Hydrologic Units of the NW United States

Steeves, Peter and Douglas Nebert 1994 Hydrologic Units of the NW United States - Columbia River Basin 1 vector digital data Reston, Virginia U.S. Geological Survey http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?huc250k working.R10SDE.ColumbiaBasin Columbia River Basin subset, extracted by EPA Region 10, of: The Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) was developed in the mid 70s to put into digital form a number of data layers which were of interest to the USGS. One of these data layers was the Hydrologic Units. The map is based on the Hydrologic Unit Maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Water Data Coordination, together with the list descriptions and name of region, subregion, accounting units, and cataloging unit. The hydrologic units are encoded with an eight-digit number that indicates the hydrologic region (first two digits), hydrologic subregion (second two digits), accounting unit (third two digits), and cataloging unit (fourth two digits). The data produced by GIRAS was originally collected at a scale of 1:250K. Some areas, notably major cities in the west, were recompiled at a scale of 1:100K. In order to join the data together and use the data in a geographic information system (GIS) the data were processed in the ARC/INFO GUS software package. Within the GIS, the data were edgematched and the neatline boundaries between maps were removed to create a single data set for the conterminous United States. HUC, GIRAS, Hydrologic Units, 1:250 See final process steps for modifications done by EPA Region 10. This data set was compiled originally to provide the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study units with an intermediate-scale river basin boundary for extracting other GIS data layers. The data can also be used for illustration purposes at intermediate or small scales (1:250,000 to 1:2 million). Procedures_Used: The data was recieved as compressed giras tar files representing either a 1:250,000-scale (1:250K) quadrangle or a 1:100,000-scale (1:100K) quadrangle. Each file was named after its respective quadrangle. A coverage of 1:250k quadrangles was used to divide the country up into four sections and get a list of names for each section. Using IRASARC2, an aml designed to create an ARC/INFO data set (coverage) from a GIRAS file and a corresponding neat line coverage, it was quickly discovered that many of the quad names were to long for the program (i.e. Sault_saint_marie) and a generic naming system for files and coverages was incorporated. In 1 of 10 cases, the name of the quadrangle did not correspond with the name of the file. These problems were traced down and corrected (after all four sections were converted there were many files left over...these wound up be all the 1:100k quads which did not have similar names to the 1:250k files). After the files for a given section were all converted into ARC/INFO format, a loop aml was run which copied a coverage and its neatline cover into temporary storage (there was not enough room in info to deal with a large number of files in one directory), attached to that directory, built line topology, and went into the editor, ARCEDIT. In ARCEDIT, the outer edge (original neatline) was selected and deleted an the mathematically-calculated neatline coverage from the GIRASNEAT AML program was copied in using the ARCEDIT GET command. The original neatline was replaced with a calculated neatline because in all cases, the outline of the coverage quad never quite conformed to a "true" neatline causing overlaps and gapes between adjacent maps. The new neatline was connected to the internal arcs where they intersected. Lines which did not quite join the new neatline were extended to the edge with a maximum tolerance of 500 meters. All extensions were made within this tolerance. All arcs which extended beyond the new neatline were clipped off within a 500 meter tolerance as arguments to the CLEAN command into a separate directory. Both the neatline and huc coverages were deleted from the temporary space, and the program looped to the next coverage. Another program was then run which added an item to the .aat called OUTER, went into INFO, and populated the attribute for all arcs composing the new neatline. This was done by reselecting for the identity of the polygon to the left or right of each arc whose value was "1", the identity of the outer "universe" polygon (reselect lpoly# = 1 or rpoly# = 1 in the .aat and calculated outer to = 1). All coverages were checked for additional dangles and then a MAPJOIN was run using NET as the feature option. Finally, most map edge lines were removed from the MAPJOINed coverage using the DISSOLVE to create a seamless basin coverage with polygons (basins) and arcs (boundaries) with attributes. Quality control methods were applied to the resulting coverage by detecting and fixing node and label errors and remaining neat line arc problems (i.e. long neat lines still in the coverage). Many more problems arose in the western part of the country than in the east. Bordering HUC code disagreements between quads caused a number of cases in which neatlines did not dissolve. These were provisionally corrected for the most part, however there were several cases that required external review and editing to fix, and are now incorporated in the final data set. After all 1:250K sections were completed, the same procedure was run for the handful of 1:100k quads. These were mapjoined with the 1:250k quads to provide more detailed coverage where it was available. Revisions: Revision #1. See above for all the details Process_Date 10/92 Revision #2. Seattle and Bakersfield quadrangles were missing from the composite supplied by Pete Steeves. These were manually pasted in using Arcedit with small tolerances. Labelerrors were remedied and most dangles were removed using the Eliminate command. Process_Date 1/93 Revision #3. The following changes were made to a 1:250,000-scale version derived from National Mapping Divisions Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) data. The discrepancies in the hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) in California were changed because the California State Hydrologic Unit Map (HUM) was revised in 1978 but the 1:250,000-scale digital dataset was not. This has been reviewed by Bill Battaglin, Doug Nebert, and Paul Kapinos and is noted under Reviews (#6 below). The areas in which the HUC labels were incorrect in California were 180701, 180702, 180703, 180600, 180300, and 180400. Boundaries were added in 180702 and 180600 from the 1:2 million source. Along the Oregon/California border, a boundary was added in 180102. In Wyoming, a boundary was added in 100902 from the 1:2 million source. Labels were corrected in these HUCs to reflect state updates, and where necessary, to add new labels to the newly-drawn boundaries. Map edges were manually removed in Arkansas, California, and along the Oregon/California border. After the changes were made and saved in Arcedit, the build and clean commands were executed, followed by labelerrors. Three polygons had duplicate labels and were corrected. The labels were centered in the polygons by the centroidlabels command. Verification of the coverage was done by the describe command. Process_Date 12/93. Revision #4. The NAMES file was added to the data set and its attributes were defined in the ATT file of the documentaton. This table is a lookup table to correlate the 8-digit numbers with verbose names officially assigned to the basins. Process_Date 3/94. Revision #5. The following corrections were made to the 1:250,000-scale coverage of Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC250): Valid HUC code, 7140103, added to HUC250.NAM. Bourbeuse, Missouri. HUC250.NAM was sorted on HUC. HUC frequency >1, tiny polygons were deleted that were erroneous: 17010212 deleted small poly to NW of main poly 10130305 deleted small poly to S of main poly 10230005 deleted small poly to S of main poly 14020001 deleted small poly to N of main poly 15050201 deleted small poly to W of main poly 04080203 deleted small poly to N of main poly 03120001 deleted small poly to S of main poly Invalid HUC codes, not in names file, were corrected: 18020023 HUC should be 18020111 (in N-central California) 18070010 HUC should be 18070303 (in so. California) 15010017 HUC should be 15010007, delete arc separating it (in nw Arizona) 1870201 HUC should be 18070201 (in so. California, missing an 0) 1870204 HUC should be 18070204 (in so. California, missing an 0) 18060012 HUC should be 18060011 (in so. California, improper polygon closure) 18060011 HUC label added after polygon closure of 18060011 HUC frequency >1, larger polys were checked and corrected: 18020126 western poly is 18020108 in HUC2M (CA) 18050005 southern poly is 18050006 in HUC2M (CA) 18060006 split into 2 polys, no apparent reason, delete arc splitting polys (CA) 04110001 and 04100001 together are 04100001 in HUC2M (MI) (MAPEDGE was deleted) 02080108 northwestern poly is 02080208 in HUC2M (VA) The invalid HUC codes, and 7140103 were found by relating to the HUC250.NAM file, and identifying polygons with no match in the names file. The rest were found by looking at the 96 polygons which had HUC codes with frequencies >1 in the PAT. Most of these seemed to be correct, and were along the US-Canada boundary, or were islands along the coasts. These errors were found in the HUC250 coverage published as OFR 94-0326. Process_Date 12/94 & 1/95 Reviews_Applied_to_Data: Peer review, 10/18/93, Bill Battaglin, USGS-WRD, Lakewood, Co, memo to Doug Nebert: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have completed a review of the 1:250,000 scale hydrologic units coverage (HUC) and found the digital data and metadata to be of high quality. I have a few suggested improvements to the digital data and to the documentation. Below is a summary of the methods I used to check feature accuracy in the digital data base and the problems I found. Digital Features: The line work for the HUC coverage was checked against the line work from: (1) the 1:2,000,000 HUC coverage by plotting both data sets out on one large graphic (about 1:3,000,000). No major discrepancies were found except in coastal areas where the 1:2,000,000 scale coverage had more detail than the 1:250,000 scale coverage. (2) line work from 1:24,000 scale digitized drainage basins in Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey. The match was generally good with departures generally less than 2500 meters. The biggest departures were in Colorado and were as large as 4000 meters. (3) line work from the 1:2,000,000 scale rivers coverage for the USA by plotting both data sets out on one large graphic (about 1:3,000,000). In general the nesting of streams in HUCs was good and HUC boundaries intersected steams at stream intersections. In some places (SE New Mexico, SE California and NW Utah), the streams coverage does not match the HUC coverage that well, but this could easily be because of the unusual nature of streams in these areas or because of inaccuracies in the streams coverage. (4) line work from 1:100,000 scale streams from Colorado, Illinois, and Kansas. The nesting of streams in HUCs was very good. Stream arcs for the most part did not cross HUC arcs except at stream intersections. The error (distance from intersection to HUC line) between HUC lines and stream intersection was less than 500 meters at all intersections checked (about 25). Problems with Line work: (1) There was a very large number of very short arcs in the coverage (3211 Lt 1000 meters long and 1729 Lt. 100 meters long). Most of these arcs were internal (did not border on outside polygon) and coded as 250k edges(3) (almost 3000) but some were 250k (2) lines and one was a 2m dlg (4). Arcs with lengths of less than 100 meters (maybe even less than 1000 meters) are difficult to deal with when editing subsets of the coverage, and they also add to the overall size of the database. I know many of these lines were created in the process of edgematching the quads, but I think the information content of these very short arcs is less valuable than the hassle and overhead involved in keeping them in the coverage. (2) The edit distance for the coverage was set to a very small value. This may have been required for earlier processing, however, it makes the finished coverage difficult to work with. I had to reset the edit distance to a larger value when I wanted to select arcs in ARCEDIT interactively. This, of course, will be one of the things users will want to do with the new HUC coverage. Polygon labels/attributes: (1) Label point accuracy was checked by making a point cover of polygon labels from the 1:2,000,000 HUC coverage and then doing an identify of those points in the 1:250,000 scale HUC polygon. This procedure looked for both new or missing polygons, and was also used to check attribute values. I also dissolved both coverages by accounting unit and compared the number and location of remaining polygons. Problems with labels/attributes: (1) I discovered a total of 649 places where the HUC codes from the label point of the 1:2,000,000 coverage did not match the HUC code for the 1:250,000 HUC polygon that it fell within. As you had indicated in the documentation, there were a lot of differences in California. The 2m HUC had lots of label points resulting from islands, bays, and estuaries that are not included in the 1:250,000 scale HUC coverages. In other places the polygons seemed to be the same but the HUC codes were different. For example HUC 18020111 in the 1:2,000,000 coverage is coded as HUC 18020023 in the 1:250,000 coverage. There were also many differences in the Great Lakes. It seems odd that the 1:2,000,000 coverage should have more detail with regard to coastal features than the 1:250,000 scale coverage has. There were also internal polygon label differences in Minnesota (7100001 in 250k, 70200001 in 2m), Colorado (10090204 in 250k, 10180007 in 2m), Illinois (mistake in the 2m HUC I think), and Louisiana (11140203 in 250k, 11140202 in 2m). Texas and Florida also have a few that look like they should be checked. (2) The dissolved 1:2,000,000 coverage contained 350 accounting unit polygons while the dissolved 1:250,000 HUC coverage only contained 177. There were large differences in the way the Accounting unit polygons looked in the Great Lakes Region, and in parts of California, Wyoming, and Florida. Again, many of the differences result from the use of a cruder coastline in the 1:250,000 scale HUC coverage. Coverage Documentation: The coverage documentation was reviewed both editorially and for overall completeness. The documentation was editorially sound and did not need any corrections. Problems with the Documentation: (1) The redefined items in the pat file were not defined in the data dictionary portion of the documentation file. (2) The complete reference to the source material for the data is not in the documentation file." Response to Peer review by Bill Battaglin, 1/5/93, Doug Nebert,USGS-WRD Reston ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Data were reviewed for attribute accuracy against a 1:2million base through random audit of polygon features. Line attributes were verified by symbolization on the screen. Regions were shaded in to verify correct polygon values for HUC at the Hydrologic Region level. Documentation was updated. The short arcs along the quadrangle boundaries were kept in the data set due to the importance of maintaining as much original information as possible. Basin codes were updated and additional erroneous neatlines removed. Peer review, 11/10/93, Doug Nebert, USGS-WRD, Reston, memo to Paul Kapinos: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "As you are aware, we have several digital versions of the hydrologic unit maps for the United States and I am in the process of verifying and publishing a 1:250,000-scale version derived from National Mapping Division Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) data as part of their land use mapping program of the 1970s and early 1980s. In comparing the 1:250,000-scale data reviewers noticed differences in both basin definition and hydrologic unit codes in Southern California and in the San Joaquin valley. The 1974 state map, at 1:500,000-scale agrees with the 1:250,000-scale GIRAS data in boundaries and numbers, whereas the 1:2.5 mill "wall map" of the U.S. agrees with the 1:2,000,000 digital data set. Both p maps are authoritative sources of information, but apparently something chan between the two maps. On a related note, it is worthwhile to mention that the 1:2.5 million-scale wall map for the western U.S. is being revised to include new Alaska hydrolo unit codes before reprinting. It would be wise to be sure that the boundary depicted there are also the authoritative ones. I would appreciate your review and adjudication of the California hydrologic unit definitions in order for us to publish this digital data set. Please provide a written response (e-mail and paper copy) and marked-up maps as to which basins and boundaries are current." Peer review, 11/29/93, Paul Kapinos, USGS-WRD, memo to Doug Nebert: ------------------------------------------------------------------- "The discrepancies in the hydrologic unit codes (and some boundaries) in the State of California are due to the fact that the California State Hydrologic Unit Map (HUM) was revised in 1978 but the 1:250,000-scale digital data set was not. The events that most likely occurred can be summarized as follows: o The 1:500,000-scale HUMs were published by OWDC over a period of about four years between 1974 and 1978. o The National Mapping Division (NMD) overlaid the hydrologic unit boundaries on their 1:250,000-scale land-use and land-cover map series after each State HUM was completed, and later digitized these boundaries and their respective codes. o In 1978, the State of California asked OWDC to revise the hydrologic unit boundaries and codes in the central valley. o The 1:500,000-scale California HUM was revised and reprinted but NMD was either not informed of the revisions or chose not to revise or redigitize their 1:250,000-scale overlays. o Once all the HUMs were printed (including the 1978 revisions of California and South Dakota), the 1980 1:2.5 million-scale United States wall map was published using the up-to-date (1978) boundaries and codes. Based on the above summary, I would recommend using the boundaries and codes from the 1:2.5 million-scale map and the 1:2,000,000 digital data set. Please be aware that other hydrologic unit boundaries and/or codes may have been revised when individual State HUMs were reprinted by OWDC. I doubt if there has been any attempt to update any of the digital data sets with these changes." Response to Peer Review by Paul Kapinos, Doug Nebert 2/14/94: ------------------------------------------------------------- The areas in question in California were updated to reflect the more current information as contained in the 1:2 million data set. Polygon hydrologic unit codes were updated in the Central Valley and in coastal Southern California. Where necessary, 1:2 million-scale linework was substituted to define the correct basin boundaries where no corresponding information was available at a different scale. Related_Spatial_and_Tabular_Data_Sets: Any data set which has hydrologic unit codes as part of their data may be able to use this data. Other_References_Cited: U.S. Geological Survey, 1990. Land Use and Land Cover Digital Data from 1:250,000- and 1:100,000-Scale Maps. Data Users Guide 4, 33 pp, Reston Virginia. Notes: en 1994 publication date Complete Unknown -124.756976 -109.763588 48.999990 40.086728 -124.081868 -109.763588 41.127932 52.880019 None Hydrologic Unit Watersheds HUC HUCs Sub-basins polygons None United States Oregon Idaho California Washington Montana Pacific Northwest Region 10 None None None None None These data were digitized at a scale of 1:250,000 with some portions of coverage at 1:100,000- and 1:2 million scale. Limitations of the data strictly revolve around this scale input. Use of these boundaries with larger scale data (i.e. 1:24k hydrography) is not recommended as it would be beyond the resolution capabilities of the data set. Mark Negri U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Div. (WRD) Computer Specialist, Spatial Data Support Unit mailing address

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-445

Reston VA 20191 USA 703-648-5613 703-648-5295 mnegri@usgs.gov 6:30am-3:30pm EST May contact thru email or telephone US Geological Survey None Unclassified None ESRI ArcCatalog 8.1.1.649 Feature Class See Entity_Attribute_Information See Explanation Attribute accuracy is described, where present, with each attribute defined in the Entity and Attribute Section. Polygon and chain-node topology present. variable Resolution as reported 250,000 and 100,000 ELIMINATE HUC250E HUC250F KEEPEDGE POLY withheld 19930107 0959 withheld BUILD HUC250F LINE withheld 19930107 1000 withheld RENAME HUC250F HUC250 withheld 19930107 1156 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930107 1158 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930107 1237 withheld COPY /HOME2A/RESDGS1/DDNEBERT/HUC250/HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19930107 1245 withheld COPY HUC250 /DSDL1/CUSA/TILES/CUSA/HUC250 withheld 19930111 0917 withheld EXPORT COVER /DSDL1/CUSA/TILES/CUSA/HUC250 HUC250.E00 withheld 19930113 1030 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1210 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1211 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1213 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1219 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1225 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1228 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1238 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19930713 1240 withheld COPY /DSDL1/CUSA/TILES/CUSA/HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19931102 1403 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931129 1441 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931130 1444 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931130 1458 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931201 0848 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931201 0908 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931201 1317 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931206 0826 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931206 1111 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931206 1436 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931206 1503 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931207 0749 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931207 0825 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931207 0840 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931208 1119 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931208 1123 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250 withheld 19931208 1138 withheld TOLERANCE HUC250 withheld 19931208 1427 withheld CLEAN HUC250 HUC250C 50 10 withheld 19931208 1509 withheld LABELERRORS HUC250C withheld 19931214 0753 withheld ARCEDIT /DSDL2/JPORTER/HUC250C withheld 19931214 0836 withheld BUILD HUC250C withheld 19931214 0843 withheld LABELERRORS HUC250C withheld 19931214 0843 withheld CENTROIDLABELS HUC250C INSIDE withheld 19931214 0850 withheld RENAME HUC250C HUC250 withheld 19931220 1410 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 0934 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1007 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1105 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1153 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1222 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1235 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1324 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1341 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1401 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1416 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1422 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1426 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19931221 1430 withheld IMPORT COVER HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19940117 1651 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19940117 1716 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19940117 1744 withheld DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE DDNEBERT withheld 19940307 1259 withheld EXPORT COVER HUC250 /DSDL1/CUSA/DATABASE/WAIS/HUC250.E00 withheld 19940411 1056 withheld EXPORT COVER /DSDL1/CUSA/TILES/CUSA/HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19940411 1546 withheld EXPORT COVER HUC250 HUC250_CUSA.E00 withheld 19941017 1112 withheld JPORTER COPY /DSDL1/CUSA/TILES/CUSA/HUC250 /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941220 1045 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941220 1242 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19941220 1246 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941220 1300 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19941220 1303 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941220 1308 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19941220 1311 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941220 1408 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19941220 1411 withheld JPORTER DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19941221 1043 withheld JPORTER DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19941221 1107 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941221 1245 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19941221 1248 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19941221 1441 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19941221 1444 withheld JPORTER EXPORT COVER /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 HUC250.DEC withheld 19941222 1203 withheld JPORTER EXPORT COVER /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19950120 0821 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 0910 withheld JPORTER CLEAN HUC250 withheld 19950127 0930 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1010 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1012 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 withheld 19950127 1015 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1033 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 withheld 19950127 1036 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1050 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 withheld 19950127 1053 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1115 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 withheld 19950127 1118 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1356 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19950127 1400 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950127 1408 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19950127 1411 withheld JPORTER IDEDIT HUC250 POLY withheld 19950127 1544 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19950130 1022 withheld JPORTER EXPORT COVER /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19950131 1013 withheld JPORTER ARCEDIT /HOME/GIS/JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 withheld 19950410 1033 withheld JPORTER BUILD HUC250 POLY withheld 19950410 1038 withheld JPORTER DOCUMENT HUC250 UPDATE JPORTER withheld 19950410 1048 withheld JPORTER DOCUMENT HUC250 DELETE JPORTER withheld 19950410 1049 withheld JPORTER DOCUMENT HUC250 COPY /DSDL1/CUSA/TILES/CUSA/HUC250 JPORTER withheld 19950410 1051 withheld MNEGRI COPY ~JPORTER/HUC/HUC250 HUC250 withheld 19950411 1310 withheld MNEGRI ARCSDTS HUC250 HUC250SDTS.TGZ PREF withheld 19950411 1424 withheld MNEGRI ARCSDTS HUC250 HUC250.SDTS.TGZ PREF withheld 19950412 0920 withheld MNEGRI EXPORT COVER HUC250 HUC250.E00 withheld 19950412 0932 withheld MNEGRI EXPORT COVER HUC250 HUC250.E00 withheld 19950428 0832 withheld MNEGRI ARCSDTS HUC250 HUC250.SDTS.TGZ PREF withheld 19950428 0951 withheld MNEGRI EXPORT COVER HUC250 /SCRATCH_AREA1/MNEGRI/HUC250.E00 NONE withheld 19950919 1725 withheld Extracted HUCs for states of WA, OR, ID including HUCs extending into surrounding states from USGS data sets 17 and 18; projected data using ArcInfo PROJECT command from original projection as follows: Projection ALBERS Datum NAD27 Units METERS Spheroid CLARKE1866 Parameters: 1st standard parallel 29 30 0.000 2nd standard parallel 45 30 0.000 central meridian -96 0 0.000 latitude of projection's origin 23 0 0.000 false easting (meters) 0.00000 false northing (meters) 0.00000 TO Projection Geographic, Units DD, Datum NAD83; then loaded data into ArcSDE. 20010111 Matt Gubitosa US EPA Region 10 GIS Analyst mailing and physical address

1200 6th Ave OEA-095

Seattle WA 98101 USA 206 553 4059 gubitosa.matt@epa.gov ArcInfo 8.1, ArcSDE 8.1 Joined attributes Name and States from STORET data source December 17 2001 Matt Gubitosa US EPA Region 10 GIS Analyst mailing and physical address

1200 6th Ave, OEA-095

Seattle WA 98101 USA 206.553.4059 gubitosa.matt@epa.gov Extracted polygons for Hydrologic Region 17, Columbia River Basin. withheld 20060509 15165200 EPA Region 10 Matt Gubitosa GIS Analyst mailing and physical address

1200 6th Ave, OEA 095

Seattle WA 98101 USA 206 553 4059 gubiosa.matt@epa.gov ArcGIS 9.2 20070727 Dataset copied. withheld 20080910 11002800 Dataset copied. withheld 20080910 11425400 Dataset copied. withheld 20090318 14043700 Vector Simple FALSE 0 TRUE FALSE North American Datum of 1983 Geodetic Reference System 80 6378137.000000 298.257222 GCS_North_American_1983 1.000000 Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates Hydrologic Unit Map Feature Class 0 Shape_Area Shape_Area Double 8 0 0 Area of feature in internal units squared. Esri Positive real numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Shape_Length Double 8 0 0 Feature geometry. ESRI Coordinates defining the features. SHAPE Name Integer 4 0 0 Feature geometry. ESRI Coordinates defining the features. Shape_Length OBJECTID OID 4 0 0 Length of feature in internal units. Esri Positive real numbers that are automatically generated. Internal feature number. ESRI Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Geometry 0 0 0 OBJECTID For definition of drainage basins, there are two principal tabular data elements of interest. The first, "HUC", stands for the Hydrologic Unit Code and includes the 8-digit cataloging unit as assigned to the basin polygon by the U.S. Geological Survey. The second item, "SOURCE", is an attribute of each bounding line segment (arc) and incorporates a code to define the source and scale of the source linework. Because this data set includes linework from different scale sources, it is important to recognize the presence and use of this item in quality evaluation. The SOURCE item has four special codes to describe the source linework. Code 1 stands for all arcs that were from 1:100,000 scale GIRAS files and were internal to the quadrangle (no neatlines). Code 2 stands for all arcs from the 1:250,000-scale GIRAS files which were internal to the quadrangle. Code 3 is for lines from either GIRAS source scale but were part of the neatline which may be used to connect arcs that do not join cleanly between quads. Code 4 is for linework in the southern Central Valley and southern Coastal California where the GIRAS data were replaced with 1:2 million scale basin boundaries. A companion NAMES file (HUC250.NAMES) is provided with this data set to allow a user to perform a temporary join between the basin polygons and display or query basins based on their assigned text names rather than just the basin number (HUC). Not Available Mark Negri U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Div. (WRD) Computer Specialist, Spatial Data Support Unit mailing address

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-445

Reston VA 20191 USA 703-648-5613 703-648-5295 mnegri@usgs.gov 6:30am-3:30pm EST May contact thru email or telephone 7.075 Downloadable Data 20011217 Mark Negri U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Div. (WRD) Computer Specialist, Spatial Data Support Unit mailing address

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-445

Reston VA 20191 USA 703-648-5613 703-648-5295 mnegri@usgs.gov 6:30am-3:30pm EST May contact thru email or telephone FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time None Unclassified None en 20250310 16185100 FALSE 20240215 14334600 20240215 14334600 GIA_PACIFIC_NORTHWEST_BOUNDARY 002 Projected GCS_WGS_1984 Linear Unit: Meter (1.000000) WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere <ProjectedCoordinateSystem xsi:type='typens:ProjectedCoordinateSystem' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema' xmlns:typens='http://www.esri.com/schemas/ArcGIS/3.1.0'><WKT>PROJCS["WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere",GEOGCS["GCS_WGS_1984",DATUM["D_WGS_1984",SPHEROID["WGS_1984",6378137.0,298.257223563]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",0.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",0.0],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_1",0.0],PARAMETER["Auxiliary_Sphere_Type",0.0],UNIT["Meter",1.0],AUTHORITY["EPSG",3857]]</WKT><XOrigin>-20037700</XOrigin><YOrigin>-30241100</YOrigin><XYScale>10000</XYScale><ZOrigin>-100000</ZOrigin><ZScale>10000</ZScale><MOrigin>-100000</MOrigin><MScale>10000</MScale><XYTolerance>0.001</XYTolerance><ZTolerance>0.001</ZTolerance><MTolerance>0.001</MTolerance><HighPrecision>true</HighPrecision><WKID>102100</WKID><LatestWKID>3857</LatestWKID></ProjectedCoordinateSystem> 1.0 FGDC CSDGM Metadata 150000000 5000 ItemDescription Esri ArcGIS 13.1.2.41833 Pacific Northwest Boundary -124.081868 -109.763588 52.880019 41.127932 1 -124.081868 -109.763588 52.880019 41.127932 1 What is the boundary of the “Pacific Northwest” geographic initiative " The original boundary would have been that of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), western OR, WA and northern CA. However, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee, which the program supports, now includes implementation of the Pac-fish, In-fish Biological Opinion (PIBO) which covers the interior Columbia River basin. So I would suggest the combined coverage of NWFP and PIBO." What is the boundary of the “Pacific Northwest” geographic initiative " The original boundary would have been that of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) western OR WA and northern CA. However the Regional Interagency Executive Committee which the program supports now includes implementation of the Pac-fish In-fish Biological Opinion (PIBO) which covers the interior Columbia River basin. So I would suggest the combined coverage of NWFP and PIBO." ISO 19115 Geographic Information - Metadata DIS_ESRI1.0 dataset 002 withheld Feature Class File Geodatabase Feature Class GCS_North_American_1983 EPSG 6.18.3(9.3.1.2) 0 20240215