USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and NHDPlus

Similar documents
USGS Hydrography Overview. May 9, 2018

3D Elevation Program- Status and Updates. Oklahoma GI Council Meeting November 2, 2018 Claire DeVaughan US Geological Survey

What's New with NHDPlus (Classic)?

What s New in Topographic Information - USGS National Map

Hydrography Webinar Series

A Simple Drainage Enforcement Procedure for Estimating Catchment Area Using DEM Data

Introducing Iowa StreamStats Version 4, a Redesign of the USGS Application for Estimating Streamflow Stats

Within this document, the term NHDPlus is used when referring to NHDPlus Version 2.1 (unless otherwise noted).

Lecture 3. Data Sources for GIS in Water Resources

Designing a Dam for Blockhouse Ranch. Haley Born

StreamStats: Delivering Streamflow Information to the Public. By Kernell Ries

Improvement of the National Hydrography Dataset for Parts of the Lower Colorado Region and Additional Areas of Importance to the DLCC

Influence of spatial variation in precipitation on artificial neural network rainfall-runoff model

GIS in Water Resources Exercise #4 Solution Prepared by Irene Garousi-Nejad and David Tarboton

Hydrologically Consistent Pruning of the High- Resolution National Hydrography Dataset to 1:24,000-scale

The National Hydrography Dataset in the Pacific Region. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Making the Digital Water Flow The Evolution of Geospatial Surfacewater Frameworks

USING GIS TO MODEL AND ANALYZE HISTORICAL FLOODING OF THE GUADALUPE RIVER NEAR NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS

George Mason University Department of Civil, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering. Dr. Celso Ferreira Prepared by Lora Baumgartner

Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses Using ArcGIS

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Update Project for US Forest Service Region 3

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET (NHD) UPDATE PROJECT FOR US FOREST SERVICE REGION 3

Management and Sharing of Hydrologic Information of Cache County

Leveraging LiDAR for Statewide NHD Hydrography Projects. Susan Phelps, CFM, GISP

International Geospatial Harmonization of Sister Datasets Hydrography and Watershed Boundaries between Canada and the U.S.A

Improvement of the National Hydrography Dataset for US Forest Service Region 3 in Cooperation with the National Forest Service

Figure 0-18: Dendrogeomorphic analysis of streambank erosion and floodplain deposition (from Noe and others, 2015a)

Development and Land Use Change in the Central Potomac River Watershed. Rebecca Posa. GIS for Water Resources, Fall 2014 University of Texas

Creating Watersheds and Stream Networks. Steve Kopp

Estimating Stream Gradient Using NHD Stream Lines and DEM Data

Plastic debris in 29 Great Lakes tributaries: Relations to watershed attributes and hydrology

GRAPEVINE LAKE MODELING & WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Web-Based Engine For Discovery Of Observations Using Landscape Units

THE ROLE OF GEOCOMPUTATION IN THE HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES

Preparing a NFIE-Geo Database for Travis County

Watershed Delineation

USGS National Geospatial Program Understanding User Needs. Dick Vraga National Map Liaison for Federal Agencies July 2015

Exercise 4. Watershed and Stream Network Delineation

Drainage Area: GL, VPU: 04 - Release Notes. 12/01/2018 Updated and New Data

A GIS-based Approach to Watershed Analysis in Texas Author: Allison Guettner

Assessment of a Rapid Approach for Estimating Catchment Areas for Surface Drainage Lines

ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PA

HYDROLOGIC AND WATER RESOURCES EVALUATIONS FOR SG. LUI WATERSHED

Welcome to NetMap Portal Tutorial

GIS in Water Resources Exercise #4 Solution

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT INFORMATION REQUESTED FOR VERIFICATION OF CORPS JURISDICTION

A Help Guide for Using gssurgo to Find Potential Wetland Soil Landscapes

used to transport sediments throughout the lands. In this regard, understanding erosion is

Water Information Portal User Guide. Updated July 2014

Leon Creek Watershed October 17-18, 1998 Rainfall Analysis Examination of USGS Gauge Helotes Creek at Helotes, Texas

Hydrologic Engineering Applications of Geographic Information Systems

Indiana GIS Local Resolution NHD Applications. Indiana State GIS Conference

Areal Reduction Factors for the Colorado Front Range and Analysis of the September 2013 Colorado Storm

Lidar-derived Hydrography as a Source for the National Hydrography Dataset

USGS Community Engagement and its Role in Improving The National Map

Exercise 4. Watershed and Stream Network Delineation

Hydrography - the building block of IP - Session Guide

Workshop: Build a Basic HEC-HMS Model from Scratch

Exercise 5 - Watershed and Stream Network Delineation from DEMs GIS in Water Resources Fall 2014

NEEA Refresh aka 3D Nation Requirements and Benefits Study. Allyson Jason, Carol Ostergren, Xan Fredericks and Lou Driber November 9, 2017

Guide to Hydrologic Information on the Web

National Flood Interoperability Experiment

The National Map Data Delivery Services

Areal Reduction Factors for the Colorado Front Range and Analysis of the September 2013 Colorado Storm

4. GIS Implementation of the TxDOT Hydrology Extensions

GIS in Water Resources Midterm Quiz Fall There are 5 questions on this exam. Please do all 5. They are of equal credit.

Exercise 4. Watershed and Stream Network Delineation

USING A GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM TO PREDICT FLOW DURATION CURVES AT UNGAGED STREAM SITES IN GUAM

Using the Stock Hydrology Tools in ArcGIS

Hydrography Program Highlights and Demonstrations

Objectives: After completing this assignment, you should be able to:

Model Calibration and Forecast Error for NFIE-Hydro

WDCloud: An End to End System for Large- Scale Watershed Delineation on Cloud

Georeferencing Water Quality Assessments to NHDPlus Catchments

Observatories in the context of the Digital Continent: CZO s and HIS

REMOTE SENSING AND GEOSPATIAL APPLICATIONS FOR WATERSHED DELINEATION

Snowcover interaction with climate, topography & vegetation in mountain catchments

GREENE COUNTY, PA. Revised Preliminary DFIRM Mapping FEMA. Kevin Donnelly, P.E., CFM GG3, Greenhorne & O Mara, Inc. April 10, 2013

Base Level Engineering FEMA Region 6

Rick Faber CE 513 Watershed and Streamwork Delineation Lab # 3 4/24/2006

Exercise 4. Watershed and Stream Network Delineation

GISHydro2000: A Tool for Automated Hydrologic Analysis in Maryland. G. E. Moglen 1

Spatial Data and Synoptic Protocols: LINX-2. Assessment of Nitrate Concentration Patterns in River Networks

NWT Open Report Delineation of Watersheds in the Mackenzie Mountains

Land Cover and Soil Properties of the San Marcos Subbasin

CE 394K.3 GIS in Water Resources Midterm Quiz Fall There are 5 questions on this exam. Please do all 5. They are of equal credit.

Speakers: NWS Buffalo Dan Kelly and Sarah Jamison, NERFC Jeane Wallace. NWS Flood Services for the Black River Basin

MODULE 7 LECTURE NOTES 5 DRAINAGE PATTERN AND CATCHMENT AREA DELINEATION

Hydrology and Watershed Analysis

A Comprehensive Inventory of the Number of Modified Stream Channels in the State of Minnesota. Data, Information and Knowledge Management.

BSYSE 456/556 Surface Hydrologic Processes and Modeling

Current and Future Plans. R. Srinivasan

Watershed Modeling With DEMs

Wetlands and Riparian Mapping Framework Technical Meeting

USGS Flood Inundation Mapping of the Suncook River in Chichester, Epsom, Pembroke and Allenstown, New Hampshire

Watershed Analysis of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Northwestern Virginia

USGS QUADRANGLES IN GOOGLE EARTH

Exercise 4. Watershed and Stream Network Delineation

GIS INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL

Analysis of the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model Using Variations in Precipitation Input

Transcription:

+ 1 + USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and NHDPlus Al Rea USGS National Geospatial Program Western States Water Council August 1, 2018

+ 2 USGS National Hydrography Datasets Hydrologic networks, units, catchments, and more National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) The drainage network with features such as rivers, streams, canals, lakes, ponds, and stream gages National Hydrography Dataset Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) The drainage basins at 8 scales of a nested hierarchy; defines the areal extent of surface water drainage to a point NHDPlus Incorporates features of the NHD, WBD and 3DEP elevation data to create a networked hydrography framework that incorporates the entire landscape Watershed Boundary Dataset NHDPlus

+ 3 The Evolution of NHD and NHDPlus EPA/USGS-W Reach File Version 1 (RF1) (1:500,000) EPA/USGS-W/USGS-G Medium Res NHD (1:100,000) EPA/USGS-W Medium Res NHDPlus (1:100,000) 1982 2000 The blue boxes identify the Framework versions used to estimate stream flow volume and velocity. 2006, 2012 USGS-G High Res NHD (1:24,000 or better) 2007 USGS-G High Res NHDPlus (1:24,000 or better with generalization) ~2020 Slide: Tommy Dewald (USEPA)

+ 4 National Hydrography Dataset Water network for mapping and modeling National drainage network of streams and lakes, plus other hydro info, in a GIS format Currently 1:24K or better (1:63K 1:24K in AK) Shapefile and GDB downloads, plus webbased map services

+ Attributes: Names 5 and flow condition Perennial Intermittent Swan Creek Ephemeral

+ 6 However Original topo maps were made over many decades, with somewhat changing standards, and different source materials Sometimes they didn t finish the maps and published provisional P-maps Since 2007 many updates Correcting errors Different interpretation by stewards Densification of networks using higher resolution sources like lidar

A Hypothesis for classification differences Differences in climate during field check years of USGS quad maps may affect stream permanence classifications Throughout the US, quad maps were field checked across varying climate conditions scpdsi and precipitation percentile used as indicators of wetness

In the CRB Majority of topo quads collected 1960-1990 Conditions during quad collection varied substantially, from extremely wet to extremely dry

This is a good example of a 24k provisional map. If you have the secret decoder ring, you can see the little P s and I s and the bars that indicate where the change occurs or where the stream disappears. These maps were published before the final symbols were applied. The field person had the original stereo complied manuscripts and took them into the field and annotated the manuscript. As you can see, everything is hand annotated. The problem is, the MRNHD for this area had to use the 1:62.5k map because this provisional map wasn t available. Next slide shows the source for this data.

+ 10 + 10 NHD is a multi-scale dataset

+ 11 + 11 NHD is a multi-scale dataset

Contour Crenulations added as intermittent

More additions

+ 14 NHDPlus Completes the Framework Brings together NHD, WBD and elevation data to incorporate the landscape as a part of the stream network Creates a national framework for waterrelated information and enhance modeling capabilities NHD WBD Medium Resolution completed for CONUS (1:100,000) Elevation

+ 15 NHDPlus includes A nationally seamless network of stream reaches Value-added attributes for stream network navigation and analysis Flow surfaces in raster format Elevation-based catchment areas for each stream segment that catchment area Create a seamless, scalable hydrologic framework Enable modeling of water flow across the landscape, linking terrestrial characteristics to the stream network NHD Streams

+ 16

MR NHDPlus for Region 17 Blue are all perennial streams. Red are intermittent streams with less than 1 cfs MA. Most intermittent NHD streams anywhere in the country have flow from EROM less than 1 cfs, so these are probably classified correctly.

MR NHDPlus for Region 17 Blue are all perennial streams Red are intermittent streams with less than 1 cfs MA Green are intermittent with more than 1 cfs MA. These need to be looked at. They are suspicious.

The area in the box seems to be have too many intermittent streams with more than 1 cfs MA compared to the surroundings.

In this case, the MRNHD (green) is misclassified as intermittent compared to the HRNHD (blue). This is the area where the 100K maps used 1:62.5k scale maps because there were no 1:24k maps.

+ 21 Bottom Line NHD has a lot of valuable information However, it is something of a mixed bag NHDPlus has even more valuable information, including simple modeled flow estimates that may help counter the mixed bag issue NHDPlus also provides data used in other models, including SPARROW, StreamStats, and PROSPER

+ 22 USGS StreamStats 1. Web application provides access to an assortment of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analytical tools 2. Map-based user delineates drainage areas for userselected sites on streams and calculates basin characteristics for any selected drainage 3. Estimates flow statistics for the selected sites anywhere this functionality is available. 4. Incorporates relational data base that contains information for data-collection stations and regression equations 5. Application and mapping functionality exist for most of our western states

+ 23

+ 24

+ 25

+ 26

+ 27 USGS SPARROW Model (SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes) Estimates water quality and water quantity attributes by linking monitoring data with information on watershed characteristics and contaminant sources. Can be used to explore relations between human activities, natural processes, and contaminant transport using interactive Mappers. Could be used to explore flow attributes and sources such as the groundwater component of flow (baseflow) at a given point of interest

+ 28 A non-linear regression model that relates measured transport at monitoring stations to upland catchment attributes including upstream reaches

+ 29 Upper Colorado River Basin SPARROW Stream network: NHD 10,813 unique reaches/catchments 1 to 78 mi 2 218 monitoring sitescalibration reaches

Example of Streamflow Permanence Model in the Boise River Basin Probability of annual streamflow permanence for 2004-2016 25,000 observations of wet and dry streams in the headwaters Used to calibrate a streamflow permanence model using geographic and climatic variables

Provisional data

2004 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2005 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2006 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2007 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2008 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2009 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2010 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2011 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2012 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2013 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2014 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2015 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow Provisional data

2016 Rather than having distinct, rigid boundaries, stream reaches classified as perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral may more accurately be described as dynamic zones within stream networks. - Ken Fritz, EPA > 60% Probability of year-round flow < 40% Probability of year-round flow

Wet more than 75% of years Dry more than 75% of years Provisional data

StreamStats (www.streamstats.usgs.gov) For location-based PROSPER data For each location: Select years for which you want data For each year selected: Raw Probabilities Categorical Classifications Warnings Year Raw Probability Categorical Stream Status Warnings 2004 0.84 5 0 2005 0.76 3 0 2006 0.74 2 0 2007 0.73 2 0 2008 0.71 1 0 2009 0.87 5 0 2010 0.84 5 0 2011 0.75 3 0 2012 0.74 2 0 2013 0.8 5 0 2014 0.72 1 0 2015 0.83 5 0 2016 0.66-3 0 Mean 0.77 3 0

+ 47 NHDPlus HR Status First datasets released in April, 2017 NHDPlus HR Beta will be completed in 2019 for the conterminous U.S., followed by AK, HI, and territories in later years Users are invited to review and provide feedback to the Beta version datasets Feedback will be used to update and improve the refreshed data release, beginning in 2019

Questions? + 48 Al Rea USGS National Hydrography Co-Lead ahrea@usgs.gov