Risk analysis for cultural resources within the floodplains of the Snoqualmie River

735 views

Published on

The main goal of the project was to develop a GIS model that provides a analysis matrix that gives the risk exposure from natural hazards for the cultural resources within the Snoqualmie river floodplain.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
735
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Risk analysis for cultural resources within the floodplains of the Snoqualmie River

  1. 1. Risk Analysis of Cultural Resources within Snoqualmie Flood Plains GIS Project Presentation For King County GIS User Group 10.07.09 Presented By Odra Cardenas Shweta Bhatia Gupta A r c h i t e c t u r e | Te c h n o l o g y | C u l t u r e
  2. 2. “GIS as a technology in the heart of preservation planning, community building, and effective decision making”
  3. 3. The Project Relation between land and cultural resource Cultural resources are the buildings, sites, areas, architecture, and properties that bear evidence of human activity and have a scientific, historic, and/or cultural importance. Cultural resources help define human history, remind us of our interdependence with the land, and show how cultures change over time. Hence cultural resource itself embodies the three important aspects of GIS -Knowledge( Read information) -Location -Time King County cultural resources • The County’s cultural resources include around 2000 inventory, local, state and landmark structures. • The Snoqualmie valley, is home to historical railroad and timber Industries • It is also home to the largest agricultural heritage within King County. The valley was originally settled by members of the Snoqualmie tribe, and one can find displays of its native American roots through relics like totem poles and archeological sites.
  4. 4. Snoqualmie Site Farmlands are one of the most important component of the county's historic and cultural resources. In the last 16 years, the Snoqualmie valley has experienced four of the worst floods on record, including November 06's record-breaking deluge. Within the Snoqualmie River basin floodplain there are a total of 1,880 parcels. This is approximately 40 percent of the total number of parcels within King Countys floodplains (4,738). There are structures at risk from flooding on 867 of these parcels. The depth of flooding varies depending on location.
  5. 5. The Goal • Evaluating use of GIS as documentation tool in historic preservation • Evaluating use of GIS as analytical and decision making tool • Its resources and limitations
  6. 6. Methodology Resource Research Process Management Identification Actual project plan Data Data Gathering Database Accumulation Defining dataset design Work breakdown structure Creating feature set Digitization Task Division Defining Of Matrix Reclassification Monitoring the process Status reports Work quality Model Building Time schedule Analysis Reporting
  7. 7. The Process • Stage 1: – Data Collection – Data cleanup – Digitization • Stage 2: – Risk Matrix – Database Design – Reclassification for analysis • Stage 3: – Structural Analysis – Site Level Analysis
  8. 8. Stage 1- Data Collection and Digitization The two main sets of data were the geographical data and information about the structures on the properties under consideration. The former was collected from various GIS data repository and the later from local Historical Archives.
  9. 9. Stage 2- The Matrix The analysis was based on a risk matrix prepared to calculate percentage contribution each of the factors considered. These contributions were then ranked ranging from 1 to 5 denoting the lowest to highest risk levels to have uniformity across the analysis.
  10. 10. Stage 2- Risk Percentages Analysis 1 40 % Status Structural Risk 25 % Structural Condition Foundation Type 40% Cladding Type 20 % 20 % Structural/Material Roof Type 20 % Roof Material 20 % 10 % Architectural Style Change in Use 40% Accessibility 30 % 5 % Site Condition Extant 30 % The percentage Analysis 2 20 % Site Slope contributors were decided Site Risk on discussions with 20 % Site Soil heritage preservation program coordinators of 15 % Flood Way the King County office and research on the behavior of 45 % Flood Elevation system types and materials
  11. 11. Stage 2-Integrated GIS Model Feature Historic Architecture Point Polygon HistoricProperty HistStructure Polygon Polygon Polygon HistPropretyID Polygon HistDistrictID HistoricDistrict HistMunicipality HistPropretyID HistMunicipleID HistPropPolygon Polygon HistStructureID Characteristics Summary Historic DistrictID Characteristics Summary CharacteristicDetail HistPropretyID Location Info HistPropretyID CharacteristicDetail Characteristics Object Polygon Historic Element Archaeological District HistElementID ArchPropertyID HistPropretyID Point Location Info Element Name[n] Characteristics Archaeological Property Element Type Characteristics ArchPropertyID Feature SmithsodianID Point ArchDistrictID ¼ Mile grid HistElemPoint Property Name ArchSite Grid Location Info HistElementID Characteristics Summary HasSites HistPropretyID CharacteristicDetail Location Info SiteDetails Polygon Feature Polygon HistElemPolygon ArchProperty Polygon HistElementID ArchPropertyID HistPropretyID Location Info Archaeological Site
  12. 12. Stage 2- Project Data Flood Data Set Contour Data Admin Data Flood Plain 5ft Contour Historic Site Point Flood Way 2ft Contour Contour _ Merge Historic Site Structure Water Bodies Parcel KC Flood Plain Raster Contour TIN Zoning Result Raster Set Flood Plain uni Soil 15 Slope Parcel Flood Parcel Soil Parcel Slope Flood pl reclass Soil reclass General Analysis Slope reclass Parcel Analysis Final Result Modelwoflood Analysis Structure Analysis Zone st –Par Zonal St- Min Zonal St- Mean Models
  13. 13. Stage 3- Analysis at Structure Level Formula: with a consideration 1 as low risk and 5 as highest risk rank Total Structural Risk(%)= 20% X (structure Condition Rank) + 15% X (Structural material and construction type Rank) + 45% (Status and Arc Style Rank)+ 20% (Structure related Site Condition)
  14. 14. Stage 3- Analysis at Site Level Formula: With a consideration 1 as low risk and 5 as highest risk rank Total Site Risk(%)= 20% X (Slope Rank)+ 20% X (Soil type Rank) + 40% (100 yrs flood plain )+ 15% (Flood Elevation)
  15. 15. Stage 3- Analysis at Site Level(Model)
  16. 16. Results
  17. 17. Results 353 Snoqualmie Falls Lumber Mills Year built: :1917 National Landmark registered No of structures in site at risk : 17 out of 22 Most endangered property according to this study and at 88% of risk of flooding
  18. 18. Results ITEM NAME NUMBER OF STR LOCATION RISK PERSENTAGE 1 Broadacre Farm 9 Carnation 70-78 % 2 Carnation Research Farm Historic District 16 Carnation 51-72 % 3 Curtis Link Farm 3 Carnation 48-53% Fred Keller Barn 1 4 Carnation 36% 5 Hjertoos Farms 2 Carnation 66-68% 6 Charles Suvan & Louise 5 Duvall 29-47% 7 DeJong, Jerry Farm 12 Duvall 46-55% 8 Herman, Art and Letha Farm 5 Duvall 53-63% 9 John W. Platt Farm 4 Duvall 42-46% 10 Kosters Farm 9 Duvall 36-43% 11 Neilson Hay & Dairy Company 9 Duvall 39-53% 12 Old Rupard Place 9 Duvall 51-67% 13 Roetcisoender, James Farm 11 Duvall 47-59% 14 Roney Ranch 15 Duvall 56-63% 15 904 4 Duvall 74-81% 10 16 Sam and Marylin Rupard Farm/ Alder Grove Diary Duvall 43-55% 17 Stan Chapman Farm 8 Duvall 42-60% 18 Charles Jancke/Canine Country Club 9 Fall City 36-47% 19 Dale Brevick Residence 4 Fall City 33-37% 20 Donald Evans Farm 5 Fall City 47-48% 21 Fall City Hop Shed 1 Fall City 78% 22 Fred Keller Barn 9 Fall City 37-38% 23 Johnson House 2 Fall City 38-43% 24 Jubliee Farm 15 Fall City 37-52% 25 Mary Thompson Rental House 1 Fall City 57% 26 Residence 1 Fall City 55% 27 Stanley Little Residence 2 Fall City 52-55% 28 Thelma Hart House 1 Fall City 48% 15 29 Weyerhaeuser Company Snoqualmie Falls Plant Snoqualmie 69-82% 30 0739 42% 31 0716-1 42% 32 0717e 42% 33 0717d 42% 34 0717c 42% 35 0717a 42% 36 0902-3 42% 37 0902-4 42% 38 0902-2 42% 39 0902-5 43% 40 0902-1
  19. 19. Maps
  20. 20. Maps
  21. 21. Maps
  22. 22. Maps
  23. 23. Process- Flood information HEC RAS TIN Flood elevation Model developed by the US Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) River Analysis Systems (RAS) Detailed survey information Use of HEC RAS HEC1 Replicate information to verify data

×