatial tools. 39
