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 Paul Caffrey, WYGISC, WY Dan Wickwire, BLM, OR Dan Wickwire, BLM, OR Karen Hanson, USGS, UT Karen Hanson, USGS, UT Pat Shade, NRCS, HI Pat Shade, NRCS, HI Lorri Peltz-Lewis, USBR, CA Lorri Peltz-Lewis, USBR, CA Frank Jackson, USFS, CO Frank Jackson, USFS, CO Dennis Tol, BLM, AK Dennis Tol, BLM, AK Others………… 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 LevelNameCoding DigitsSize (in acres)Number 1Region2 2Sub-region4 3Basin6 4Sub-basin8 5Watershed1040,000-250,0005 to 15 6Sub- watershed 1210,000-40,0005 to 15 Establishes heirarchical units of proportionate sizes and numbers per nested 5 th and 6 th levels

6. 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

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

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

12. NEW PARADIGM  Interagency Team - WBD Personnel Structure

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

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

15. Team-Accomplishments Development of a charter for coordination Development of a charter for coordination Daily rapport between Technical staff and Steering Committee to gain a better understanding of in state needs Daily rapport between Technical staff and Steering Committee to gain a better understanding of in state needs Resolution of long standing issues in completed states which didn’t meet guidance Resolution of long standing issues in completed states which didn’t meet guidance Offer solutions on complex hydrographic challenges on the landscape Offer solutions on complex hydrographic challenges on the landscape Redesigned “certification” process to a “provisional certification” Redesigned “certification” process to a “provisional certification”

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

17. 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 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Concept Lines Percent Reviewed 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Percent Attributed Percent Digitized 4 th, 5 th and 6 th Comments

19. Team-Accomplishments (continued) Identification of trained national shops, to complete states datasets Identification of trained national shops, to complete states datasets Leveraging funding opportunities! Leveraging funding opportunities!

20. Example Collaboration on Funding for Arizona 6 th 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’

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

22. Status National map

23. Status by state

27. Work plans to be finalized

28. Team-Accomplishments (continued) Rework standards for better clarification and publication Rework standards for better clarification and publication Tighter interim qa/qc with states to ensure integrity Tighter interim qa/qc with states to ensure integrity LineworkLinework Attribution interpretationAttribution interpretation ConsistencyConsistency

29. Depicting the Ridges

30. Coding and size distribution

31. Frontals-local concerns

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

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

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

41. MOU HYDROGRAPHY 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]  [1] http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/Utah example [1]

42. NHD/WBD Integration Summary 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 Containment – Does the hydrography fit within the correct units Manmade Features – Impact on natural systems Manmade Features – Impact on natural systems Flow Networks – Properly grouping flow patterns Flow Networks – Properly grouping flow patterns DeltasDeltas Flood PlainsFlood Plains Alluvial fansAlluvial fans Karst Problems Karst Problems Urban stormwater Urban stormwater Treatment of large waterbodies Treatment of large waterbodies Impacts of edits on one dataset to the other dataset Impacts of edits on one dataset to the other dataset

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

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

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

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

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

48. NHD/WBD Integration (continued)  Documentation User guides User guides Standards Standards Definitions Definitions Protocol Protocol Editing guides Editing guides