1 / 48

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) Overview - Planning - Status

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) Overview - Planning - Status. NHD Stewardship Conference Wednesday April 25, 2007. NHD/WBD crossover involvement……. State WBD Coordinators present Paul Caffrey, WYGISC, WY Dan Wickwire, BLM, OR Karen Hanson, USGS, UT Pat Shade, NRCS, HI

lixue
Download Presentation

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) Overview - Planning - Status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)Overview - Planning - Status NHD Stewardship Conference Wednesday April 25, 2007

  2. NHD/WBD crossover involvement……. • State WBD Coordinators present • Paul Caffrey, WYGISC, WY • Dan Wickwire, BLM, OR • Karen Hanson, USGS, UT • Pat Shade, NRCS, HI • Lorri Peltz-Lewis, USBR, CA • Frank Jackson, USFS, CO • Dennis Tol, BLM, AK • Others………… • Raise of hands those that have had some role in WBD? IHUG group coordination, or production…estimate 65%

  3. The WBD………. • Defines the aerial extent of water drainage to a point • Establishes a base-line drainage boundary framework, accounting for all land and surface areas • Impartial to any administrative units, special projects, particular program or agency • 1:24k product (DRG County Mosaics-minimum requirement)

  4. Hydrologic Unit Level Name Coding Digits Size (in acres) Number 1 Region 2 2 Sub-region 4 3 Basin 6 4 Sub-basin 8 5 Watershed 10 40,000-250,000 5 to 15 6 Sub-watershed 12 10,000-40,000 5 to 15 Establishes heirarchical units of proportionate sizes and numbers per nested 5th and 6th levels

  5. Attribution - polygon • 8- 10- and 12-digit coding, as well as downstream coding for 10- and 12-digits • Naming at 10- and 12-digit • Size reported as acreage • State(s) that subbasin falls in • Type at 10- and 12-digit • Modifications at 10- and 12-digit • Non-contributing with acreage • GNIS # at 10- and 12-digits

  6. Attribution - line • Level (1-6) • Linesources • Metadata version

  7. Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data (SSWD) part of Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)

  8. NEW PARADIGM • Interagency Team - WBD Personnel Structure

  9. National Steering Committee: • EPA • Wendy Blake-Coleman (Office of Environmental Information-Headquarters) • Tommy Dewald (USEPA Office of Water-Headquarters) • USGS • Katherine Lins (Chief Office of Water Information-Headquarters) • David McCulloch (Chief of Cartographic Applications Processing Program (CAPP)) • NRCS • Tommie Parham (Director of National Cartography & Geospatial Center (NCGC)-Ft. Worth • Steven Nechero (Technology Application Team Leader, NCGC-Ft.Worth) • USFS • Ted Geier (Staff Hydrologist Air, Water, Lands, Soils, Minerals & Environmental Services, Region 9) • BLM • Jim Renthal (Soil, Water, Air Program Leader-Headquarters)

  10. National Technical Coordinators: • USGS • Michael Laitta (Geographer-Atlanta) • Karen Hanson (Physical Scientist-Salt Lake City) • Mid Atlantic Coordinator: • EPA • Don Evans (GIS Team Leader-EPAR3) • National liaison: • EPA • Milo Anderson (GIS Coordinator-EPAR5) • National Technical Review office: • NRCS • Laura Davenport (Geographer-National Cartographic and Geospatial Center, Ft. Worth, TX)

  11. Team-Accomplishments • Development of acharterfor coordination • Daily rapportbetween Technical staff and Steering Committee to gain a better understanding of in state needs • Resolutionof long standing issues in completed states which didn’t meet guidance • Offersolutionson complex hydrographic challenges on the landscape • Redesigned“certification”process to a“provisional certification”

  12. Team-Accomplishments (continued) • Fund travel for Technical Team to complete status assessments, and derive cost estimates

  13. Tracking Sheet Information Subbasin Number Subbasin Name Inter- or Intra-state % area of Subbasin within State % area of Subbasin in adjacent State(s) Point of Contact Review Agencies Complexity Level of Effort to complete Changes to Subbasin, 4th Level Percent 4th, 5th and 6th Concept Lines Percent Reviewed 4th, 5th and 6th Percent Attributed Percent Digitized 4th, 5th and 6th Comments

  14. Team-Accomplishments (continued) • Identification of trained nationalshops, to complete states datasets • Leveraging funding opportunities!

  15. Example Collaboration on Funding for Arizona 6th level only • $ 30,000 AZ BLM ‘2005’ • $ 14,000 AZ NRCS ‘2005’ • $ 5,000 USGS National ‘2005’ • $ 40,000 EPA National ‘2005’ • $ 16,000 EPA National ‘2006’ • $ 6,000 USGS National ‘2007’ • $ 6,000 AZ NRCS ‘2007’ • $ 5,000 AZ BLM ‘2007’ • $ 3,000 AZ State ‘2007’

  16. Team-Accomplishments (continued) • Implemention ofedge-matching scriptsinto the review for provisional certification process that gives states specific input on required edits • Monthly tracking of progress: funding acquisition and assignment, status graphics by state

  17. Status National map

  18. Status by state

  19. Work plans to be finalized

  20. Team-Accomplishments (continued) • Rework standardsfor better clarification and publication • Tighter interim qa/qc with states to ensure integrity • Linework • Attribution interpretation • Consistency

  21. Depicting the Ridges

  22. Coding and size distribution

  23. Frontals-local concerns

  24. Data Availability http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

  25. Challenges • Edge-matching with bordering states • Final funding • Long term plan for serving data and maintenance • Integration with other national framework layers

  26. NHD integration • Current focus of USGS WBD Team is first pass of nation • Items that are already being addressed………………………….

  27. MOUHYDROGRAPHY DEFINITIONS, STANDARDS, AND QA/QC SPECIFICATIONS & PROCEDURES • 1. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) definition: • The NHD is a comprehensive set of digital spatial data that contains information about surface water features such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, springs and wells. The NHD interconnects and uniquely identifies the stream segments or reaches that make up the Nation's surface water drainage system. The NHD is a national framework for spatial position or surface water features, their attribution, their connectivity in a flow network, and an addressing system of linking additional related data known as events. Each reach in this framework is referenced by a permanent feature identifier known as a reach code. Each linear reach is also segmented into linear addresses measures along the reach. The USGS is the authority for reach codes and measures. Because the NHD provides a nationally consistent framework for addressing and analysis, water-related information linked to reach addresses by one organization (national, state, local) can be shared with other organizations and easily integrated into many different types of applications to the benefit of all. • 2. Watershed Doundary Dataset (WBD) definition: • “Watershed boundaries define the aerial extent of surface water drainage to a point. The intent of defining hydrologic units (HU) for the Watershed Boundary Dataset is to establish a base-line drainage boundary framework, accounting for all land and surface areas. The selection and delineation of hydrologic boundaries are determined solely upon science-based hydrologic principles, not favoring any administrative or special projects nor particular program or agency. At a minimum, they are being delineated and georeferenced to the USGS 1:24,000-scale topographic base map meeting National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS). A hydrologic unit has a single flow outlet except in coastal or lakefront areas.”[1] • [1] http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/Utah example

  28. NHD/WBD IntegrationSummary of meeting with Jeff, Paul, and Bill • Spatially – Issues concerning the intersecting geometry of the two datasets • Containment – Does the hydrography fit within the correct units • Manmade Features – Impact on natural systems • Flow Networks – Properly grouping flow patterns • Deltas • Flood Plains • Alluvial fans • Karst Problems • Urban stormwater • Treatment of large waterbodies • Impacts of edits on one dataset to the other dataset

  29. NHD/WBD Integration(continued) • Data Structure – How the database design can intersect • Designing a data structure to hold both datasets (Geodatabase?) • Interlinking identifiers • Enhancing metadata considering the two datasets • Data relationships – NHD pointing to WBD and WBD pointing to NHD

  30. NHD/WBD Integration (continued) • Programmatic – How two programs fit together • Coordination • Common oversight • Close relationship of two datasets • Possible relationship of funding • Integrated science

  31. NHD/WBD Integration (continued) • Stewardship/Maintenance – Integrating when editing • Incidental – Run across problems as we go • Programmed – Program designed for clean-up • Common source materials • Inter-related quality assurance

  32. NHD/WBD Integration (continued) • Data Access – How the customer gets the data • Unified access • Dual access • Synchronization • GOS/National Map

  33. NHD/WBD Integration (continued) • Other Dataset Integration • NWI • NID • NWIS • NED/DEM • Ortho • NHDPlus • LIDAR • Transportation (bridges) • Diversion structures • Fisheries biology • Streamstats

  34. NHD/WBD Integration (continued) • Documentation • User guides • Standards • Definitions • Protocol • Editing guides

More Related