Hydrologic Units Florida

Metadata also available as

Metadata:

Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Steeves, Peter and Douglas Nebert
Publication_Date: 1994
Title: Hydrologic Units Florida
Edition: 1
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Series_Name Open-file
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Open-File Report
Issue_Identification: 94-0236
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Reston, Virginia
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Online_Linkage: <http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?huc250k>
Description:
Abstract:
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. Hydrologic units which intersect Florida are represented in this layer.
HUC, GIRAS, Hydrologic Units, 1:250
Purpose:
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).
Supplemental_Information:
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 GIRASARC2, 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 #1a. Process_Date 05/2006 The total number of HUCs in the 1:250k, - there are 2111 cataloging units in the lower 48 states. The following: 18 regions, 204 subregions 324 accounting units 2111 cataloging units HUC 03100103 was added because it was missing. This HUC is on the Gulf coast near Tampa Fl. and the 1:2mil version was used as a digitizing guide. HUC 17100304 had to be split in 2; the northern part retained the existing HUC code of 17100304 and the southern portion was assigned 17100306. Huc Code 14060001 was assigned to 2 HUCs, one was correct and the other was reassigned to 14060002. I redefined the HUC codes to be character, so the leading zero of all regions less than 10 could be assigned. I also redefined the datatype of the REG, SUB, ACC anc CAT fields to all be character, so leading zeros could be assigned. I also redid the SUB, ACC and CAT assignments to reflect what they really are; for example, a SUB region is suppose to consist of 4 characters but the original version only allowed 2, the ACC (accounting units) are suppose to consist of 6 characters, but the original version only allowed 2 and the CAT (cataloging units) are suppose to consists of all 8 characters, but the original version only allowed 2.
The following is the link to the offical Alaska 1:250k HUC cover: <http://agdc.usgs.gov/data/projects/anwr/metadata/akhuc.html> 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 inter- sected 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 informa- tion 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 symbol- ization 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 publishi 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 boundari 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:
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 1994
Currentness_Reference:
(Here you put information defining how the time period of content information, on the DOC file, was determined)
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency:
(Here you pick one of the following entries that describes how often changes or additions are made to the data set. Pick one, and delete the rest)
Continually Daily Weekly Monthly Annually Unknown As Needed Irregular None planned
Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -88.102198
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -79.827179
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 32.155971
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 24.482375
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: hydrologic unit
Theme_Keyword: watersheds
Theme_Keyword: inlandWaters
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Place_Keyword: Conterminous United States
Stratum:
Stratum_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Stratum_Keyword: None
Temporal:
Temporal_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Temporal_Keyword: None
Access_Constraints:
(describe any restrictions or legal prerequisites for accessing the data set. Put "None" if there are no restrictions)
Use_Constraints:
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.
Data_Set_Credit:
(Here you acknowledge the agencies and organizations that gave you money, resources, and encouragement to digitize the data and to enter all this wonderful metadata.)
Security_Information:
Security_Classification_System: None
Security_Classification: Unclassified
Security_Handling_Description: None
Native_Data_Set_Environment: dgux, 5.4R3.10, AViiON UNIX, ARC/INFO version 7.0.4
Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report: See Entity_Attribute_Information
Quantitative_Attribute_Accuracy_Assessment:
Attribute_Accuracy_Value: See Explanation
Attribute_Accuracy_Explanation:
Attribute accuracy is described, where present, with each attribute defined in the Entity and Attribute Section.
Logical_Consistency_Report: Polygon and chain-node topology present.
Completeness_Report:
(Information in wordy narrative form describing omissions, selection criteria, generalization, definitions used, and other rules applied to derive the data set)
Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
(An explanation of the accuracy of the horizontal coordinate measurements and a description of tests used, if any, to determine horizontal positional accuracy. This is different from horizontal resolution as reported in the DOC file. Positional accuracy defines how correctly the digital features match real-world features and woiuld be related to the concept of the National Map Accuracy Standard -- xx% of well-defined point features fall within xx units of their true position. The resolution is the smallest unit of measure the GIS can reliably manage without truncation or rounding.)
Quantitative_Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Assessment:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Value: variable
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Explanation: Resolution as reported
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy:
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
(The same as above, but for vertical information that may be encoded with the 2-D features such as cell or contour estimates of a vertical dimension. A description of the contour interval of input data and its basis could be described here.)
Lineage:
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Unspecified
Publication_Date: 0000
Title: Unspecified
Source_Scale_Denominator: 250,000 and 100,000
Type_of_Source_Media: Unspecified
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 0000
Source_Currentness_Reference: Unspecified
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: Unspecified
Source_Contribution: Unspecified
Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Vector
Point_and_Vector_Object_Information:
Spatial_Reference_Information:
Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Planar:
Map_Projection:
Map_Projection_Name: NAD 1983 2011 Florida GDL Albers
Albers_Conical_Equal_Area:
Standard_Parallel: 24.0
Standard_Parallel: 31.5
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -84.0
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 24.0
False_Easting: 400000.0
False_Northing: 0.0
Planar_Coordinate_Information:
Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: coordinate pair
Coordinate_Representation:
Abscissa_Resolution: 0.0001
Ordinate_Resolution: 0.0001
Planar_Distance_Units: meter
Geodetic_Model:
Horizontal_Datum_Name: D NAD 1983 2011
Ellipsoid_Name: GRS 1980
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.0
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222101
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_Label: GIS.FWC.hydrologic_units_250k_fl_poly
Entity_Type_Definition: HUC POLYGONS
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: GIRAS DATA
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: OBJECTID
Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Unrepresentable_Domain:
Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC250K_
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC250K_ID
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC_CODE
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC_NAME
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: REG
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: SUB
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: ACC
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: CAT
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: SHAPE
Attribute_Definition: Feature geometry.
Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Unrepresentable_Domain: Coordinates defining the features.
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: SHAPE.area
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: SHAPE.len
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_Label: HUC250.AAT
Entity_Type_Definition: HYDROLOGIC UNIT LINEWORK
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: GIRAS DATA
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: ' FNODE#'
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of from-node
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: ' TNODE#'
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of to-node
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: ' LPOLY#'
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of polygon to left of arc
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: RPOLY#
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of polygon to right of arc
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: LENGTH
Attribute_Definition: Length of arc in coverage units
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Positive real numbers
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC250#
Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC250-ID
Attribute_Definition: User-assigned feature number
Attribute_Definition_Source: User-defined
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Integer
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: SOURCE
Attribute_Definition: LINE CODING FOR UNIQUE CASES
Attribute_Definition_Source: GIRAS AND 1:2M DLG DATA
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: 1=100K 2=250K 3=250K EDGE 4=2MILLION DLG
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_Label: HUC250.LEFTRIGHT
Entity_Type_Definition: Names of Hydrologic Cataloging Units (HUC)
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: HUC
Attribute_Definition: Hydrologic Unit Code
Attribute_Definition_Source: U.S. Geological Survey as FIPS standard
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Integer 8-digit codes defined uniquely for each basin
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: NAME
Attribute_Definition: Hydrologic Unit Name
Attribute_Definition_Source: U.S. Geological Survey as FIPS standard
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Enumerated_Domain:
Enumerated_Domain_Value: Integer 8-digit codes defined uniquely for each basin
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: unspecified
Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: unspecified
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
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 dont 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).
Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation: Not Available
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Ask USGS - Water Webserver Team
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing
Address: 507 National Center
City: Reston
State_or_Province: VA
Postal_Code: 20192
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1-888-275-8747 (1-888-ASK-USGS)
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address:
<http://answers.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/gsanswers?pemail=h2oteam&subject=GIS+Dataset+huc250k>
Resource_Description: Downloadable Data
Distribution_Liability:
Although this data set has been used by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, no warranty expressed or implied is made by the U.S. Geological Survey as to the accuracy of the data and related materials. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the use of this data, software, or related materials.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Full coverage
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 48
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: <http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/dsdl/huc250k.e00.gz>
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 03 South Atlantic-Gulf
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 1150
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 01 New England
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 443
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 02 Mid-Atlantic
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 675
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 04 Great Lakes
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 968
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 05 Ohio
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 954
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 06 Tennessee
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 327
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 07 Upper Mississippi
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 1050
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 08 Lower Mississippi
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 570
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 09 Souris-Red-Rainy
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 571
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 10 Missouri
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 2520
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 11 Arkansas-White-Red
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 1180
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 12 Texas-Gulf
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 861
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 13 Rio Grande
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 660
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 14 Upper Colorado
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 555
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 15 Lower Colorado
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 639
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 16 Great Basin
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 701
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 17 Pacific Northwest
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 1810
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Export
Format_Information_Content: Region 18 California
File_Decompression_Technique: zipped
Transfer_Size: 949
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name:
Fees: None. This dataset is provided by USGS as a public service.
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20041108
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: U.S. Geological Survey
Contact_Position: Ask USGS -- Water Webserver Team
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing
Address: 507 National Center
City: Reston
State_or_Province: VA
Postal_Code: 20192
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1-888-275-8747 (1-888-ASK-USGS)
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address:
<http://answers.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/gsanswers?pemail=h2oteam&subject=GIS+Dataset+huc250k>
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998
Metadata_Time_Convention: local time
Generated by mp version 2.9.12 on Fri Nov 08 19:32:12 2019