1. LAND EVALUATION SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) GIS APPLICATION REDESIGN Brad M. Shirey, GISP The Pennsylvania State University Master of GIS Program – Capstone ProposalAdvisor: Dr. Doug Miller

2. Presentation Overview  Background  Project Objectives  Methods  Data  QAQC  Timeline  Results/Benefits  Challenges

3. Geographic & Historic Context  Where Are We? Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

4. Geographic & Historic Context  What is the Issue? Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

5. State & Regional Implications  Act 138 – Agricultural Easement Purchase Program  How Many Counties are Involved?  Statewide Facts and Figures Over $581,000,000 Spent Over 275,000 Acres  What Other States? Participant Counties In Red Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

6. Berks County Farmland Preservation  History of Preservation in Berks County  History of ALP Office  How Does GIS Play a Role?  Why a Change Now? 199020081998 Agricultural Conservation Easements Purchased – Farms Preserved Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

7. Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA)  What is it?  Who Uses it?  Why is it Used?  When Was it Built?  Who Built it?  What Platform Built on? Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

8. Project Objectives  Create New LESA Application for the Berks County Agricultural Land Preservation Office (ALP) ESRI ArcGIS 9.3 Technology Same Data and Scoring Procedures Used Intuitive and Adaptable Interface  More Efficient Outputs for Analysis and Ranking  Input from ALP Staff  Proper Documentation and Training  QAQC Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

9. Project Requirements  Resolve GIS Data Needs and Program Criteria.  Needs Assessment  Client Involvement  Tackle Software and Code Problems of Legacy Application  ESRI ModelBuilder for Software Development  Application Documentation  Client Satisfaction Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

10. Assessment Criteria  What are Program Criteria?  Land Evaluation vs. Site Assessment  Why is GIS Important?  How Complex? Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

11. Software Development – Model Builder  What is it?  Ties Together Tools, Data and Analysis  Modules  Geoprocessing in Manageable Parts  Automate Python Scripting Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

12. LESA – Data Requirements  How Many Data Sets?  From Where?  Unique Information Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

13. LESA – Data Requirements  Tax Parcels and Preserved Farms  Current Applicants  Ag Security Areas  Roads and Highways  County and Municipal Boundaries  Sewer and Water Service Areas  Soils and Land Use  Cluster Areas  Historic, Scenic, and Government Lands Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

14. Quality Assurance / Quality Control  Best Practices  Ensure ALP Staff Involvement  Validate Against Legacy Application  Avoid Errors of Omission and Outputs of Project not serving the needs of the client  Errors of Commission Analysis steps expands beyond needs of the project Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

15. Quality Assurance / Quality Control  Module Troubleshooting  Validate Data, What are Outputs, Validate Calculations  Test Various Steps When Placed Together  Test, Modify, Re-Test  Ample Review for All Parties (Especially Non-GIS) Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

16. Timeline Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges October 2009 – November 2009 Review Previous Software – Outline Geoprocessing Needs Assess Needs of ALP – Begin Prelim QAQC December 2009 – January 2010 Bring Modules Together – Tie to Scripting Application Documentation – Continue QAQC February 2010 – March 2010 Finalize Data – Run Test Assessment Conduct Ranking with New & Previous Version Complete Documentation April 2010 Present at AAG Conference

17. Anticipated Results / Benefits  Organizational Benefits Berks County Staff Efficiency Professional Level Software Application User Friendly, Properly Documented.  External Benefits Extensible to Other Preservation Programs  Personal Benefits Building Personal Capacity and Precedent for Future Projects Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

18. Challenges  Model Builder and Python Scripting Issues  Documentation of Modules  Flexible Model Interface for Revisions  Project Timeline Background Objectives Methods Data QAQC Timeline Results/Benefits Challenges

19. References  County of Berks – Agricultural Land Preservation Office  Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Farmland Preservation  The Pennsylvania State University – Land Analysis Laboratory  ESRI – ArcGIS Desktop, ArcCatalog, ModelBuilder

20. Acknowledgements  Berks County Information Systems Department Todd Simpson, CIO  Berks County Agricultural Land Preservation Office Tami Hildebrand, Director  Berks County Planning Commission Beth Burkovich, GIS Analyst  Penn State University Dr. Doug Miller, Advisor

21. Questions ?