Linda Davis – Meeting coordinator

Round-table Introductions were made

Attendees:

Linda Davis IDWR
Genna Ashley-Poulson IDWR
Sandra Beer Thiel IDWR
Jim Sparza DEQ
Al Rea USGS
Nathan Bentley State GIS Coordinator for Idaho
Roger Hirschman NRCS
Erv Cowley BLM
Karen Hansen USGS Utah
Mike Laitta USGS Georgia
Kenny Legleiter NRCS Texas
Christa Braun (BLM)
Sarah Strachan (DEQ)
Leigh Bailey Payette National Forest

Copies of the Power Point presentations will be made from Mike and Karen.

Mike Latta and Kenny Legleiter gave the first Watershed boundary dataset presentation from the national perspective. (PowerPoint)

Kenny Legleiter talked about the attribute fields within the dataset, specifically the Hu_10_mod and Hu_12_mod fields and stated that they were required fields. This is where all the abnormal hydrologic features can be documented within the dataset. The Metadata_id field can document versioning of the data.

Coding should be from upstream to outlet. Kenny demonstrated the numbering process. He also went through some of the required and optional fields. The primary tributary should be first, then the main stem, keeping in mind that a smaller number should flow into a larger number.

Some of the delineation methods were discussed. It was noted that the EDNA hydro derivatives from elevation data NED – and synthetic watersheds could be created using pseudo catchments. This can be used as a starting base for concept lines for 24k Watershed lines. There is 1/3 NED for most of the state.

Idaho has also used ArcHydro for delineating catchments in Idaho with some good results, except where the area is flat.

It was agreed that there is no single way to programmatically generate 24k scale watershed boundary lines. At some point, someone has to manually go through and refine the linework.

Linda Davis stated that Idaho has used a slightly different coding system for upstream to downstream 5/6 field watersheds as they had interpreted it in the standards. The system is much like a "kayaking" system – as if a kayak was floating downstream, and the hucs would be numbered accordingly.

Karen Hanson stated that Utah had used the pour points as their main guide for numbering.

Mike Latta stated that they had used a flow accumulation grid system in Georgia.

Mike Latta stated that states should make their changes in naming/numbering according to the point they are in the process, and the cost of changing the coding. He recognizes that many states are too far invested into the process to completely revise their system at this point. It is important to edge-match with each bordering state and work out the numbering with them.

Linda Davis asked when the Draft Standards document would be final. Both Mike Latta and Kenny Legleiter agreed that there would not be any major attribute changes made in the future, and they have tried to clarify the numbering and naming issues with the new version. An exact date the draft standards will be finalized is still unknown.

Mike Latta stated that states shouldn’t try to delineate to fit the size criteria where it isn’t practical. For example, it’s acceptable to make a "00" designation for a 6^th field that can’t be divided.

Linda Davis asked what the parameters of the coding would be from the national certification folks. She stated that Idaho had been very consistent for sizing their watersheds.

Mike Latta stated that they were not trying to force any delineation for states. He used lava fields and sand dunes as an example of an area that should not be coded just to fit the national criteria. He said it was acceptable to have a large 5^th field in a closed-basin situation.

Linda Davis stated that larger areas had been worked out, but Idaho had some problems with areas that were too small from bordering states. She explained that Idaho had tried to keep all 6^th fields above 9,000 and then asked for a written justification for the areas that were less than 10,000 acres.

Kenny Legleiter stated that it was acceptable to have 10% of all state watersheds either above or below the criteria set forth in the standards, but nothing could be delineated below 3,000 acres.

Mike Latta stated that the bigger 5^th and 6^th field delineations were also cheaper for states.

Kenny Legleiter stated that the size criteria is merely a guide and states should use it as such. Karen Hanson agreed and restated that there is a 10% cushion for areas that are outside the guidelines.

Mike Latta stated that if you can justify making a smaller or larger area, then do it, but if you can’t delineate an area; don’t.

Erv Cowley stated that renumbering the Idaho hucs to exactly fit with Kenny’s example would be a significant job at this point in the process, and Idaho would be very reluctant to go back and renumber everything.

Genna Ashley stated that many agencies have data tied to the numbering system that is in place and it’s not just a matter of renumbering to fit the standards. Erv Cowley agreed and stated that the Forest Service is one agency that has a huge investment and data tied to the current numbering system.

Kenny Legleiter stated that the biggest issue would be edge matching with neighboring states. If that can be accomplished, the numbering would be ok.

Karen Hanson stated that another option to this problem would be to preserve the codes that have already been done and add another field to match the national criteria. She stated that she thought North Carolina had used some national funding to undertake this task.

Karen Hanson stated that the Watershed Standards Subcommittee in Washington DC has to approve the final guidelines for the draft standards and that is why the finalization process is taking so long. Mike Latta and Kenny Legleiter both agreed that there would be more graphics and examples in the new guidelines.

Al Rea asked Mike Latta what would happen if Idaho goes forward with our coding system like they had been doing. Mike Latta stated that the numbering system likely would not be changed.

Sandra Thiel stated that Idaho is starting with the upstream areas. – Karen Hanson stated that the only states she knows of who had to change their numbering system were the states that had started numbering at the pour points.

Mike Latta stated that it’s important to stay consistent within the subbasin – as far as edgematching (with other states).

Karen Hanson showed a PowerPoint presentation about the Watershed Boundary status in surrounding states.

Utah was certified about a year ago. There are some very large areas because BLM wanted management units and those were incorporated. The Bear Lake area has used the legal lake elevation as the watershed boundaries.

It was stated that some synthetic watershed boundaries were used for delineating subbasins within Idaho lava fields.

Karen Hanson went through the progress of surrounding states:

    Wyoming – first state certified

    Arizona – good lines – ground truthed

    Colorado – attributes – not finished

    New Mexico – NRCS will fund completion

    N. Dakota Health Department did most of the work

    S. Dakota USGS was the lead.

    Nebraska DNR work; NRCS funded (done by Utah).

    Washington, Oregon, California

    Titan contract - concept lines

    Nevada- titan concept lines

Karen Hanson stated that there would be another coordination meeting in Nevada the second week in June (Monday 7^th, 8^th, 9^th), in Reno. Mike Latta, Kenny Legleiter, and Karen Hanson will attend this meeting and would like a representative from Idaho to attend also. Mike Latta will send the agenda with the specific date(s) next week.

Karen Hanson stated that she attended a meeting in New York where most all of the watershed work was being accomplished via in-kind services, much like Idaho.

Mike Latta stated that an effort is underway to centralize data delineation through experienced contractors who have submitted exceptional work and know the process.

Karen Hanson stated that Michigan and Kansas delineation work was finished in Utah.

Mike Latta asked for information from Idaho to secure funding to complete the state. He stated that it was possible to utilize the shop in Wyoming (Cheyenne) with Wendy.

Kenny Legleiter stated that there was an effort to centralize data first, and then send it back to individual states for review.

Karen Hanson stated that it could be possible to give Wyoming the PNW to finish – University of Wyoming. States would have full ownership of the data but Wyoming would do the delineation/attribution work.

Genna Ashley asked about line changes and edge-matching issues that might need to be made after a state has been certified.

Kenny Legleiter stated that when a state is certified, it is pretty much "first come-first served", and the un-certified state should do everything possible to edge-match to the certified state. In cases where there is a hydrologic error, then those changes should be made and sent to the national team for correction.

Karen Hanson stated that when edge-matching with Utah, concept lines were sent to Idaho. She stated that hopefully the numbering could be maintained, and she tried to make an unbiased dataset to fit all needs – not project specific.

Linda Davis went through the Idaho PowerPoint presentation, showing status and progress of Idaho work to date.

Kenny Legleiter stated that they might be able to help with EPA grants.

Mike Latta asked about the NRCS 2 year commitment of $30k that happened years ago. Roger Hirschman stated that was before his tenure, and he was not sure about that funding.

Mike Latta asked that Idaho put together a proposal package for the state and send to him at USGS. He would try to lobby for some monetary help to complete some of the work.

There was a discussion of 24k line work that had been done for Idaho.

Genna Ashley stated that there was a major effort to complete concept lines and each data steward was responsible to do the 24k linework on their watershed as time and money allowed. She said that in some cases, 24k lines could only be completed for areas on Forest Service boundaries and she had not done an extensive check of which lines were 24k and which were not.

Leigh Bailey stated that she didn’t think any of her sub basins were completely 24k compliant, but she would check and make a list of which were.

Genna Ashley stated that the Payette sub basin was completely 24k compliant, and gave an example of the work.

Mike Latta asked if there was an area of the state that would be very easy to take the concept lines and turn them into 24k compliant boundaries.

Al Rea and Genna Ashley both agreed that either the Clearwater, Nez Perce, Payette, or Idaho Panhandle NF areas would be easier, in heavily forested areas where there were very defined ridgelines to follow.

Mike Latta asked what it would take in time/resources to get those draft-approved sub basins QA/QC’d.

Genna Ashley stated that just the linework could take between 1 – 2 weeks per sub basin, depending on the concept lines and attributes that had previously been completed and how much work was left to do.

Mike Latta asked what it would take to just verify the concept lines.

Leigh Bailey stated that we already have that information from the TWG meetings. Most of the concept lines do not follow ridgelines – FS data.

Mike Latta asked if Idaho was then in the process of flagging the concept lines that were 24k?

Genna Ashley stated that yes; she is attributing the lines that are 24k-compliant.

Linda Davis stated that some lines are done at 24k; it depends upon whom you get the lines from. She further stated that anyone at the present meeting that delineated concept lines would certainly conform to the guidelines. Some other agencies that were not as familiar with the process needed more assistance and therefore more time was possibly spent in meetings to get the concept lines.

Genna Ashley explained the graphic that Linda had in her PowerPoint presentation. She stated that the Wyoming border hucs were done at 1:24k a number of years ago, but those lines had not been gone through and minutely checked. She stated that the Payette huc had been completed at 24k and so had some of the Brownlee lines.

Linda Davis stated that Idaho wants to check each line for 24k accuracy before it is submitted to the national team. She stated that in most cases, the lines that have been submitted as 24k that may deviate from the ridgelines are fixed in the IDWR office as they are found.

Mike Latta suggested that Idaho rethink how the status map is presented, and try to show a more clear status, i.e., status of linework, attributes, etc.

Linda Davis stated that IDWR maintains a website with the status map and other information about Idaho Watershed progress.

Linda Davis stated that Erv has been working with other states to get 24k data and his data should be 24k compliant for the most part.

There was some discussion of 24k delineation:

Mike Latta suggested flagging areas as finished/not finished to expedite the process. That way, these lines would be ready for a contractor to pick up and digitize quicker.

Karen Hanson said that a good contractor would stay on the ridgelines and should be able to produce 24k data with minimal problems.

Linda Davis talked about the coordination effort between Idaho and Montana. Catherine Love and Duane Anderson devised a system that split up the sub basins depending on acreage, and the work was shared.

Oregon and Washington have two coordinators: Ken Adee and Dan Wickwire, as well as local land managers such as Tim Bliss from Wallowa Whitman NF

Mike Latta and Kenny Legleiter talked about suggestions on how to depict the status map graphic. They would like to see exactly where the basins are in terms of the scale of the linework, along with the other status.

Genna Ashley stated that she could send out a survey to each contributing agency to find out how much work needs to be done to complete at the 24k level.

Leigh Bailey stated that some of her forest was 24k-complete but some may not be.

Mike Latta asked how much of the concept lines and attributes were completed for the state.

Linda Davis showed which hucs had been completed for concept lines. She stated that from most of these hucs, the names and numbers had been attributed. The downstream codes, and modification fields had not been done for any of the hucs yet.

Genna Ashley stated that in cases where a huc was either too large or too small a justification was written and put in the notes.

It was noted that most of Idaho’s hucs were within the size standards.

Genna Ashley will put together a survey of contributors or stewards, to get a better status of each huc for both attributes and linework.

Mike Latta asked that the following three criteria be identified for linework status:

Partially done - checked for 24k

Concept lines complete

Pending or not addressed

Genna Ashley stated that she had made an additional attribute in the .aat table to identify the linework that had been completed checked for 24k accuracy.

There was a discussion of what is presently looked for to "pass" linework for 24k compliant. Genna Ashley showed a map and an example of linework that she considers 24k compliant.

Kenny Legleiter stated that he has updated the standards, specifically for naming and land features where there are no hydrologic features to name.

Karen Hanson stated that she estimated the cost per sub basin at $2,500 - $3,000 to complete the work, given good concept lines to follow.

Linda Davis stated that Idaho could send Utah concept lines to finish that had the initial names and numbers attributed. Idaho hasn’t decided yet if it will do more than the required fields.

Karen Hanson talked about the Hu_10_mod and Hu_12_mod fields that were required.

Al Rea stated that he is going to need good 24k 8-digit huc boundaries within the next 6 months to complete a project for DEQ. Steve Garcia will probably work on those lines to get them to the 24k stage. They have identified the 4 sub basins that include the Boise River as a pilot.

Linda Davis stated that we would schedule a TWG meeting to review 8-digit huc boundaries to get ready for this project, and review the Idaho linework. She would like to do a "spot check" of the National Forest linework, both on and off FS boundary lines. Clearwater and Payette would both be good candidates for this.

Karen Hanson stated that the Modification fields (hu_10_mod, hu_12_mod) are for when a change (transfer) actually impacts a boundary, and is a required field.

Karen Hanson stated that she had worked with Tom Potter (NRCS) in Montana and Ian Reid (NRCS) in Oregon for coordination.

Mike Latta stated that if data were submitted across the border into Canada, then he would like that data also, even though the standards currently say to stop at the international border. If that data is available, submit it also.

There were several hucs that were looked at for clarification and guidance:

Mike Latta stated that because of the hydrologic features of hucs 17040204 and 17040203, if the 4^th fields were being created from scratch, these two probably should have been combined.

Genna Ashley read the e-mails from Valdon Hancock. The group reviewed Valdon’s suggestions regarding Big Cottonwood Creek and agreed with his delineations on all accounts. Karen Hanson stated that she had also had some areas that she had to arbitrarily extend to the contour lines, and said that Valdon had done exactly what she would have done in that situation too.

Genna Ashley read the e-mail from Betsy. The group reviewed this huc and agreed with Betsy’s delineations. They said that it is acceptable to make the pour point where the alluvial fan starts in situations like that.

The feasibility for Al Rea’s project to get good 4^th field huc boundaries at 24k quality was discussed.

Mike Latta emphasized the importance of coming up with a list outlining in detail what it would take to finish this project in a year.

The meeting was concluded at approximately 5:00 pm, MST.