Hydrography Committee
The Governor’s Council on Geographic Information
Meeting Notes 11/4/97
9:30 a.m. - noon
Centennial Office Building
Conference Room 304
358 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
AGENDA
Welcome
Introduction of Members
Overview of Four Major Issues:
Base Hydrography Data Set
River Numbering
Federal Hydrography Data
Watershed Layer Updates
Other Issues
Workplan Development
Scheduling of Future Meetings
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
This was the first meeting of the Governor’s Council Hydrography Committee. The Committee has been set up to deal with four major issues relating to surface water hydrography and GIS: definition of a base hydrography data set; resolution of river numbering issues; coordination with federal data development efforts; and development of a watershed basemap update procedure. Kathy Svanda of the Minnesota Department of Health and Susanne Maeder of the Land Management Information Center will co-chair the committee. The committee is expected to develop a workplan for the year to present to the full Governor’s Council, produce a fiscal year-end report describing its activities for the year, and make its meeting notices and minutes available on the Web. Committee members introduced themselves and described their interest in the committee. Sixteen people were in attendance, representing federal, state, and local government and the private sector.
OVERVIEW OF THE FOUR MAJOR ISSUES
Susanne Maeder distributed brief background descriptions of each of the major issues. As an orientation to the topics, Maeder described the four issues, with input from other committee members as it reflected their activities.
SURFACE WATER HYDROGRAPHY BASEMAP:
Minnesota GIS professionals working at the state level have identified the need for a
1:24,000 surface hydrography data set which is spatially accurate, is suitable for network analysis, contains the data attributes (especially identifiers) necessary tor Minnesota hydrologic applications, and is accepted by all major users. Surface water data sets have previously been developed, at both 1:100,00 and 1:24,000-scale. Because these data sets were developed to meet a particular need, because the funding was not adequate to do all that was required, or because of the limitations of the technology available at the time, these data sets meet SOME but not ALL of these criteria.
The creation of the 1:24,000 hydrography layers as part of the MnDOT basemap database, and the 1:24,000 National Wetlands Inventory, have provided improved base linework from which such a coverage could be built. However, key features such as connectivity of streams through all polygon waterbody features are missing. Part of the impetus for this committee is that people are beginning to enhance this data set in certain areas of the state to meet their own needs. These enhancements, done piecemeal and without any overall framework or guidelines, will not result in a consistent, statewide, fully-usable coverage. One of the purposes of this committee is to define what this data layer needs to look like, to try to find the means to complete it, and to encourage individual efforts to improve the dataset within the outlined framework.
An emphasis of GIS professionals at the state level for some years has been on developing a good, statewide data set at 1:24,000 scale. This does not meet all needs, especially the needs of local governments. It is hoped that we can define a framework file definition that is acceptable at any scale, and that we can identify additional needs for a surface hydrography file at a local scale.
Robert Maki described work done by DNR for the Section of Fisheries Trout Stream program.
The DNR Manangement Information Systems section evaluated the MnDOT 1:24,000 basemap hydrography layers for the Fisheries Trout Stream applications. Fisheries needs to be able to identify and map all trout streams accurately; some of these streams do not currently appear on any automated file. DNR ran a cleanup process for 200 of the state’s 1700 1:24,000 quadrangles. This work included the following:
DNR noted that there were digitizing problems in certain areas; for example, heavily meandering streams were not always captured as such. DNR noted the areas where problems occurred, but did not correct those problems.
DNR also evaulated the National Wetlands Inventory data (1:24,000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), as a source of lake shoreland information, and found that the NWI was the best source of shoreland delineations. Future updates will incorporate the NWI as the lake and wetland information and keep the MnDOT basemap streams, while assuring that the two are spatially consistent and connected.
DNR currently has funding to complete another 250-400 quads, using a combination of the NWI and MnDOT layers, using the techniques outlined. The work will be done under contract by St. Cloud State University. Initial update efforts have concentrated on the trout stream areas of Southeastern and Northeastern Minnesota, and areas of Central Minnesota.
Maki stated that this process creates a connected, attributed basemap which sets the stage for the second level, which is to add unique identifiers, river-mile posting, and flow direction to the file.
Les Maki cautioned that we should not forget the ‘lakes’ portion of the file in our effort to deal with the rivers. A lakes and a ‘Protected Waters’ layer are important to DNR activities, as well as the activities of other agencies..
The issue of scale was discussed at some length. The ‘Framework’ of the file definition should be extensible to any scale, and should not be scale-dependent. Many of the data sets already discussed are already amalgamations of data, which already can no longer be referred to by a single scale of capture. The committee sees a need to better identify what types of information are needed for applications at different levels; however, not all of these information needs may be directly tied to the basemap.
RIVER NUMBERING
Two river numbering conventions are currently in use in Minnesota. These are:
These numbering systems were created to deal with rivers differently. The DNR numbering in Kittle or CSAW was done with the intention of giving each river a unique identifier along its entire length, similar to the Division of Waters Lake Number for lakes. DNR also has the need to deal with segments of the river - these may have been dealt with via a verbal description, via the River Kilometer Index file, or via point locations of features on the river.
The USEPA Reach numbering system was devised to deal with river segments for water quality monitoring purposes: it breaks up major rivers into smaller segments for reporting; and it can deal with the relative hydrologic positions of different river segments. It has been implemented nationwide. There are methods for assigning a value or name to a collection of segments, such as the entire Mississippi River.
Neither of these numbering systems has answered all of the needs. DNR is proposing that a more simple, single number for a river be established, perhaps combined with a better method for mileposting. Since MPCA is committed to the USEPA Reach Numbering System and this national system is being embedded in new hydrography data sets created at the national level, the solution may be to nest one numbering system inside the other, similar to what we already do with watersheds and geologic formations, to translate between a state system of numbering and the federal system.
Currently, the CSAW numbers are attached to the rivers on the Minnesota-annotated USGS 1:100,000 DLG Hydrography file at LMIC. The Reach Numbers are attached to the USEPA
‘RF3' or Reach File 3 GIS file, also derived from the USGS 1:100,000 DLG Hydrography.
It would be desirable that the ‘NEW’ state numbering system be attached to any river trace file created at 1:24,000-scale or larger. Therefore the issue of river numbering cannot be separated from the issue of the Surface Water Hydrography Base Map.
FEDERAL DATA SETS: NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATA SET
The federal government has long been a provider of hydrography GIS data which have been of use to the state. At the 1:100,000 scale, hydrography has been made available in a number of formats, all originally based on USGS digital products: the 1:100,000 USGS Digital Line Graphy, the Census TIGER files, and the USEPA Reach Files (RF3).
All of these files have been used by Minnesota agencies, for basic graphic representation, for search and query, and, to a lesser degree, for modeling. The basic DLG file was extensively attributed by LMIC, and the RF3 file has been amended by MPCA, for state applications.
USEPA and USGS have now collaborated on the successor product to the above, known as the National Hydrography Data Set. From the USGS home page:
Mark Olsen of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency described the National Hydrography Data Set as a simplified data structure containing permanent feature ID’s (to improve updates), which would be replicable at multiple scales. Cross-reference tables could be used to incorporate existing numbering schemes. MPCA is participating with USGS/EPA in creating the NHD data file for Minnesota. Olsen stressed the need to create a file strucutre which is extensible to different scale, and to separate additional river attribute information from the basic file framework.
Ron Wencl from USGS described the National Hydrography Dataset in terms of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov/NSDI/Nsdi.html) – from the drive to create a national framework for data layers of common value, to which local data of larger scale can be incorporated. (The NHD is described at http://nhd.fgdc.gov/nhdpgs/nhdoview.htm).
USGS is looking for state cooperators who are creating 1:24,000-scale linework, and would be interested in transferring the characteristics and attribution of the National Hydrography Data Set to linework at larger scales. Efforts such as this are in keeping with the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure for ‘Framework’ data layers, of which hydrography is one. NSDI is an effort of the interagency Federal Geographic Data Committee, lead staffing provided by USGS. Some types of assistance may be available from the FGDC for these efforts.
At the state level, we need to review the NHD data structure, to aid in the evaluation of Minnesota’s basemap needs and river numbering. The National Hydrography data set is the product of extensive needs assessments and evaluation by the primary water resources management and civilian mapping agencies at the national level. The USGS- National Mapping Division is also asking Minnesota whether we would be willing to cooperate with FGDC to produce a 1:24,000 Framework layer. Once we have defined a state basemap framework, we can evaluate what it would take to do so and decide accordingly.
WATERSHED BASE MAP UPDATE PROCEDURES
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Major/Minor watershed file in true vector format was completed in 1993. It represents a 1:100,000-scale, scanned version of the watersheds delineated onto 1:24,000 USGS topographic map sheets (or 1:62,500 map sheets, as available) in the late 1970's. The watershed delineations, from the original 1979 DNR Watershed Mapping Project, were based on the height-of-land delineations outlined on the USGS maps, without field verification. It has always been recognized that, as better information became available, especially based upon field work, there would be a need to update the watershed file, archive previous versions, and keep track of who did what updates, when. (Not all of the suggested updates are coming from within the DNR).
To date, two updates have been done: the 1995 version of the file is based on additional work done by Mankato State University in the 13 south-central counties of Minnesota, and by the U.S. Geological Survey in the rest of the Minnesota River Basin. DNR has almost completed a 1997 update, which is composed mostly of refining boundaries at river outflow points, and correcting known delineation errors. Associated data tables (such as CSAW) and derived coverages (such as NRCS watershed boundaries and USGS basins generalizations) have not necessarily kept pace with all of the updates to the watershed coverage.
Chris Sanocki of USGS described additional work USGS is doing in the Crow, Cannon, and Des Moines River Basins. Watersheds in these areas are being delineated to a more local level, sometimes to the level of stormwater routing. Les Maki pointed out that the scale issue is not limited to the surface water layer, but applies to watersheds, soils, forest cover types, and other layers discussed in other committees.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has made the commitment to make updates to the file. What is needed is a mutually-agreed-upon and published procedure to cover future updates.
OTHER ISSUES AND ITEMS OF INTEREST:
Glenn Radde of the Department of Natural Resources Waters distributed copies of the new ‘Minnesota Wetlands and Surface Water Resources’ poster which was recently completed by DNR. The poster includes of the National Wetlands Inventory by wetland type, Rivers and Major Drainages, Topographic Relief, and Pre-Settlement Wet Mineral Soils and Peatlands. The poster was funded through a Wetlands Planning grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A limited number of copies will be available through the Department of Natural Resources, after which copies will be distributed through the Minnesota Bookstore. In addition, National Wetlands Inventory data in ArcView Shapefile format (4 CD-set) were produced for distribution.
Roger Hirschman of the Natural Resources Conservation Service showed a copy of the ‘Minnesota Watershed Atlas’ and associated data tables recently published by NRCS. The atlas consists of county maps showing surface water features, section lines, and the watersheds at the DNR Major (= USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code), NRCS, and DNR minor levels. Additional information on the maps includes NOAA Climate stations, USGS Continuous Stream Gages, and USGS Partial Crest Stream Gages. The associated data tables describe watershed numbering, names, and drainage areas.
WORKPLAN
Susanne Maeder and Kathy Svanda discussed the need to develop a workplan for the year to meet the requirements of the Governor’s Council. The Committee also needs to complete a document by June 30 which describes the year’s activities. Maeder proposed a vision of an end-of year product which included: 1) a description of the data model for the hydrography base layer – i.e., a definition of what it needed to look like, and a description of how you got there from the presently-available data sets; 2) a proposed river numbering scheme for the state, which would both meet the needs of DNR and other agencies for a single river number and meet the reporting needs of the MPCA (i.e., tie into the federal system); 3) describe the means of translating from the state system to the National Hydrograph data set at 1:24,000; and 4) describe the state’s watershed update procedure. Maeder proposed that the physical and financial means for achieveing the data sets described in this end-of-year status document be defined later (in a one-year extension of the committee).
Other members pointed out that there were funding sources available which could be tapped in the nearer term. Ron Wencl identified potential funding through the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s Cooperative Grants program, for which the RFP will be released sometime in November. The timing of the state’s LCMR funding process means that a proposal needs to be submitted by February, 1998 for projects which would begin in July, 1999.
METHODOLOGY
The Committee could choose to work on all issues as a group, or to break down into subgroups to deal with the issues. The watershed update issues appears to be clearly separable, while the hydro base file, river numbering, and National Hydrography Data Set issues are closely related and need to be treated as a whole. The Committee felt that it would be more efficient to break into to groups – a Surface Water Subcommittee and a Watershed Subcommittee, but that it was important that each subcommittee be kept informed about the work and the issues of the other committee. Each subcommittee will define issues in more detail, and identify individual tasks for the workplan. Under this workplan, the full committee would not have to meet monthly, but frequently enough to be kept informed and to make sure that the progress of the two subgroups is consistent. Committee members signed up to be member of one, or both, subcommittees.
FUTURE MEETINGS
SURFACE WATER Subcommittee
Thursday, November 20, 9:30-11:30 a.m.
Conference Room 301, Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155
WATERSHED Subcommittee
Thursday, November 20, 1:00-3:00 p.m.
Conference Room 304, Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155
HYDROGRAPHY Full Committee
Thursday, December 4, 9:30 a.m. – noon
Conference Room 301, Centennial Office Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155
ATTENDEES
| Mark Ebbers | DNR Fisheries |
| Joe Gibson | DNR Waters |
| Roger Hirschman | Natural Resources Conservation Service |
| Beth Hobbs | BRW |
| Susanne Maeder | Land Management Information Center, Mn Planning |
| Les Maki | DNR – MIS |
| Robert Maki | DNR – MIS |
| Thomas Martin | MnDOT Hydraulics |
| Mark Olsen | MPCA – Information Services |
| Glenn Radde | DNR – Waters |
| Ken Saffert | City of Mankato |
| Chris Sanocki | USGS – Water Resources Division |
| Kathy Svanda | MDH |
| Jim Solstad | DNR Waters |
| Mark Wald | OSM |
| Ron Wencl | USGS – National Mapping Division |