ACWI RECOMMENDATIONS IN FEBRUARY 1998

• Spatial data standards are critical for water resources
• Re-establish the Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data
• Priority list of concerns and spatial datasets
• ACWI coordination with FGDC

ACTIONS SINCE FEBRUARY 1998

• Established Federal spatial core group
• Meetings in March, April, June, September and December
• Briefed FGDC Coordination Group
• Drafted Terms of Reference

IN AUGUST . . .

• ACWI accepted Terms of Reference establishing Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data
• FGDC agreed to co-sponsor

TERMS OF REFERENCE
responsibilities

• coordination of activities of organizations related to spatial water data
• facilitate exchange of information and data
• promote standards (FGDC)
• identify and facilitate development of needed datasets
• minimize duplication of effort

AGENCY PARTICIPANTS

• Bureau of Land Management
• Forest Service
• National Weather Service
• National Ocean Service
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Tennessee Valley Authority
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Geological Survey
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• American Society of Civil Engineers
• FEMA
• Texas Water Development Board

DEVELOPMENT OF KEY SPATIAL WATER DATASETS

• National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
• Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD)
• National Elevation Dataset (NED)
• Land Cover Dataset (MRLC)

PURPOSE:

• Nationally consistent source & methods
• Integrate best-available data for every area
• Horizontal integration: Seamless
• Vertical integration: Between data sets

HYDROLOGIC UNITS

• 2-digit = 1st level = 22 regions
• 4-digit = 2nd level = 222 subregions
• 6-digit = 3rd level = 789 accounting
• 8-digit - 4th level - 2223 cataloging
  NEW!
  
• 10-digit = 5th level = ~ 22,000 watersheds
• 12-digit = ~200,000 subwatersheds

WATERSHED BOUNDARIES DATASET (WBD): WHY IS IT NEEDED?

• 8-digit Cataloging Units too large
• Need a standard nomenclature, ID's, Names
• Speed up basin delineation for any purpose

vision for:
a surface water geospatial framework

• Watershed address
  
• Stream address
  
  • Follow a drop of water
    
    • What stream?
      
    • At what point in the stream?
      
    • Drainage area?
      
• Other benefits
  
  • TMDL, models, flood forecasts, monitoring issues,
    understanding hydrologic cycle,
    arrival time of toxic spills...
    

• manual
• automated (computer generated)

METHODS

• manual
  
  • NRCS Guideline
  • "interagency guideline"

NCRS Project Status

• 11 states no activity
• 11 states map delineated
• 11 states map delineation/digitizing in progress
• 14 states map review and edge matching in progress
• 1 state map certification review in progress at NRCS
• 0 states map certified and archived

• State-by-state inherently problematic
  - characteristics change as state boundary is approached - smaller, less true basins
• streams as boundaries
• relative size differences - salt & pepper

• Best-available boundaries
• DEM
• DRGs
• Upstream drainage area map

SEMI-AUTOMATED TECHNIQUE
Other Efforts Needed

• Nationwide NED,NED-H
• Seamless DRG
• Advanced technology
  Investigations for the challenging
  areas where 1:24,000 maps are not
  sufficient

• $20-25M for conterminous U.S.
• advantages
  
  • supervised delineation
  • easily nested
• disadvantages
  
  • time
  • cost
  • bias

COST: semi-automated

• $3-5M for conterminous U.S.
• advantages
  
  • consistency
  • cost
  • unbiased
  • time of delivery
• disadvantages
  • unproven
  • unsupervised delineation
  • must be re-drawn using 1:24K hypso

SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PLAN

• Manual:
  
  • many states underway
    
  • regional meetings 9/30/99
  • accepted, just starting/incorrect
• Semi-automated:
  
  • "proof of concept" pilot 9/30/99
  • parts of US needing to be done
  • Semi-auto delineation 9/30/2000

• Merge 2/28/2001

WORKPLAN "SPECIFICS"

1. continued Subcommittee coordination

2. Regional workshops
   
   • understanding of "interagency guidelines"
   • identify problems before state completes dataset

     • encourage States in "pipeline"

3. continue "national oversight"
   
   • ensure compliance with "interagency guidelines"
   • integration with NHD
     

   • integration with neighbor states (seamless)

4. complete "proof -of-concept" pilot

5. "no activity" states to be done using "semi-automated approach"

6. merge completed states into nationally consistent dataset
   
   • re-number watersheds & subwatersheds
     • name watersheds & subwatersheds

HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAPS
USGS Water Supply Paper 2294
"Hydrologic unit maps available before 1972 were unsatisfactory for many purposes because of inadequate bases or scales as well as the lack of agreement about hydrologic subdivisions among Federal, State, and local agencies. Federal and State agencies, Congress and its committees,...Presidential Executive Orders, river basin commissions, and others used many incompatible criteria for names. codes, hydrographic boundaries, and river basins. After many years of use of unsatisfactory and inadequate hydrologic maps, discussions among representatives of Federal and State agencies led to nearly unanimous agreement on the need for a national project to develop uniform and widely accepted hydrologic boundaries and to present them on nationally consistent base maps. A need for standardization of hydrologic units was evident throughout the country."

DATA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

• FIPSPUB103
  -     CODES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CARIBBEAN & OUTLYING AREAS, 1983
  November 15.

SUGGESTIONS:

• one "guideline", accepted by all agencies
• modification of existing FIPS to encompass "watersheds" & "subwatersheds"

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION VISIT...
water.usgs.gov/wicp
www.fgdc.gov
www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov