Structure of the Course
The first Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications training course was held on November 1 and 2, 1995. The first day was devoted to an overview of desktop GIS concepts utilizing ArcView 2 software from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI - Redlands, CA). A number of coastal counties in Wisconsin utilize other GIS and mapping software including MGE from Intergraph Corp. (Huntsville, AL), Genamap from Genasys II (Ft. Collins, CO), and AutoCAD from Autodesk Inc. (Sausalito, CA). ArcView was presented a vehicle to communicate the basic functionality of desktop GIS and was not presented as the only GIS solution to coastal management issues.
The desktop GIS training was conducted by Tom McClintock, the GIS training manager at LICGF. Tom is a certified ArcView instructor with several years of experience in GIS training for government officials. The training consisted of a condensed version of the Introduction to ArcView two-day training course developed by ESRI. Database management and spatial query and analysis sections were emphasized, while the chart making and address matching sections were dropped from the training. The course began at 9:00 a.m. and included an evening session until 8:30 p.m.
The second day of the November training course focused on examples of coastal GIS applications including shoreland zoning, nonpoint source pollution assessment, and land use planning. The land use planning session was conducted by Math Heinzel, the LICGF lab manager. Also featured was an overview of the use of TIGER/Line files in coastal management by Jerry Sullivan, Steve Allenstein, and Don Ferber of LICGF. The second day ran from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The course was also held twice in Spring 1996 and once in the Spring of 1998. A number of modifications were made in the structure of the course. Instead of spanning two days and starting early on the first day, the training course was spread over three days, starting at 1:00 p.m. on the first day. This was done to make the length of the course and associated travel more pleasant and manageable. Some attendees to the November 1995 course left at 4:00 a.m. to catch the beginning of the training and didn't finish the evening session until 8:30 p.m.--a long 16-plus hour day. For the subsequent courses, the evening session was dropped and the desktop GIS fundamentals component extended for the first half day and the entire second day. The third and final day was devoted to a morning session focusing on a single coastal GIS application (shoreland management) using Wisconsin data and drawing on all the skills learned in the first two days of the course. The application was structured similar to an exercise in the ArcView training manual. The training was modified to produce a more relaxed learning environment, ease travel to and from Madison, allow additional time to cover desktop GIS concepts, and allow the concepts learned to be put to use in designing a coastal GIS application "from scratch." The revised training schedule utilized for the April 2-4 and May 8-10, 1996 courses is included as Table 1.
Table 1. Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications Course Schedule
Training Attendance
A total of 49 persons attended the one of the four training coursess. The majority were from coastal counties, although representatives from municipal, regional, state, federal, and tribal agencies also attended the sessions (see Table 2).
Table 2. Attendance at Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications Courses by Institution
| Institution | Number of Attendees |
| County Government | 28 |
| Municipal Government | 10 |
| Regional Planning Commissions | 3 |
| Sea Grant Institute | 3 |
| Tribal Government | 2 |
| State Government | 2 |
| Federal Government | 1 |
| Total | 49 |
A total of 13 of the 15 coastal counties sent representatives to the training courses (see Table 3). The municipalities represented from Ozaukee County included the City of Cedarburg, the City of Mequon, and the City of Port Washington. The municipality represented from Manitowoc County was the City of Manitowoc, while the municipalities represented from Door County were the Village of Ephraim and the City of Sturgeon Bay.
Table 3. Attendance at the Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications Courses by County
|
County |
Number of Attendees County (+Municipal) |
| Kenosha | 2 |
| Racine | 3 |
| Milwaukee | 0 |
| Ozuakee | 1+3 |
| Sheboygan | 0 |
| Manitowoc | 4+3 |
| Kewaunee | 3 |
| Door | 4+4 |
| Brown | 2 |
| Oconto | 1 |
| Marinette | 2 |
| Iron | 1 |
| Ashland | 2 |
| Bayfield | 2 |
| Douglas | 1 |
| Total | 38 |
Table 4 lists the attendance by non-local government organizations. Examining the geographic area represented by the training attendees: 34 were from Lake Michigan jurisdictions, 10 from Lake Superior jurisdictions, and five represented statewide perspectives.
Table 4. Attendance at the Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications Courses by Other Organizations
| Organization | Number of Attendees |
| Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission | 2 |
| Northwest Regional Planning Commission | 1 |
| Bad River Natural Resources Department | 2 |
| Wisconsin Coastal Management Program | 2 |
| National Park Service - Apostle Island Natl. Lakeshore | 1 |
| University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute | 3 |
A wide variety of job classifications were represented by the training attendees (see Table 5). Planning was the most common profession, followed by land conservation and engineering. The diversity of those attending worked to make the training more interesting and indicates that coastal management in Wisconsin is an interdisciplinary undertaking.
Table 5. Attendance at the Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications Courses by Function
| Function | Number of Attendees |
| Planning | 12 |
| Land Conservation | 6 |
| Engineering | 6 |
| Zoning Administration | 3 |
| Land Information | 3 |
| Sea Grant Advisory Services | 3 |
| Village Administration | 2 |
| Forestry | 2 |
| Sanitation | 2 |
| Coastal Management | 2 |
| Water Resource Management | 1 |
| Facility Management | 1 |
| Lease Administration | 1 |
| Cartography | 1 |
| Wastewater Treatment | 1 |
| Register of Deeds | 1 |
| Land Description | 1 |
| Data Processing | 1 |
| Total | 49 |
Evaluation
Evaluation responses about the Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications courses were generally very positive (see Table 6). The responses were compiled from ESRI evaluation forms included in the back of the Introduction to ArcView training manual. Several people took the time to write individual comments on possible improvements to the training (slowing the pace down and better describing GIS terminology) and on aspects of the training that worked well. Two people submitted letters of appreciation describing the value of the training to their local GIS projects. Finally, many attendees appreciated the shoreland management application included in day 3 of the training, commenting that it helped to clarify how desktop GIS could be used for Wisconsin coastal issues and that it helped to reinforce the concepts learned in the first two days of the course.
Table 6. Overall Rating of the Desktop GIS Training Component by Session
| November 95 | April 96 | May 96 | April 98 | |
| Excellent | 6 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Very Good | 6 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Good | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Fair | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Poor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Did Not Complete Form | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 14 | 11 | 12 | 11 |
Application Interests
Attendees identified an impressive list of coastal GIS applications that are either in the process of being implemented or for which interest in implementation exists (see Table 7). The general categories of these applications include coastal erosion, watershed management (including nonpoint runoff and floodplain management) land use planning and regulation, economic development, tourism, wetland management, harbor management, infrastructure management, forestry management, habitat restoration, cultural resource management, and mapping
Table 7. Coastal GIS Application Interests Identified at the
Introduction to Coastal GIS Applications Courses
| Application Interests |
| Coastal recession rates, shore erosion, coastal setbacks |
| Bluff stability |
| Shoreland planning and zoning |
| Inventory of shore structures, shore development monitoring |
| Stormwater management, urban runoff, nonpoint source modeling |
| Economic development database |
| Visitor database, tourism |
| Floodplain mapping and monitoring |
| Priority watersheds, watershed management |
| Support for remedial action plans, contaminated harbors |
| Assessment of dredging areas and dredge disposal sites |
| Graphics for zoning and sewer studies |
| Land use planning and zoning |
| Analysis of socioeconomic conditions and land tenure |
| Infrastructure management |
| Marina design and management |
| Forest management, white pine restoration (Bayfield County) |
| Streambank erosion, sediment modeling (Raspberry River) |
| Educating public officials about water quality issues |
| Linking GIS and water quality process models |
| Identifying bare soil in a watershed |
| Environmental corridor analysis |
| Assessment of sewer service areas |
| Identifying boundaries of tax increment financing districts |
| Providing public information on soils |
| Inventory of on-site waste disposal sites |
| Identifying wells in watersheds, well contamination |
| Organizing tribal land leases |
| Wetland protection, determining functional classes of wetlands |
| Cultural resource assessment near the coast in National Parks |
| Assessing habitat loss and restoration for endangered species |
| Analyzing FEMA flood zones (V zones) along the Great Lakes |
Shoreland Management GIS Workshops
Coastal Erosion GIS Workshops
Shoreland and Coastal Management Using ArcView Training Course
Table 8. Evaluation of the Shoreland and Coastal Management Using ArcView Training Course
Based on the Response to the Statement "Overall, I am Satisfied With the Workshop"
| Response | October 98 | May 99 |
| Strongly Agree | 3 | 4 |
| Agree | 4 | 1 |
| Neither Agree or Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Did Not Complete Form | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 8 | 6 |
Shoreland Management Using ArcView Training Course
Table 9. Evaluation of the Shoreland Management Using ArcView Training Course
Based on the Response to the Statement "Overall, I am Satisfied With the Workshop"
| Response | October 99 |
| Strongly Agree | 4 |
| Agree | 4 |
| Neither Agree or Disagree | 0 |
| Disagree | 1 |
| Strongly Disagree | 0 |
| Did Not Complete Form | 1 |
| Total | 10 |
A total of 31 persons received coastal GIS training as a result of the cooperative agreement. Table 10 indicates that eight Great Lakes coastal counties, three regional planning commissions, two state agencies, one traibal agency, and two academic institutions sent staff to the training.
Table 10. Attendance at the WCMP-Sponsored Coastal GIS Training Courses and Workshops
| Organization | Number of Attendees |
| Douglas County | 2 |
| Marinette County | 1 |
| Door County | 5 |
| Kewaunee County | 1 |
| Manitowoc County | 7 |
| Sheboygan County | 1 |
| Ozaukee County | 1 |
| Racine County | 2 |
| Northwest Wisconsin RPC | 1 |
| Bay-Lake RPC | 1 |
| Southeast Wisconsin RPC | 1 |
| Wisconsin Coastal Management Program | 1 |
| Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources | 2 |
| Bad River Natural Resources Dept. | 1 |
| UW Sea Grant Institute | 3 |
| UW-Manitowoc | 1 |
| Totals | 31 |
Evaluation responses about the Coastal GIS course and workshops were generally very positive (see Table 11). The evaluation form was modified from a master developed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center and contains a total of 29 questions covering the topics of program content, program materials, presenter, workshop environment/logistics, action plans, and overall reaction. Several people responded to open-ended questions requesting comments on the most and least valuable parts of the workshop and desired changes to the workshop. Some notable general comments include the following:
I feel that it was a good workshop and dealt with things and ideas we will use.
Lengthen the time of seminar, to take on more tasks.
Since we don't have any GIS equipment, just being able to follow and learn what ArcView can do is important. I know how this could help me on my job.
Though there are some areas I would like to see explored in greater detail, given the different levels of experience among the participants, it would require more than one day to accomplish it.
I appreciate the time, effort and enthusiam the presenter gave to the workshop. It is bound to assist me as I continue learning more about how GIS can benefit my employer.Complete summaries of the evaluation for each workshop have been completed.
Table 11. Evaluation of the WCMP-Sponsored Training Workshops
Based on the Response to the Statement "Overall, I am Satisfied With the Workshop"
| Response | December 97 | April 98 | July 98 | December 98 |
| Strongly Agree | 3 | 9 | 3 | 2 |
| Agree | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Neither Agree or Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Did Not Complete Form | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Total | 7 | 11 | 5 | 8 |
Acknowledgement
The Coastal GIS Training Project is funded in part by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. Financial assistance for this project was provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursuant to Grant #NA670Z0276 and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program.
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, part of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, and overseen by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council, was established in 1978 to preserve, protect and manage the resources of the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coastline for this and future generations.
Table 12. Coastal GIS Demonstrations
| Organization | Location | Date | Attendance |
| Great Lakes Sea Grant Network | Chicago, IL | September 1996 | 25 |
| Sheboygan County Staff | Sheboygan, WI | November 1996 | 6 |
| Manitowoc County Staff | Manitowoc, WI | November 1996 | 4 |
| Town of Barksdale Planning Committee, Bayfield County | Town of Barksdale, WI | December 1996 | 30 |
| Oneida County Staff | Rhinelander, WI | December 1996 | 6 |
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District | Detroit, MI | January 1997 | 12 |
| Oneida County Board of Supervisors | Rhinelander, WI | March 1997 | 60 |
| Wisconsin Coastal Management Council | Manitowoc, WI | May 1997 | 25 |
| Green Bay GIS Users Group | Green Bay, WI | June 1997 | 25 |
| Wisconsin Emergency Management | Madison, WI | June 1997 | 2 |
| Coastal Zone '97 Conference | Boston, MA | July 1997 | 140 |
| National Sea Grant Program Director | Madison, WI | August 1997 | 2 |
| OCRM/FEMA Great Lakes Hazards Mitigation Workshop | Traverse City, MI | August 1997 | 75 |
| Vilas County Board of Supervisors | Eagle River, WI | September 1997 | 40 |
| Governor's Conference on Emergency Management | Stevens Point, WI | September 1997 | 200 |
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District | Madison, WI | January 1998 | 8 |
Last modified by David Hart
on August 30, 2000
URL http://coastal.lic.wisc.edu/trainsum.htm