The scenario or background for this project was that the data and map were to be used by the Michigan DNR to look at bear locations, suitable habitat within the study area and which of those areas then intersected with DNR managed lands. \
To determine the results shown on the map, analysis tools such as query, buffer, intersect, dissolve, join and erase were used.
-Objective 1: Determine bear Habitat.
What I did was look at the locations of tracked black bears in the area and then looked at different land cover types they inhabited. By joining the land cover and new bear cover attribute tables I could then determine which land cover types held the most bears.
-Objective 2: Bears of close proximity to streams.
Streams are considered very important to a suitable bear habitat due mainly to the fact that they are an important food source. So, next I wanted to look at bear locations that were within 500 meters of a stream. From here, I created a buffer around the streams that had bears near them. To make appearance more appealing I then dissolved intersecting lines within the buffer. Finally I took the final step from objective one and intersected it with my buffered streams to give me a suitable black bear habitat.
-Objective 3: Habitat within DNR management, but away from urban development.
Because this map was then intended for Michigan's DNR, I also had o take into consideration what lands they managed and where that coincided with the previous finding from objective two. First, I intersected the realized bear habitat from the last objective with parcels of land that are managed by the DNR. This gave me suitable bear habitats within their managed areas. Then I looked at the land cover layer and queried for "urban or Built up lands". I then took this and created a 5 kilometer buffer around it (shown in green on the final map). Finally I erased the buffer from the DNR bear habitat to create a map of the optimal black bear habitat.
From this I found that from the first objective, of the original 68 bears mapped 34 of them were located within either residential, evergreen forests or near lakes. When bears near streams was queried, 49 of the 68 bears (84.5%) were found to be within 500 meters. Then when this data was paired with the original bear cover, it was discovered that the habitat types changed to mixed forests, forested wetlands and finally evergreen forests. It should also be noted that only two bears (0.03%) actually fall within the suitable bear habitat that is managed by the DNR, Yet ten of then fall within the 5 km buffer around urban development. So perhaps these projected habitats can be used as a relocation area for bears from urban areas. However, one other aspect should be look at to fully grasp suitable habitat, and that is how many bears can live in close proximity without overwhelming the available resources.
Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships (2014)
Michigan Geographic Data Library (2001)
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2001)
NAD83 HARN Michigan GeoRef Meters
Comments
Post a Comment