TWG Hydro/Watershed Meeting – Idaho Department of Water Resources

Monday, January 14, 2002

1:00 p.m.

 

Minutes

 

Introductions:

 

Dave Hoover – NRCS

Mike Beaty – USBR

Genna Ashley-Poulson – IDWR

Sandra Thiel – IDWR

Bart Butterfield – IDFG

Nathan Bentley – State GIS Coordinator

Tracy Fuller - USGS

Al Rea - USGS

 

Phone Conference:

Douglas Fitting – Idaho Department of Lands, Coeur d’Alene

Nick Gerhardt – Hydrologist, Nez Perce National Forest

Bill Bogue – EPA, Seattle

Leigh Bailey - Boise, Payette National Forest

 

Hydrography

 

Sandy showed the status map of USFS/USGS High Resolution NHD Production Project in Idaho.  Forest Service intends to do all of Idaho, except for non-Forest land.  Those areas would include sub-basin numbers 17050103 (Middle Snake-Succor), 17050107 (Middle Owyhee), 17050108 (Jordan), and 17050115 (Middle Snake-Payette).  TWG needs to decide what to do with the remaining Hucs.  It would cost approximately $18,000 per Huc to process through a contractor. 

 

There was a question on the table regarding following what Oregon/Washington did on their hydro project.  The concern was that they are currently using a hybrid of two different systems (NHD, LLID) and Idaho would like to stay with one system.

 

There was an e-mail received from Brian Sanborn, (USFS NRIS Water) that had a July 1st target date for completion of the southern and eastern border of the State.  All Salmon/Challis, Caribou, Targhee and Payette should be done by July 1st also.  “Done” would mean linework done, built, etc., but the data could still be out for review and QC.

 

Tracy Fuller remarked that if there is any federal money available, it would be a high priority to earmark it for completion of the four remaining Hucs along the border.  USGS should know by June 1 about their funding levels.

 

Question was raised about a contingent plan if no funding was available from USGS – It was decided that the TWG could contact Dan Wickwire (BLM) to see if there would be any leftover money from BLM.  The group felt it would be counter-productive to get someone unfamiliar with the process to finish the remaining hucs because of the time involved in the learning process.

 

Tracy Fuller suggested that, in the event of no funding or low-funding, the appending/clipping process could be completed in-house, then the conflation portion of the process could be given to the contractor at that point to save some money.

 

It was decided that it should be the responsibility of the TWG to apply for and secure funding to finish the 24k hydrography portion of the 4 above-identified hucs.

 

Mike Beaty will add this request to his proposal and ask Oregon to support our efforts.  Mike meets with the Oregon folks Thursday (1/17/02) in Portland.

 

Tracy Fuller remarked that if funding could not be secured, it would mean more in-house work for various agencies involved.  He also mentioned that only the 5th field is done along the Humboldt (Nevada/Idaho border), primarily because there is not a lot of hydro in that area, but this could possibly add four more partial hucs to our request.

 

Watersheds

 

Sandy showed a list compiled of the primary landholders for each Huc (the top 10% in most cases).  She explained that IDWR is currently in the process of reviewing the 5th/6th level hucs for the state.  IDWR proposes that the TWG have an initial review with the primary landholders and ask for people to look at the linework, then send back to the TWG with the comments.  Sandy also mentioned that IDWR has a new ArcIms website with the review coverage available for download for those who wish to review.

 

There was a question on the table regarding whether or not to send out reviews to a broad-based group or not.  Dave Hoover stated that we would not want to unintentionally exclude anyone from the process and if was doubtful that anyone not directly involved with watersheds would be interested in the review process anyway.

 

Nick Gerhard suggested that the TWG identify a lead data steward for each huc based on ownership acreage, and that other interested parties should be asked to review hucs specific to their interest within each area.

 

Bill Bogue mentioned that Dale Gunther with REO in Portland is setting up a clearinghouse for Oregon Watershed data, and maybe Idaho could check into getting some space on that site for review purposes.  

 

Dave Hoover brought up the question regarding how the actual changes were made for that site, i.e., if the changes were made to that dataset, etc.  Bill Bogue said that it is a physical check-in/check-out site with edit locks in place, with a data steward assigned.  This would be the system for a very detailed review process, and an ArcIms site could be for casual reviews and checks.

 

Mike Beaty remarked that a lead agency should be assigned as a data steward within each huc and one person should be responsible for what happens within their assigned huc.

 

Sandra Thiel stated that the eventual goal is certification of all watersheds within the state and it is a good idea to have a fairly detailed review process to avoid the possibility of someone coming back later and saying they had no opportunity for input, etc. 

 

The question was brought up regarding ownership acreage.  If there are two agencies with very close acreages, would we want both as data stewards or only one lead agency.

 

Nick Gerhard suggested that it would be best to have only one lead agency per huc.  The agencies could get together and coordinate, but it would be better to have one lead to avoid any confusion or duplicate datasets, etc.

 

Mike Beaty remarked that in Washington they assigned each huc based on acreage, then presented a request to the would-be data steward and gave them an opportunity to either accept or decline the stewardship.

 

Nathan Bentley agreed that this would be a good procedure so that the TWG knows who the stewards are and to avoid someone getting ‘stuck’ with the job.  This will hopefully avoid having someone commit to work and then not doing it.

 

Leigh Bailey stated that there was a map produced by Linda Davis some time ago showing ownership by Forest Service (Region 1 and 4), BLM, IDWR, Boise Cascade and Idaho Department of Lands.  She also thought it identified a main contact person from each agency. 

 

Sandy Thiel proposed using this resource, along with the “Huc by Ownership Acreage” table.  She will go through the list and assign a primary steward for each huc and draft a letter requesting they take the lead for that huc.  Part of the responsibilities will be to review the linework that exists and not actually do any changes.  They would also coordinate the review process for their area.

 

Nick Gerhard asked where the source data was for all watersheds

 

Sandra Thiel explained that IDWR has data from a variety of different sources.  For example we have approximately nine coverages from the Panhandle, etc.  There are many contributors of data in both coverage and shapefile formats and it would depend on the Huc in question as to the data source.

 

Leigh Bailey asked if the data steward should receive comments on their hucs during the review process or if it should be the responsibility of the TWG to get the comments.

 

After much discussion it was decided that if comments are taken from the steward, then one place should be the data repository, and after the review period from the steward the data would be returned back to the repository.  Lee stated that the dataset could then be returned to the TWG for the actual changes, etc.

 

Sandra Thiel proposed that after the data steward has reviewed the data, the TWG would take the data, agree on the changes, and if necessary draw ‘concept lines’ in a group setting, then IDWR/NRCS, etc. would make the changes, and the Huc would be sent out for further review to a broader-based group of interested parties (possibly through an ArcIms site, etc.)

 

Nathan Bentley agreed that the TWG would definitely want to review the proposed changes made by the data stewards to ensure that they meet the FGDC National Standards, etc.

 

Al Rea stated that he is a member of the certification team (of about 10 people) who will be reviewing hucs.  They will be looking at the “big picture’ at this point from a national prospective, and that all of the linework, and attributing must be completed.

 

Nick Gerhard stated that if the data stewards submit changes, then the TWG should encourage them to do the local coordination on their hucs before sending them back to IDWR for physical changes.

 

Al Rea explained that the concept lines could be drawn out 1st, at a crude scale, then the work done for each huc.

 

Sandra Thiel explained that Idaho would not need to do that in most cases, because the lines have already been done, sometimes to the 10th level on some of the data.  The exception would be changes regarding acreage limitations, etc.

 

Nick Gerhard stated that he was the contact person for the Nez Perce National Forest, Dick Jones was the contact for the Clearwater National Forest and Rick Patton was the contact for the Panhandle National Forest and they could be contacts for those areas.

 

After some discussion it was decided that the process would be as follows:

 

1.                  Potential Data Stewards would be identified as per the Huc/Acreage list – Sandy will send out a letter requesting participation from each potential data steward.

2.                  After data stewards have accepted, hucs will be sent to them as they are completed by IDWR (for linework, etc.), with a request for review and a time-frame that the TWG would like to have them returned.

3.                  The TWG will meet again (round-table discussion) and discuss the proposed changes, agree to make the proposed changes, etc.

4.                  Agreed-upon changes will be made by IDWR, or NRCS, etc., and then sent out to a broader-based audience for review (possibly through the ArcIms site, etc.) with a deadline for review and comments.

5.                  After the review period has expired, the TWG will meet again (this could possibly be done through a NetMeeting) and again, review and make any additional changes, etc.

6.                   The Huc will then be ready for certification review.

 

A question was raised as to who would have final say in the review process.  It was decided that, because the final goal is for certification in the National Watershed Database, the TWG should take the responsibility of getting the data ready for certification. 

 

Sandra Thiel agreed to make the list of potential data stewards and draft a letter requesting stewardship.  In cases where the majority of the Huc acreage is “private”, the State would retain stewardship.

 

It was agreed that the linework would be done first to meet 24k standards before sending out to data stewards.

 

Nick Gerhard suggested that the group pick two or three hucs to run through a “pilot process” to test the above procedure and make any necessary changes before going any further.  After much discussion it was decided to put the following hucs through the review process:

 

                        Huc 17010215 – Panhandle National Forest

                        Huc 17040204 – Wyoming Border Huc, Teton River

                        Huc 17050101 – CJ Strike Dam

 

Al Rea suggested a TWG meeting where a projector could be set up against a whiteboard, together with all DRG’s, etc., and everyone gets together makes changes on the board, erases, etc., until the TWG agrees on changes to be made.  Those who could not participate could be present via NetMeeting, but may not get the full benefit of the proposed changes due to the white board.

 

Nathan Bentley stated that there could be a potential problem with Forest Service people hooking up to a Net Meeting connection due to firewall restrictions, and Al Rea suggested trying this out before the TWG meets next time.

 

After some discussion, it was decided that the next TWG meeting would be Thursday, February 28, 2002 in Conference Room C, IDWR at 1:00 p.m.

 

Action Items:

1.      Sandra Thiel will identify potential data stewards based on ownership and draft a letter requesting stewardship

2.      After data stewards are identified for Hucs 17010215, 17040204 and 17050101, they will be sent out for review.

3.      Connection will be tested for Net Meeting forest service hookups.

4.      Next Meeting – 2/28/02 @ 1:00p.m. - IDWR

 

Meeting Adjourned at approximately 3:15.