Maintainer: Molly Maupin
Privacy Statement || Disclaimer
URL: http://idaho.usgs.gov/webwork/mamaupin/guidance/su97_swgis2000.html
WHAT'S NEW: Update DATUM to NAD83. First request for basin boundary coverage for synoptic basins and, if applicable to your study unit, basin boundaries for reservoir coring sites.
At this time, basin boundary coverages and metadata are being requested for basic and intensive fixed-sites and bed sediment and tissue sites in the occurrence and spatial distribution surveys, reservoir coring sites, and significant synoptic sites . Not all study units will have reservoir coring sites; only those study units who have collected samples according to Pete VanMetre's specificiations will need to compile basin boundary coverages for those sites. A "significant synoptic site" will include ALL sites where samples were/are collected according to NAWQA protocols (chemical and biological). As for any remaining synoptic sites, it is up to the study units' discretion to decide whether a site qualifies as "significant". However, studies that contribute to results that yield archival-quality data should be seriously considered. This is to distinguish the synoptic studies from recon and other exploratory studies that are difficult to compare to others.
Please resubmit ALL basin boundary coverages, even if they are identical to those provided in the February 1999 SW GIS request. The basin boundary coverages with their corresponding metadata that you provided in response to this request will replace the GIS data received from previous aggregations. Basin characteristics derived from the basin boundary coverages that you provide to National Synthesis will be stored in the Data Warehouse.
Basin boundary coverages for related stations are not necessary, because the boundary for the primary site will be used to generate surface-water ancillary data. A related site is a site that is located at another location, but the data collected there is intended to be analyzed with the primary site data. Therefore, the two sites' data are joined, but basin boundaries for both are not necessary. See the 97 SU Data Dictionary, Related-site Table definition for more details about what a related site is. Also, point coverages of surface-water sampling sites are not necessary because they will be generated from the latitude and longitude coordinates retrieved from the NWIS databases. Basin boundary coverages for this request will be cross checked with the list of fixed, bed-sediment and tissue, and synoptic sites identified in the station-network file (netsite.suid) that is being requested concurrently in the NETWORK data request. If a basin boundary coverage is not available for a fixed, BST or synoptic site, which is listed in the netsite file, please make a note of it in a README file.
With the exception of a few sites that have noncontributing drainage areas associated with them, only one basin boundary coverage per site is requested. Two coverages are required for those sites that have contributing areas that provide additional drainage under certain conditions: 1) a coverage of the contributing drainage area under normal conditions, and 2) a coverage of the total potential drainage area (contributing + noncontributing). The second coverage might include those areas that provide flow during storm conditions, or when certain man-made conditions are in effect. For sites that have drainage areas that are larger under special conditions, the second coverage (contributing + noncontributing), or total potential drainage area, will be used to compile a separate set of ancillary data to aid in hydrologic analyses of water-quality during high-flow conditions.
The area derived from a basin boundary coverage will be compared to the NWIS drainage area for that site. Differences greater than 10% between the two areas will require additional verification and checking. Also, the location of the sampling station and the basin boundary will be checked to make sure the stations falls within the coverage.
One metadata file is requested for each basin boundary coverage. Metadata requirements are explained below.
As in the past, please follow the guidelines provided below.
STAID COVERAGE NAME 04087000 b04087000 040863075 b04086307 435426488092701 b43542641 435426488092702 b43542642 02334080 r02334080
PROJECTION ALBERS UNITS METERS DATUM NAD83 PARAMETERS 29 30 00 45 30 00 -96 00 00 23 00 00 0.0 0.0
Projection parameters for COOK:
PROJECTION ALBERS UNITS METERS DATUM NAD83 PARAMETERS 55 00 00 65 00 00 -154 00 00 50 00 00 0.0 0.0
Projection parameters for OAHU:
PROJECTION ALBERS UNITS METERS DATUM NAD83 PARAMETERS 08 00 00 18 00 00 -157 00 00 00 00 00 0.0 0.0
3. Polygon attribute table template:
At minimum, include STAID, defined as a 15-character wide item:
AREA 4 12 F 3 PERIMETER 4 12 F 3 Bxxxxxxxx# 4 5 B or Txxxxxxxx# or Rxxxxxxxx# Bxxxxxxxx-ID 4 5 B or Txxxxxxxx-ID or Rxxxxxxxx-ID STAID 15 15 C
Additional attributes are optional as long as they are explained in the metadata. Please keep the definition of attributes as they are defined here. If, for some reason, STAID is defined as anything other than character, then leading zeros will be dropped and consequently STAID will no longer match other data files.
4. Metadata:
A single metadata file is required for each drainage basin coverage. Name the ASCII text metadata file covername.met, where covername would be the same as bxxxxxxxx, or txxxxxxxx, or rxxxxxxxx. Therefore, a metadata file would be either bxxxxxxxx.met, or txxxxxxxx.met, or rxxxxxxxx.met. If metadata has already been created using the Arc/Info DOCUMENT tool, use the conversion utilities listed below to create an FGDC-compliant metadata file. If all of the basin boundary coverages were created the same way, create a single FGDC-compliant metadata file and then duplicate it and make minor edits to customize each one. There are various ways to create multiple files that have repeated information.
If you have documented coverages using the DOCUMENT.AML tool, then guidance by Peter Schweitzer (guidance to convert DOCUMENT output to FGDC-compliant metadata) is recommended. Look under the headings "Strategies for converting old DOCUMENT output: If you have a lot of coverages" for details.
If you have one metadata file (master) that would suffice for many, or all, of your basin boundary coverages, then do one or the other of the following examples:
To edit FGDCMETA.AML so that changes are minimized or unnecessary, use the approach that was developed by Joe Connell of the UTEN study unit; it has been proven to be successful and very useful. If you are familiar with AML, check out the revised FGDCMETA.AML that Joe used for his 80+subbasins. Joe hardcoded metadata entries into FGDCMETA.AML and stored any unique information, such as the name of the station and STAID in the PAT of each basin coverage so they can be extracted and stored into AML variables,then plugged into the abstract and other metadata elements. By replacing his entries with yours, you can run the revised FGDCMETA.AML in your local directory and create metadata files that may not need any revisions. The revisions will take place in "&routine TEMPLATE". Specific instructions and warnings are included in "&routine TEMPLATE".(courtesy of Curtis Price, VOC National Synthesis).
Before creating multiple metadata files, verify a sample of one of your metadata files by using Peter Schweitzer's metadata parser (mp) or Curtis Price's AML interface to mp. If you do not use FGDCMETA_revised.aml and have the pre-1.31 version of FGDCMETA.AML installed, please download the most current version as it has been revised to conform to the June 1998 FGDC metadata standards. The USGS metadata guidance document has instructions on how to use metadata tools such as FGDCMETA.AML, and has many links to other metadata-related documents. Peter Schweitzer's web page is also a good source for additional tools and information on metadata.
Within the metadata file, in the section called "Use_constraints",it is important to include any information about how the basin was delineated and possible constraints on the use of the data. Please include any information that would be useful to potential users to help give them an understanding of limitation of the data due to approximations, or estimations, due to diversion of water, lack of topographic relief, etc.
a). Basin boundary coverages exist for each fixed, bed-sediment and tissue, reservoir coring site,
and synoptic basin site that are identified in the station-network (netsite.suid) file,
b). A README file exists to explain sites for which a basin boundary coverage is not available
or applicable (e.g. the site is an outfall of a sewage treatment plant, or the site is along a
conveyance channel).
c). STAID is correctly populated and defined in the PAT file of each basin boundary coverage,
d). Projections of the coverages comply with the national projection parameters.
e). The location for the sampling site is within, or very nearly within, the basin boundary
coverage area.
f). The basin boundary coverage drainage area and NWIS drainage area are within 10%.
g). Metadata for each basin boundary coverage are complete and FGDC-compliant.
Run the CHECKDATA.AML program to perform a final check to ensure basin boundary coverages are free of potential ARC-related problems. Please correct any errors or missing data identified by CHECKDATA.AML. Syntax for the CHECKDATA.AML program is as follows:
Arc:checkdata {NOREPORT | REPORT_FILE}
tar -cf - * | gzip -c > /var/ftp/pub/suidsw.targz
(NT users can download gzip and tar utilities from here.
THANK YOU!
| Top of doc | Ground-water GIS Data Request | Network/NWIS Data Request | Main Data Request | Memo to SU97 for Network/GIS request |
|
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Maintainer: Molly Maupin Privacy Statement || Disclaimer URL: http://idaho.usgs.gov/webwork/mamaupin/guidance/su97_swgis2000.html |
|