USFS Region 3 NHD Editing Assessment
USFS Region 3 NHD ESRI UC 2015 Editing Assessment Bo Wilmer Natural Resources USFS R3 NHD Assessment
Project Team Roy Jemison, Ph.D., Regional Hydrologist U.S. Forest Service - Region 3 Candace Bogart, Regional GIS Program Manager U.S. Forest Service - Region 3 Bart Matthews, GISP, Photogrammetry Program Specialist U.S. Forest Service – Region 3 Bo Wilmer, MSc., Natural Resources Director Critigen Frank Orr, GISP, PMP, Project Manager Critigen
2 © 2011 Critigen USFS R3 NHD Assessment
Key Objectives • Identify Regional hydrography priorities. • Understand individual Forest hydrography priorities. • Develop efficient NHD update strategy, across the Region and by Forest.
3 © 2011 Critigen Region 3 NHD Assessment
The quality of these data has numerous consequences for USFS programs: • Watershed Condition Framework • Aquatic Surveys • WCATT • Best Management Practices (BMP) monitoring, • Fire Retardant Avoidance Maps, • Fire Retardant Avoidance Maps • Water Improvement Tracking (WIT), • Clear Water Act Permitting • Watershed Classification Assessment Tracking Tool (WCATT), • Forest Planning • Water Rights and Uses (WRU) 4 © 2011 Critigen Our Approach
1. Summary automated comparison of Forest data with the NHD. – Geometry – Spatial query: Forest hydro feature within 40 ft of NHD • 40 ft buffer of each feature, then overlay\erase the compared hydro dataset • Summary Count, Length, by Feature type • Reserve subset of features beyond 40 ft for further scrutiny – Attributes – Translate USFS Data to NHD Fields • Modified Spatial Join • FeatureName => GNIS • CFF => FCODE
2. 2-Day Forest Workshops – Illustration of hydrography data with imagery, other datasets. – Manual assessment across a sample of watersheds for each Forest. – Agreement about methods to accomplish NHD edits across each Forest.
5 © 2011 Critigen R3 NHD Assessment: Example: Carson National Forest
NHD Flowlines Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Ephemeral Stream Artificial Path
Canal / Ditch / Pipeline 6 © 2011 Critigen R3 NHD Assessment: Example: Carson National Forest
Forest Service Hydro Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Artificial Path
7 © 2011 Critigen R3 NHD Assessment: Geometry Mismatch:
NHD Flowline beyond 40 ft. from Forest Data Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Ephemeral Stream Artificial Path
Canal / Ditch / Pipeline 8 © 2011 Critigen R3 NHD Assessment: Geometry Mismatch:
Forest Data beyond 40 ft. from NHD Flowlines Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Artificial Path 9 © 2011 Critigen R3 NHD Assessment: Attribute Mismatch:
NHD Flowline / Forest Hydro Attribute Mismatch NHD – Forest Name Mismatch
NHD – Forest Type Mismatch 10 © 2011 Critigen R3 NHD Assessment: Example: Carson National Forest
SUMMARY CATEGORY NHD CFF Total Number of Hydrologic Features 24,599 22,203
Total Miles of Major Hydrologic Features 10,047 10,142
Miles of Perennial Streams 1,458 1,511 Miles of Intermittent Streams 8,231 8,342 Miles of Ephemeral Streams 5 0 Miles of Artificial Path 353 289 Acres of Water Bodies 8,433 16,854 Number of Hydro Points 375 474 Number of Attribute Errors: 2,403 3,216 GNIS_Name – STRM_NAME
Number of Attribute Errors: 704 819 Fcode – CFF Miles of Geometry Errors: Lines 268 23 Number of Geometry Errors: Points 200 300
11 © 2011 Critigen Inconsistent NHD, Legacy Mapping Methods
12 © 2011 Critigen Artificial Paths
13 © 2011 Critigen Regional NHD Priorities -
NHD ISSUE CORONADO GILA CARSON SANTAFE PRESCOTT KAIBAB COCONINO TONTO APACHE SITGREAVES CIBOLA LINCOLN TOTAL RANK 1. Stream Type Attributes ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ 29 (Perennial/Intermittent/Ephemeral)
2. Completeness Standard ■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ 24
3. Names (GNIS) ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ 24
4. Hydrology Point Data (Springs/Tanks) ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ 21
5. Water Rights & Uses Database ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■ 21
6. Consistency Standard ■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ 21
7. Flowline Geometry ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■ 21
8. Borderline/Peripheral Watersheds ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ 20
9. Wetlands ■ ■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ 9
10 Acequias/Diversions ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ 6 Key: ■■■ – Major Priority ■■ – Moderate Priority ■ – Low Priority 14
15 15 © 2011 Critigen NHD Santa Fe National Forest
Perennial Streams
16 16 © 2011 Critigen NHD Santa Fe National Forest
Perennial and Intermittent Streams
17 17 © 2011 Critigen NHD Santa Fe National Forest
Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral Streams
18 18 © 2011 Critigen NHD Santa Fe National Forest
Artificial Paths, Connectors, Canals/Ditches
19 19 © 2011 Critigen NHD Santa Fe National Forest
Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral Streams
Artificial Paths, Connectors, Canals/Ditches
20 20 © 2011 Critigen Defining Stream Type: Where is the Perennial Stream? Intermittent? By what NHD mapping criteria?
21 21 © 2011 Critigen Where is the Perennial Stream? Where does intermittent begin? By what mapping criteria?
22 22 © 2011 Critigen Where is the Perennial Stream? Where does intermittent begin? By what mapping criteria?
23 23 © 2011 Critigen Where is the Perennial Stream? Where does intermittent begin? By what mapping criteria?
24 24 © 2011 Critigen Where is the Perennial Stream? Where does intermittent begin? By what mapping criteria?
25 25 © 2011 Critigen A consistent mapping approach for NHD Update
1. Data Prep
2. Bulk Attributes
3. Rule-based Geospatial Analysis / Filtering
4. Review Hydrologic Names
5. Assign Attributes
6. Plot Maps for Forest Resource Specialist Review
7. Make Final Updates
8. QA/QC – NHD Check-in
26 © 2011 Critigen Peripheral / Borderline Watersheds
FOREST HUC12 >HUC12 10% Difference Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest 196 153 43 Carson National Forest 134 97 37 Cibola National Forest 297 230 67 Coconino National Forest 121 112 9 Coronado National Forest 251 182 69 Gila National Forest 202 179 23 Kaibab National Forest 127 100 27 Lincoln National Forest 123 95 28 Prescott National Forest 128 103 25 Santa Fe National Forest 142 108 34 Tonto National Forest 197 177 20
27 © 2011 Critigen Toward an Improved NHD…
• NHD is largely the result of a legacy dataset from historic USGS Quads.
• As a result, NHD is largely a cartographic rendering – not a verified hydrologic dataset.
• A consistent approach to mapping hydrography is required. Define a set of mapping criteria from imagery and field.
28 28 © 2011 Critigen USFS Region 3 NHD
Assessment Bo Wilmer Forest Service Program Manager [email protected]