Jerry Korol, NRCS
Gene Dana, USGS
Christa Braun, BLM
Bruce Tuttle, IDWR (hydro)
Michael Ciscell, IDWR (hydro)
Steve Garcia, USGS
Linda Davis, IDWR
Sandra Thiel, IDWR
Genna Ashley, IDWR

No phone attendees

Idaho now has NHD (National Hydrography Dataset) data for the entire state. This is an effort that will eventually be completed for the entire country; estimated completion time depends on each individual state. Idaho data is one of the few states that are complete and loaded into SDE. The process now includes being able to make changes to the data, give to USGS and have the changes incorporated. Zach Maillard has written a toolset that helps speed up this process. Most of the changes have been name additions, but geometry changes have also been made. The Idaho NHD coordinators attended training in Salt Lake City mid-July and were able to work out the process after that.

Data can be downloaded on a huc-by-huc basis from USGS. The entire state has been done by IDWR and can be exported. Sandra Thiel is the contact and may be able to give the data out as the entire state.

The update process is still being worked out, primarily how to get data back and forth and distribute it to other agencies. All changes should go through IDWR, and many agencies have expressed interest in receiving these changes, but how to distribute them is unclear, although IDWR is the ONLY entity that should be submitting changes.

Sandra Thiel contacted potential data stewards throughout the state (80-90 total entities) and let them know which hucs they may be interested in, based on land ownership/stewardship. There was good response, although USGS was not yet set up to receive edits, so it was not beneficial to ask for changes to be sent in at that time. Now that changes can be accepted and incorporated, this process will be refined soon.

There was discussion regarding Canyons, Draws, and Gulches. These are not technically water features, although it was noted that they act like water features in high water years or when it rains, so it was proposed to name them in the NHD, as GNIS does. In addition to GNIS, the Water Rights database is a good reference for some of these features, along with any legal documents and paper maps that may be included in the water right. Some of the local names differ from the names on the map, and the water rights database has been helpful in some cases. There may be a way in the future to attach multiple names to the NHD, much like GNIS – the official name and the local name. There are quite a few of these features (several hundred) that could be affected. It is anticipated that adding these names will expedite the adjudication process and eventually link to the source table as a watercourse and then ultimately link diversions to the NHD. In order to do this, the canyons, draws, and gulches would need to be named; making sure that the correct local name was used. It would be a huge task to contact each landowner to find out what the local name would be, but with the help of GNIS and the adjudication databases, it could be easier to accomplish. It was noted that there would always be name changes and the best available data would be used, with edits being made as new information becomes available. Sandra Thiel stated that there have been over 3000 canal names successfully added. The group agreed that the canyons, draws and gulches should be named, using the best available data.

It was noted that there may be some duplicate com-id’s on the Upper Salmon watershed, and this needs to be checked.

Sandra Thiel stated that edits had been done on a huc-by-huc basis, but they are now working statewide. They are focusing on one area at a time within the state, and edits are being done in SDE, rather than Personal Geodatabases. Sandra Thiel asked the group if there would be any priority areas that they should concentrate on. The following priorities were identified:

· There will be significant changes in the Lemhi area, including the removal of one feature that does not exist. It was noted that in order to do this, it involves about 20 separate changes.

· Michael Ciscell stated that the Coeur d’Alene basin becomes a high priority with the adjudication process next year.

Frank Roberts has photo-revised Coeur d’Alene Lake, and done a very good job. There is also new bathymetry for this area too. Sandra Thiel stated that if there are polygonal features they must also update each individual line segment to match, involving a tremendous amount of work. They would like to get these changes incorporated, but cannot do the changes now. It was noted that Frank Roberts might take some time and get the edits done this winter, adding the tribal names to the database.

IDWR is working with Canal Companies throughout the state to get updated names. They are starting with Boise-Kuna. They will be given a shapefile, or map, or whatever format they can best accommodate, in order to do the edits. Now that edits can be submitted, IDWR will be contacting counties again and asking for their changes. Ada County is working at a much finer scale than the NHD, and this is not (at this time) a high priority for them.

The GNIS program is expected to continue. Sandra Thiel has been working with Robin Worchester who is retiring in January. Sandra has been trying to get as many edits to him as possible before this happens. Before changes can be made in the NHD, many steps are involved with GNIS. A reference is needed to the adjudication effort before edits can be accepted.

IDWR has a contract to add names to the NHD, working with the LLID crosswalk too. They are currently working on a MOU with USGS. Years ago, the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Western Montana) worked on the "Pacific Northwest River Reach Database". This was data at 100k scale, using LLID codes and a Lat/Long identifier, based on a pour point. Many agencies, including the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and all REO offices have most of their data linked to the LLID identifier, and when NHD was created, these codes were not taken into consideration. All agencies would like to see this data incorporated, and Bart Butterfield with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game has been working on a crosswalk. There have been some significant problems with this; double-banked streams and centerlines are all connected arcs, and these arcs are a named feature, making "spurs" around features. Bart continues to work out solutions to these issues.

There is an NHD Technical Working Group meeting in Denver on October 10-13^th. Sandra Thiel will be attending, so if anyone has any questions, please get them to Sandra. She would like to take as many questions and issues to the group as possible. Bruce Tuttle will get a list to Sandra Thiel regarding web services and how individual sources can link with time stamps, etc.

Idaho Falls 17040201 – The TWG group reviewed this huc. Genna Ashley incorporated the identified changes from the previous meeting. Names were identified for two missing areas: 170402010200 6^th field will become "North Menan Butte", and 170402010401 and 02 will become Upper Kettle Butte Drain and Lower Kettle Butte Drain. The 5^th field unit name will remain "Kettle Butte". Genna Ashley will make these name changes, and this huc will be considered draft approved for concept lines.

Steve Garcia presented a graphic of the 4^th field boundary linework he is working on. Steve has completed most of the border hucs, and is now starting to work on 5^th and 6^th field lines, beginning in northern Idaho. Steve is coordinating this work with Karen Hanson, and will send the new linework to Genna Ashley, and she will incorporate it into the master watershed coverage.

Christa Braun reported that BLM has changed some of the names pursuant to the GNIS name changes. One change has been identified – "St. Mary’s Nipple" will be changed to "St. Mary’s Knoll". Christa will make this change to the BLM data, and Genna Ashley will change the master draft watershed data.

The TWG group discussed the required MODIFICATION attribute for 5^th and 6^th field data. There are many attributes, open to different interpretations, so IDWR will code the Lower Boise, and Steve Garcia will code an additional huc. The group will compare interpretations during the next TWG watershed meeting on October 10^th. After this is complete, a list of questions will be developed and sent to Karen Hanson for clarification, so Idaho data is accurate.

Sandra Thiel will attend the NHD TWG workshop to be held in Denver on October 10-13^th. She will take a list of questions and issues to that group for clarification.

Genna Ashley will make the identified changes on the Idaho Falls huc.

Genna Ashley will make the name change from "St. Mary’s Nipple" to St. Mary’s Knoll". Christa Braun will make this change at BLM, so both datasets are coincident.

IDWR will work on the modifications for the Lower Boise huc, and Steve Garcia will do the modifications for an additional huc. These interpretations will be compared during the October TWG meeting, and based on the differences, the group will develop a list of questions for Karen Hanson (Idaho’s regional coordinator).

Steve Garcia will send Genna Ashley the updated version of the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th field boundary linework he has completed. Genna Ashley will incorporate this data into the master watershed dataset.

October 10, 2006 - at the Idaho Department of Water Resources in Boise, ID. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m.

For directions and/or NetMeeting connections, please contact Genna Ashley at (208) 287-4880 genna.ashley@idwr.idaho.gov

***Subject to change before meeting***

The meeting concluded at approximately 12:00 p.m.