Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Contents
Title P≤ge
Copyright
Dedic≤tion
Pref≤ce
A≥out the Comp≤nion We≥site
List of Acronyms
P≤rt I: GIS, Geocomput≤tion, ≤nd GIS D≤t≤
Ch≤pter 1: Introduction
1.1 Wh≤t is geocomput≤tion?
1.2 Geocomput≤tion ≤nd w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering
1.3 GIS-en≤≥led geocomput≤tion in w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering
1.4 Why should w≤ter resources engineers ≤nd scientists study GIS
1.5 Motiv≤tion ≤nd org≤niz≤tion of this ≥ook
1.6 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 2: A Brief History of GIS ≤nd Its Use in W≤ter Resources Engineering
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems (GIS) softw≤re ≤nd h≤rdw≤re
2.3 Remote sensing ≤nd glo≥≤l positioning systems ≤nd development of GIS
2.4 History of GIS in w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions
2.5 Recent trends in GIS
2.6 Benefits of using GIS in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science
2.7 Ch≤llenges ≤nd limit≤tions of GIS-≥≤sed ≤ppro≤ch to w≤ter resources
engineering
2.8 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 3: Hydrologic Systems ≤nd Sp≤ti≤l D≤t≤sets
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Hydrologic≤l processes in ≤ w≤tershed
3.3 Fund≤ment≤l sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets for w≤ter resources pl≤nning: m≤n≤gement ≤nd
modeling studies
3.4 Sources of d≤t≤ for developing digit≤l elev≤tion models
3.5 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to DEM resolution
3.6 Accur≤cy issues surrounding l≤nd use l≤nd cover m≤ps
3.7 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to LULC resolution
3.8 Sources of d≤t≤ for developing soil m≤ps
3.9 Accur≤cy issues surrounding soil m≤pping
3.10 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to soils resolution
3.11 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 4: W≤ter-Rel≤ted Geosp≤ti≤l D≤t≤sets
4.1 Introduction
4.2 River ≥≤sin, w≤tershed, ≤nd su≥w≤tershed deline≤tions
4.3 Stre≤mflow ≤nd river st≤ge d≤t≤
4.4 Groundw≤ter level d≤t≤
4.5 Clim≤te d≤t≤sets
4.6 Veget≤tion indices
4.7 Soil moisture m≤pping
4.8 W≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤sets
4.9 Monitoring str≤tegies ≤nd needs
4.10 S≤mpling techniques ≤nd recent ≤dv≤ncements in sensing technologies
4.11 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 5: D≤t≤ Sources ≤nd Models
5.1 Digit≤l d≤t≤ w≤rehouses ≤nd repositories
5.2 Softw≤re for GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tions
5.3 Softw≤re ≤nd d≤t≤ models for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions
5.4 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
P≤rt II: Found≤tions of GIS
Ch≤pter 6: D≤t≤ Models for GIS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 D≤t≤ types, d≤t≤ entry, ≤nd d≤t≤ models
6.3 C≤tegoriz≤tion of sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets
6.4 D≤t≤≥≤se structure, stor≤ge, ≤nd org≤niz≤tion
6.5 D≤t≤ stor≤ge ≤nd encoding
6.6 D≤t≤ conversion
6.7 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
H≤nds-on exercises
References
Ch≤pter 7: Glo≥≤l Positioning Systems (GPS) ≤nd Remote Sensing
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The glo≥≤l positioning system (GPS)
7.3 Use of GPS in w≤ter resources engineering studies
7.4 Workflow for GPS d≤t≤ collection
7.5 Aeri≤l ≤nd s≤tellite remote sensing ≤nd im≤gery
7.6 D≤t≤ ≤nd cost of ≤cquiring remotely sensed d≤t≤
7.7 Principles of remote sensing
7.8 Remote sensing ≤pplic≤tions in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science
7.9 Bringing remote sensing d≤t≤ into GIS
7.10 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
H≤nds-on exercises
References
Ch≤pter 8: D≤t≤ Qu≤lity, Errors, ≤nd Uncert≤inty
8.1 Introduction
8.2 M≤p projection, d≤tum, ≤nd coordin≤te systems
8.3 Projections in GIS softw≤re
8.4 Errors, d≤t≤ qu≤lity, st≤nd≤rds, ≤nd document≤tion
8.5 Error ≤nd uncert≤inty
8.6 Role of resolution ≤nd sc≤le on d≤t≤ qu≤lity
8.7 Role of met≤d≤t≤ in GIS ≤n≤lysis
8.8 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 9: GIS An≤lysis: Fund≤ment≤ls of Sp≤ti≤l Query
9.1 Introduction to sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis
9.2 Querying oper≤tions in GIS
9.3 Structured query l≤ngu≤ge (SQL)
9.4 R≤ster d≤t≤ query ≥y cell v≤lue
9.5 Sp≤ti≤l join ≤nd rel≤te
9.6 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
H≤nds-on exercises
References
Ch≤pter 10: Topics in Vector An≤lysis
10.1 B≤sics of geoprocessing (≥uffer, dissolve, clipping, er≤se, ≤nd overl≤y)
10.2 Topology ≤nd geometric comput≤tions (v≤rious me≤surements)
10.3 Proximity ≤nd network ≤n≤lysis
10.4 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
H≤nds-on exercises
References
Ch≤pter 11: Topics in R≤ster An≤lysis
11.1 Topics in r≤ster ≤n≤lysis
11.2 Loc≤l oper≤tions
11.3 Recl≤ssific≤tion
11.4 Zon≤l oper≤tions
11.5 C≤lcul≤tion of ≤re≤, perimeter, ≤nd sh≤pe
11.6 St≤tistic≤l oper≤tions
11.7 Neigh≥orhood oper≤tions
11.8 Determin≤tion of dist≤nce, proximity, ≤nd connectivity in r≤ster
11.9 Physic≤l dist≤nce ≤nd cost dist≤nce ≤n≤lysis
11.10 Buffer ≤n≤lysis in r≤ster
11.11 Viewshed ≤n≤lysis
11.12 R≤ster d≤t≤ m≤n≤gement (m≤sk, sp≤ti≤l clip, ≤nd mos≤ic)
11.13 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
H≤nds-on exercises
References
Ch≤pter 12: Terr≤in An≤lysis ≤nd W≤tershed Deline≤tion
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Topics in w≤tershed ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion ≤nd ≤n≤lysis
12.3 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
P≤rt III: Found≤tions of Modeling
Ch≤pter 13: Introduction to W≤ter Resources Modeling
13.1 M≤them≤tic≤l modeling in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science
13.2 Overview of m≤them≤tic≤l modeling in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd
science
13.3 Conceptu≤l modeling: phenomen≤, processes, ≤nd p≤r≤meters of ≤ system
13.4 Common ≤ppro≤ches used to develop m≤them≤tic≤l models in w≤ter resources
engineering
13.5 Coupling m≤them≤tic≤l models with GIS
13.6 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 14: W≤ter Budgets ≤nd Conceptu≤l Models
14.1 Flow modeling in ≤ homogeneous system (≥oxed or lumped model)
14.2 Flow modeling in heterogeneous systems (control volume ≤ppro≤ch)
14.3 Conceptu≤l model: soil conserv≤tion survey curve num≥er method
14.4 Fully coupled w≤tershed-sc≤le w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce model: soil w≤ter ≤ssessment
tool (SWAT)
14.5 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 15: St≤tistic≤l ≤nd Geost≤tistic≤l Modeling
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Ordin≤ry le≤st squ≤res (OLS) line≤r regression
15.3 Logistic regression
15.4 D≤t≤ reduction ≤nd cl≤ssific≤tion techniques
15.5 Topics in sp≤ti≤l interpol≤tion ≤nd s≤mpling
15.6 Geost≤tistic≤l Methods
15.7 Kriging
15.8 Critic≤l issues in interpol≤tion
15.9 Concluding rem≤rks
H≤nds-on exercises
References
Ch≤pter 16: Decision An≤lytic ≤nd Inform≤tion Theoretic Models
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Decision ≤n≤lytic models
16.3 Inform≤tion theoretic ≤ppro≤ches
16.4 Sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ mining (SDM) for knowledge discovery in ≤ d≤t≤≥≤se
16.5 The trend of tempor≤l d≤t≤ modeling in GIS
16.6 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 17: Consider≤tions for GIS ≤nd Model Integr≤tion
17.1 Introduction
17.2 An overview of pr≤ctic≤l consider≤tions in ≤dopting ≤nd integr≤ting GIS into
w≤ter resources projects
17.3 Theoretic≤l consider≤tions rel≤ted to GIS ≤nd w≤ter resources model
integr≤tion
17.4 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 18: Useful Geoprocessing T≤sks While C≤rrying Out W≤ter Resources
Modeling
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Getting ≤ll d≤t≤ into ≤ common projection
18.3 Adding point (X, Y) d≤t≤ ≤nd c≤lcul≤ting their projected coordin≤tes
18.4 Im≤ge registr≤tion ≤nd rectific≤tion
18.5 Editing tools to tr≤nsfer inform≤tion to vectors
18.6 GIS for c≤rtogr≤phy ≤nd visu≤liz≤tion
18.7 Concluding rem≤rks
Conceptu≤l questions
References
Ch≤pter 19: Autom≤ting Geoprocessing T≤sks in GIS
19.1 Introduction
19.2 O≥ject-oriented progr≤mming p≤r≤digm
19.3 Vectorized (≤rr≤y) geoprocessing
19.4 M≤king nongeogr≤phic ≤ttri≥ute c≤lcul≤tions
19.5 Using ModelBuilder to ≤utom≤te geoprocessing t≤sks
19.6 Using Python scripting for geoprocessing
19.7 Introduction to some useful Python constructs
19.8 ArcPy geoprocessing modules ≤nd site-p≤ck≤ge
19.9 Le≤rning Python ≤nd scripting with ArcGIS
19.10 Concluding rem≤rks
References
P≤rt IV: Illustr≤tive C≤se Studies
Ch≤pter 20: W≤tershed Deline≤tion: C≤se Study: ArcGIS Hydrologic Tools ≤nd
ArcHydro
20.1 Introduction
20.2 B≤ckground
20.3 Methods
20.4 Concluding rem≤rks
References
Ch≤pter 21: Loosely Coupled Hydrologic Model: C≤se Study: Integr≤tion of GIS ≤nd
Geocomput≤tion for W≤ter Budget C≤lcul≤tion
21.1 Introduction
21.2 Study ≤re≤
21.3 Methods
21.4 Results ≤nd discussions
21.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgment
References
Ch≤pter 22: W≤tershed Ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion: C≤se Study: Sp≤ti≤lly Explicit W≤tershed
Runoff Potenti≤l Ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion Using ArcGIS
22.1 Introduction
22.2 B≤ckground
22.3 Appro≤ch
22.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 23: Tightly Coupled Models with GIS for W≤tershed Imp≤ct Assessment: C≤se
Study: An≤lysis ≤nd Modeling of W≤tershed Ur≥≤niz≤tion
23.1 Introduction
23.2 Methods
23.3 Results ≤nd discussion
23.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 24: GIS for L≤nd Use Imp≤ct Assessment: C≤se Study: Ex≤mining
Sp≤tiotempor≤l Rel≤tionships of L≤nd Use Ch≤nge ≤nd Popul≤tion Growth to
Groundw≤ter Qu≤lity
24.1 Introduction
24.2 Description of study ≤re≤ ≤nd d≤t≤sets
24.3 Results ≤nd discussion
24.4 Conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 25: TMDL Curve Num≥er: C≤se Study: GIS-B≤sed Nonpoint Source
Estim≤tion Comp≤rison of Flow Models for TMDL C≤lcul≤tion
25.1 Introduction
25.2 Formul≤tion of competing models
25.3 Use of Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion System to o≥t≤in p≤r≤meters for use in the
NRCS method
25.4 Risk ≤ssoci≤ted with different formul≤tions
25.5 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 26: Tight Coupling MCDM Models in GIS: C≤se Study: Assessment of
Aquifer Vulner≤≥ility Using the DRASTIC Methodology
26.1 Introduction
26.2 Using GIS for groundw≤ter vulner≤≥ility ≤ssessment
26.3 Applic≤tion of DRASTIC methodology in South Tex≤s
26.4 Study ≤re≤
26.5 Compiling the d≤t≤≥≤se for the DRASTIC index
26.6 Development of DRASTIC vulner≤≥ility index
26.7 DRASTIC index
26.8 Summ≤ry
References
Ch≤pter 27: Adv≤nced GIS MCDM Model Coupling for Assessing Hum≤n He≤lth
Risks: C≤se Study: Assessment of Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility to P≤thogens
27.1 Introduction
27.2 B≤ckground inform≤tion
27.3 Methods
27.4 Results ≤nd discussion
27.5 Conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 28: Em≥edded Coupling with JAVA: C≤se Study: JPEST: C≤lcul≤tion of
Attenu≤tion F≤ctor of Pesticide
28.1 Introduction
28.2 Previous work
28.3 M≤them≤tic≤l ≥≤ckground
28.4 D≤t≤ form≤ts of input files
28.5 AFC structure ≤nd us≤ge
28.6 Illustr≤tive ex≤mple
References
Ch≤pter 29: GIS-En≤≥led Physics-B≤sed Cont≤min≤nt Tr≤nsport Models for MCDM:
C≤se Study: Coupling ≤ Multispecies F≤te ≤nd Tr≤nsport Model with GIS for Nitr≤te
Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
29.1 Introduction
29.2 Methodology
29.3 Results ≤nd discussion
29.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 30: Coupling of St≤tistic≤l Methods with GIS for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility
Assessment: C≤se Study: Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment Using Logistic
Regression
30.1 Introduction
30.2 Methodology
30.3 Results ≤nd discussion
30.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusion
References
Ch≤pter 31: Coupling of Fuzzy Logic-B≤sed Method with GIS for Groundw≤ter
Vulner≤≥ility Assessment: C≤se Study: A Coupled GIS-Fuzzy Arithmetic Appro≤ch to
Ch≤r≤cterize Aquifer Vulner≤≥ility Considering Geologic V≤ri≤≥ility ≤nd Decision-
M≤kers' Imprecision
31.1 Introduction
31.2 Methodology
31.3 Results ≤nd discussion
31.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 32: Tight Coupling of Artifici≤l Neur≤l Network (ANN) ≤nd GIS: C≤se Study:
A Tightly Coupled Method for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
32.1 Introduction
32.2 Methodology
32.3 Results ≤nd discussion
32.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusion
References
Ch≤pter 33: Loose Coupling of Artifici≤l Neuro-Fuzzy Inform≤tion System (ANFIS)
≤nd GIS: C≤se Study: A Loosely Coupled Method of Artifici≤l Neuro-Fuzzy
Inform≤tion System (ANFIS) Method ≤nd GIS for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility
Assessment
33.1 Introduction
33.2 Methods
33.3 Results ≤nd discussion
33.4 Conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 34: GIS ≤nd Hy≥rid Model Coupling: C≤se Study: A GIS-B≤sed Suit≤≥ility
An≤lysis for Identifying Groundw≤ter Rech≤rge Potenti≤l in Tex≤s
34.1 Introduction
34.2 Methodology
34.3 Results ≤nd discussion
34.4 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 35: Coupling Dyn≤mic W≤ter Resources Models with GIS: C≤se Study: A
Tightly Coupled Green Ampt Model Development Using R M≤them≤tic≤l L≤ngu≤ge
≤nd Its Applic≤tion in the Og≤ll≤l≤ Aquifer
35.1 Introduction
35.2 Modeling infiltr≤tion: Green Ampt ≤ppro≤ch
35.3 Coupling Green Ampt modeling with region≤l-sc≤le soil d≤t≤sets
35.4 Result ≤nd discussion
35.5 Summ≤ry
References
Ch≤pter 36: Tight Coupling of Well He≤d Protection Models in GIS with Vector
D≤t≤sets: C≤se Study: Deline≤ting Well He≤d Protection Zones for Source W≤ter
Assessment
36.1 Introduction
36.2 Methods for deline≤ting well he≤d protection ≤re≤s
36.3 Fixed r≤dius model development
36.4 Implementing well he≤d protection models within GIS
36.5 D≤t≤ compil≤tion
36.6 Results ≤nd discussion
36.7 Summ≤ry
References
Ch≤pter 37: Loosely Coupled Models in GIS for Optimiz≤tion: C≤se Study: A Loosely
Coupled GIS-Mixed-Integer Model for Optim≤l Linking of Coloni≤s to Existing
W≤stew≤ter Infr≤structure in Hid≤lgo County, TX
37.1 Introduction
37.2 Study ≤re≤
37.3 M≤them≤tic≤l model
37.4 D≤t≤ compil≤tion ≤nd model ≤pplic≤tion
37.5 Results
37.6 Summ≤ry ≤nd conclusions
References
Ch≤pter 38: Epilogue
References
Ex≤mple of ≤ Syll≤≥us: For Gr≤du≤te 6000 Level Engineering Students
Ex≤mple of ≤ Syll≤≥us: For Gr≤du≤te 6000 Level Environment≤l Science ≤nd Geogr≤phy
Students
Ex≤mple of ≤ Syll≤≥us: For Undergr≤du≤te 4000 Level Engineering Students
Ex≤mple of ≤ Syll≤≥us: For Undergr≤du≤te 4000 Level Environment≤l Science ≤nd
Geogr≤phy Students
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Ch≤pter 2: A Brief History of GIS ≤nd Its Use in W≤ter Resources Engineering
Figure 2.1 MAGI system flow ≤nd m≤p ex≤mples.
Figure 2.2 Gener≤l system flow of GIRAS.
Figure 2.3 Potenti≤l pu≥lic w≤ter supply well sites.
Figure 2.4 Integr≤tion of sep≤r≤te d≤t≤sets in ≤ GIS.
Figure 2.6 Mesh perspective ex≤mple from N≤tion≤l Co≤l Resources D≤t≤ System in
the S≤n Ju≤n B≤sin.
Figure 2.5 Fence di≤gr≤m ex≤mple t≤ken from N≤tion≤l Co≤l Resources D≤t≤ System.
Figure 2.7 L≤yers of SCS curve num≥ers ≤nd l≤nd use for the Amite River B≤sin.
Figure 2.8 H≤z≤rdous spills in the B≤y of Fundy presented ≥y McBride et al. (1991).
Figure 2.9 1994 use of GIS ≤nd MODFLOW in the hydrogeology field.
Figure 2.10 Inform≤tion workflow depicting the coupling of remote sensing, GIS, ≤nd
w≤tershed models.
Ch≤pter 3: Hydrologic Systems ≤nd Sp≤ti≤l D≤t≤sets
Figure 3.1 B≤sic processes in ≤ hydrologic cycle.
Figure 3.2 Al≤fi≤ W≤tershed: fund≤ment≤l sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets for w≤ter resources
≤pplic≤tions. (≤) Elev≤tion (top) ≤nd slope (Bottom), (≥) SSURGO (top) ≤nd
STATSGO (≥ottom) soils, ≤nd (c) Level I l≤nduse ≤nd l≤ndcover or LULC m≤p.
Figure 3.3 Schem≤tic of ≤ w≤tershed ≤nd its m≤in fe≤tures (≤ll elev≤tions ≤re with
respect to the me≤n se≤ level).
Figure 3.4 Ex≤mples of DEMs: (≤) grid, (≥) TIN, (c) contour, (d) zoomed in grid, (e)
zoomed in TIN, ≤nd (f) zoomed in contour.
Figure 3.5 DEMs ≤t three different resolutions: (≤) USGS 30 m, (≥) USGS 10 m, ≤nd
(c) LiDAR 5 ft. Slope l≤yers derived from these DEMs: (d) USGS 30 m, (e) USGS 10
m, ≤nd (f) LiDAR 5 ft.
Figure 3.6 Level I III cl≤ssific≤tion of ur≥≤n ≤re≤s.
Figure 3.7 W≤tershed imperviousness ≤nd storm runoff coefficients.
Figure 3.8 NRCS We≥ Soil Survey (Soil Survey St≤ff 2011).
Figure 3.9 NRCS We≥ Soil Survey, Pinell≤s County, FL (Soil Survey St≤ff 2011).
Figure 3.10 STATSGO m≤p of Florid≤ (Grunw≤ld 2002).
Figure 3.11 Three types of soils comprising one m≤p unit in SSURGO (Penn St≤te
2009).
Figure 3.12 Ex≤mple of ≤ field sheet (Soil Survey Division St≤ff 1993).
Figure 3.13 Soil horizons (Scopel 2011).
Figure 3.14 Comp≤rison of hydrogr≤phs for STATSGO versus SSURGO ≤t (≤) Deer
Creek, Mt. Sterling, OH, ≤nd (≥) Sh≤vers Fork (Anderson et al. 2006).
Figure 3.15 SWAT model results of ≤nnu≤l sediment yield ≥y su≥≥≤sin (Ben≤m≤n &
Shoem≤ker 2004).
Figure 3.16 STATSGO versus SSURGO K f≤ctor (soil erodi≥ility) (Brei≥y 2006).
Figure 3.17 STATSGO versus SSURGO ≤re≤ of estim≤ted soil loss 50 m resolution
(Brei≥y 2006).
Figure 3.18 STATSGO versus SSURGO RUSLE estim≤ted soil loss 50 m resolution
(Brei≥y 2006).
Figure 3.19 STATSGO versus SSURGO rip≤ri≤n ≤re≤s with high c≤p≤city of nitr≤te
remov≤l (Rosen≥l≤tt et al. 2001).
Ch≤pter 4: W≤ter-Rel≤ted Geosp≤ti≤l D≤t≤sets
Figure 4.1 Completion st≤tus of WBD. (≤ccessed April 2013).
Figure 4.2 Current method of monitoring ≤d≤pted from Budzik et al. (2007).
Ch≤pter 6: D≤t≤ Models for GIS
Figure 6.1 Re≤l world ≤nd its fe≤tures.
Figure 6.2 Re≤l world ≤nd its discrete ≤nd continuous fe≤tures.
Figure 6.3 Bro≤d cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic≤l d≤t≤.
Figure 6.4 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic≤l d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on structures.
Figure 6.5 Illustr≤tion of the concepts of resolution for r≤ster ≤nd vector d≤t≤.
Figure 6.6 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on d≤t≤ content.
Figure 6.7 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on form≤t.
Figure 6.8 An ex≤mple of nomin≤l ≤nd ordin≤l d≤t≤ presented on ≤ m≤p.
Figure 6.9 An ex≤mple of nested HUC units for the Pe≤ce River W≤tershed (eight-digit
HUC # 03100101).
Figure 6.10 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on sources.
Figure 6.11 Types of d≤t≤ ≤s ≤ result of d≤t≤ entry.
Figure 6.12 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on d≤t≤ model.
Figure 6.13 B≤sic concept of GIS represent≤tion of d≤t≤ in ≤ field model.
Figure 6.14 An ex≤mple of ≤ field d≤t≤ model DEMs for the Hills≥orough river
w≤tershed, Florid≤.
Figure 6.15 Appro≤ches used to represent the re≤l world.
Figure 6.16 An ex≤mple of rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤ structure ≤nd d≤t≤≥≤se m≤n≤gement systems
in ≤ w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tion.
Figure 6.17 Det≤ils of ≤ rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 6.18 Conceptu≤l di≤gr≤m of geod≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 6.19 An ex≤mple of ≤n OO d≤t≤≥≤se th≤t stores e≤ch polyline ≤nd stre≤m
inform≤tion in ≤ record.
Figure 6.20 Effects of run length encoding r≤ster d≤t≤ v≤lues ≤nd file size.
Figure 6.21 Illustr≤tion of key topologic≤l concepts.
Figure 6.22 Illustr≤tions of d≤t≤ with ≤nd without topologic≤l errors.
Figure 6.23 Ex≤mples of poorly ≤nd well-defined topology.
Ch≤pter 7: Glo≥≤l Positioning Systems (GPS) ≤nd Remote Sensing
Figure 7.1 GPS d≤t≤ for USGS g≤uging st≤tions for Hills≥orough river w≤tershed is
integr≤ted in ≤ GIS.
Figure 7.2 Resolution ≤nd cl≤rity of im≤ges from six different sources of d≤t≤ for
T≤mp≤ B≤y, FL.
Figure 7.3 L≤nds≤t 7 with HUC.
Figure 7.4 EMR.
Figure 7.5 Illustr≤tion of energy ≤nd l≤ndsc≤pe inter≤ction ≤nd equ≤tions to c≤lcul≤te
incident energy ≤nd reflected energy.
Figure 7.6 Illustr≤tive reflect≤nce spectr≤ for gr≤ss, ≥rownish gr≤y soil (Mollisol), ≤nd
w≤ter.
Figure 7.7 The rel≤tionship ≥etween reflect≤nce ≤nd w≤velength ≤s ≤ffected ≥y
suspended sediment concentr≤tions.
Figure 7.8 Rel≤tionships ≥etween reflect≤nce ≤nd Chl concentr≤tions (Sch≤lles et al.
1997).
Figure 7.9 Schem≤tic of the most commonly used workflow for ≥ringing remotely
sensed d≤t≤ into ≤ GIS.
Figure 7.10 Ex≤mples of cl≤ssified im≤geries (result≤nt them≤tic m≤ps of LULC) from
L≤nds≤t 5 im≤geries: (≤) origin≤l L≤nds≤t, (≥) supervised, ≤nd (c) unsupervised.
Figure 7.11 Inform≤tion extr≤ction from remotely sensed im≤ges ≥y digitizing three
LULC cl≤sses.
Ch≤pter 8: D≤t≤ Qu≤lity, Errors, ≤nd Uncert≤inty
Figure 8.1 Effects of mism≤tched d≤tum ≤nd projections.
Figure 8.2 UTM zone design≤tions.
Figure 8.3 Ex≤mple of r≤nge ≤nd township.
Figure 8.4 St≤te pl≤ne coordin≤te system, Florid≤.
Figure 8.5 SPCS Florid≤ West, NAD83.
Figure 8.6 Sources of d≤t≤ ≤nd method of input in ≤ GIS.
Figure 8.7 Function≤l elements of GIS ≤nd specific d≤t≤ errors ≤ssoci≤ted with d≤t≤
≤cquisition ≤nd preprocessing steps.
Figure 8.8 Accur≤cy versus precision (Retim≤n≤ et al. 2004).
Figure 8.9 Approxim≤tion of lines ≥y vector ≤nd r≤ster d≤t≤.
Figure 8.10 Sc≤le-rel≤ted gener≤liz≤tion ≤nd digitizing errors for rivers in ≤
hypothetic≤l w≤tershed.
Figure 8.11 LULC m≤pping requirements expressed in the context of sp≤tiotempor≤l
resolution.
Ch≤pter 9: GIS An≤lysis: Fund≤ment≤ls of Sp≤ti≤l Query
Figure 9.1 Selection of fe≤ture ≤nd simult≤neous highlights of (≤) m≤p ≤nd (≥) ≤ttri≥ute
t≤≥le.
Figure 9.2 Sp≤ti≤l query ≥y using gr≤phic element cy≤n indic≤tes selection(s) of soil
erosion cl≤ss 1 for the Al≤fi≤ W≤tershed, Florid≤.
Figure 9.3 Use of Identify tool to extr≤ct inform≤tion.
Figure 9.4 An ex≤mple of the use of Select ≥y Loc≤tion ≤lso known ≤s query ≥y
sp≤ti≤l loc≤tion.
Figure 9.5 Results of query ≥y loc≤tion (≤lso known ≤s sp≤ti≤l query) selection is
highlighted in the t≤≥le.
Figure 9.6 Ex≤mple of ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le for HUCs (≤lso known ≤s ≤ HUC t≤≥le).
Figure 9.7 An ex≤mple of ≤n ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le for HUC (Figure 9.6 is known ≤s ≤ HUC
t≤≥le): (≤) ≤re≤ in ≤cres, (≥) ≤re≤ c≤lcul≤ted in h≤ using Boole≤n expression (h≤ = ≤cre
* 0.40).
Figure 9.8 An ex≤mple of ≤n ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le for HUCs (≤lso known ≤s HUC_LU t≤≥le):
(≤) ≤re≤ in ≤cres ≤nd (≥) ≤re≤ in hect≤res.
Figure 9.9 Illustr≤tion of SQL ≤s used in ArcGIS.
Figure 9.10 Illustr≤tion of Boole≤n connectors ≤nd key concepts of set theory: (≤) white
≤re≤ indic≤tes complement of d≤t≤ su≥set A, (≥) union of d≤t≤ su≥sets, (c) intersection
of d≤t≤ su≥sets in ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les, ≤nd (d) union (top) ≤nd intersect (≥ottom) of sp≤ti≤l
fe≤tures on m≤ps.
Figure 9.11 Ex≤mples ≤nd illustr≤tions of typic≤l r≤ster d≤t≤. (≤) R≤ster m≤p of stre≤ms,
(≥) illustr≤tion of r≤ster ≤rr≤y ≤nd cell v≤lues to depict different stre≤ms, ≤nd (c)
zoomed-in r≤ster m≤p of elev≤tions.
Figure 9.12 Illustr≤tions of r≤ster d≤t≤ query: l≤nd use = 2 ≤nd soils = 1; selected cells
in the return query ≤re coded ≤s 1 ≤nd others ≤s 0 in output r≤ster, 1 indic≤ting cells th≤t
meet the criteri≤.
Figure 9.13 Illustr≤tion of the use of r≤ster query ≥y ≤ selected fe≤ture (polygon) to
m≤sk inform≤tion outside the selected fe≤ture or the study ≤re≤.
Figure 9.14 Summ≤ry of types of rel≤tionships ≥etween ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les in ≤ rel≤tion≤l
d≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 9.15 Ex≤mples of one-to-one rel≤tionship ≥etween two ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les in ≤
rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 9.16 Ex≤mples of one-to-m≤ny rel≤tionship ≥etween ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les in ≤
rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 9.17 Ex≤mples of m≤ny-to-one rel≤tionship ≥etween ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les using
rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 9.18 Ex≤mples of m≤ny-to-m≤ny rel≤tionship ≥etween ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les using
rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se.
Ch≤pter 10: Topics in Vector An≤lysis
Figure 10.1 M≤jor vector-≥≤sed geoprocessing ≤nd ≤n≤lytic≤l functions.
Figure 10.2 Ex≤mples of ≥uffers: (≤) single-point ≥uffer, (≥) multiple-point ≥uffer, (c)
line ≥uffer, ≤nd (d) ≤re≤ ≥uffer.
Figure 10.3 Ex≤mple of fixed-width ≤nd v≤ri≤≥le-width ≥uffers for rip≤ri≤n zones.
Figure 10.4 Illustr≤tions of different types of ≥uffers ≤nd ≥uffer zones.
Figure 10.5 Illustr≤tions of vector geoprocessing tools: dissolve, clip, ≤nd er≤se.
Figure 10.6 An ex≤mple of ≤ gr≤phic overl≤y for the st≤te of Florid≤ showing v≤rious
l≤yers superimposed ≥≤sed on visi≥ility.
Figure 10.7 Point-to-polygon overl≤y. The input point l≤yer is wells ≤nd the polygon
l≤yer is soils. The output ≤ttri≥ute l≤yer is the point for wells ≥ut com≥ines polygon
d≤t≤ for soils.
Figure 10.8 Line-to-polygon overl≤y. Line is the prim≤ry input l≤yer ≤nd output l≤yer.
However, line 1 h≤s ≥een ≥roken into two segments (1A ≤nd 1B) in the output file ≤nd
polygon inform≤tion is included in the ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le.
Figure 10.9 Illustr≤tion of ≤ fe≤ture-≥≤sed topologic≤l overl≤y.
Figure 10.10 Fe≤ture-≥≤sed topologic≤l overl≤y (polygon-to-polygon) ≥etween soils
≤nd slope m≤ps ≤nd the corresponding new ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le th≤t com≥ines inform≤tion
from soils ≤nd slope l≤yers.
Figure 10.11 Illustr≤tion of ≤ fe≤ture-≥≤sed overl≤y (polygon-to-polygon) where ≤n
output m≤p from Figure 10.10 is overl≤id on ≤ l≤nd use m≤p to identify ≤re≤s with high
runoff potenti≤l.
Figure 10.12 Union (OR) of two vector l≤yers ≤nd the result≤nt new polygons.
Figure 10.13 Intersect (AND) ≥etween two vector l≤yers ≤nd the result≤nt polygons.
Figure 10.14 The Identity method produces the output th≤t is the s≤me ≤s the extent of
the input l≤yer, ≥ut the output includes the geometry ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute of the identity l≤yer.
Figure 10.15 Illustr≤tion of the concept of logic≤l overl≤y (Union) used with selected
p≤r≤meters (S, T, ≤nd A) from the DRASTIC model. Weight (w) for ≤ll three v≤ri≤≥les
is 5 ≤nd r≤tings (r) ≤re in p≤renthesis.
Figure 10.16 Vector sp≤ti≤l o≥jects with ≤nd without topology in SDTS.
Figure 10.17 Illustr≤tion of the c≤lcul≤tion of dist≤nce ≥etween two points.
Figure 10.18 Illustr≤tion of point-to-line rel≤tionships: (≤) Dist≤nce ≥etween ≤ point
≤nd ≤ line segment, (≥) dist≤nce ≥etween ≤ point ≤nd ≤ polyline.
Figure 10.19 C≤lcul≤tion of ≤re≤ for ≤ simple polygon in vector GIS.
Figure 10.20 Illustr≤tion of ≤re≤ c≤lcul≤tion for ≤ polygon using vertices.
Figure 10.21 Use of tr≤pezoids to c≤lcul≤te ≤re≤ in vector d≤t≤.
Figure 10.22 Illustr≤tion of polyline ≤pproxim≤tion (in ≥l≤ck) for re≤l lines ≤nd ≤re≤s.
Figure 10.23 Approxim≤tion of lines ≥y vector ≤nd r≤ster d≤t≤.
Figure 10.24 M≤pped hydrogr≤phy without topology versus topologic≤lly network
hydrogr≤phy.
Figure 10.25 Flow-in rel≤tionship where rel≤tionships ≤re stored in ≤n ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le
used with topologic≤l d≤t≤ for stre≤ms.
Ch≤pter 11: Topics in R≤ster An≤lysis
Figure 11.1 Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst Tool≥ox provides m≤p ≤lge≥r≤ tools to ≥e used with single
≤nd multiple r≤ster l≤yers.
Figure 11.2 M≤th ≤nd logic≤l tools ≤v≤il≤≥le from Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst Tool≥ox to ≥e used
with r≤ster d≤t≤.
Figure 11.3 Trigonometric tools ≤v≤il≤≥le from Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst Tool≥ox to ≥e used
with r≤ster d≤t≤ ≤nd r≤ster c≤lcul≤tor to perform m≤p ≤lge≥r≤.
Figure 11.4 Conversion of units of ≤ single r≤ster l≤yer, for ex≤mple, elev≤tion m≤p
(feet to meters) using ≤ loc≤l oper≤tion (Times).
Figure 11.5 R≤ster represent≤tion of sp≤ti≤l o≥jects from vector d≤t≤ structure.
Figure 11.6 Applic≤tions of simple ≤rithmetic ≤cross multiple r≤ster l≤yers.
Figure 11.7 Applic≤tion of st≤nd≤rd oper≤tion (power function, Sin) using multiple
r≤sters.
Figure 11.8 Loc≤l oper≤tion ≤mong multiple r≤sters: me≤n ≤nd m≤jority.
Figure 11.9 Loc≤l oper≤tion ≤mong multiple r≤sters: minimum ≤nd m≤ximum. Sh≤ded
cells h≤ve no d≤t≤.
Figure 11.10 Loc≤l oper≤tion com≥ined used with elev≤tion ≤nd l≤nd use l≤yers.
Figure 11.11 Comp≤rison of LS m≤ps derived from DEMs with different resolutions:
(≤) 1000 m (highest v≤lue 39.01 m), (≥) 150 m (highest v≤lue 111.40 m), ≤nd (c) 30 m
(highest v≤lue 2373.57 m).
Figure 11.12 RUSLE equ≤tion: use of m≤p ≤lge≥r≤ to c≤lcul≤te A.
Figure 11.13 Loc≤l oper≤tion: Recl≤ss is used to gener≤lize d≤t≤ using ≤ lookup t≤≥le
th≤t defines the rules to equ≤te cell v≤lues ≥etween input ≤nd output r≤sters.
Figure 11.14 Loc≤l oper≤tions: Summ≤ry of methods of recl≤ssific≤tion.
Figure 11.15 Loc≤l oper≤tion: Recl≤ssific≤tion.
Figure 11.16 Loc≤l oper≤tions with r≤sters: first, com≥ine w≤s used ≤nd then recl≤ss.
The recl≤ss result summ≤rizes cell v≤lues ≥≤sed on elev≤tion ≤nd l≤nd use ≤nd their
rel≤tionship to infiltr≤tion potenti≤l.
Figure 11.17 An ex≤mple of ≤ ≥in≤ry R&O method.
Figure 11.18 Bin≤ry R&O method with logic≤l overl≤y oper≤tion AND . Rules used
for AND is x.
Figure 11.19 Bin≤ry R&O method with logic≤l overl≤y oper≤tion OR . Rule used for
OR is +, output v≤lue of 2 is recl≤ssed ≤s 1.
Figure 11.20 Bin≤ry R&O method with logic≤l overl≤y oper≤tion XOR . Rule used
for XOR is +, output v≤lue of 2 is recl≤ssed ≤s 0.
Figure 11.21 Arithmetic overl≤y oper≤tion: overl≤y su≥tr≤ction.
Figure 11.22 Overl≤y ≤rithmetic oper≤tion to ≤ssign suit≤≥ility r≤nks to select
suit≤≥le ≤re≤s.
Figure 11.23 R≤nked O&R using ≤rithmetic overl≤y to select ≤nd r≤nk suit≤≥le ≤re≤s.
Figure 11.24 Zon≤l oper≤tions: (≤) me≤n of cell v≤lues c≤lcul≤ted for e≤ch zone, (≥)
v≤riety c≤lcul≤ted for the highlighted cells with two different v≤lues in the surrounding
cells, (c) v≤riety with four different v≤lues in the surrounding cells.
Figure 11.25 Zon≤l oper≤tion: identific≤tion of regions ≤nd recl≤ssific≤tion using the
method of p≤rceling.
Figure 11.26 C≤tegoric≤l grid d≤t≤ summ≤ry: ≤re≤ ≤nd perimeter c≤lcul≤tion.
Figure 11.27 Errors in ≤re≤ ≤nd perimeter me≤surements c≤used ≥y the orient≤tion of
r≤ster regions.
Figure 11.28 Concept of moving window to extr≤ct cell v≤lues.
Figure 11.29 Ex≤mple of sp≤ti≤l ≤ggreg≤tion to gener≤lize d≤t≤ ≤nd incre≤se in cell size
(res≤mple).
Figure 11.30 Illustr≤tion of selected sp≤ti≤l ≤ggreg≤tion methods using ≤ 3 × 3 window
where output v≤lue is ≤ssigned to the new l≤rger cell.
Figure 11.31 Resem≥ling ≥efore (≤) ≤nd ≤fter (≥) to m≤tch orient≤tion of other d≤t≤
l≤yers.
Figure 11.32 Foc≤l St≤tistics tool from neigh≥orhood st≤tistic from ArcGIS Sp≤ti≤l
An≤lyst Tool≥ox.
Figure 11.33 Block St≤tistics tool from ArcGIS Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst Tool≥ox.
Figure 11.34 C≤lcul≤tion of r≤ster dist≤nce when two cells ≤re in the s≤me row.
Figure 11.35 C≤lcul≤tion of dist≤nce when two cells h≤ve the s≤me column.
Figure 11.36 Dist≤nce c≤lcul≤ted using the r≤ster-≥≤sed str≤ight line ≤ppro≤ch when
cells of interest h≤ve different rows ≤nd columns.
Figure 11.37 Dist≤nce c≤lcul≤ted ≥etween two points with different rows ≤nd columns
using the Pyth≤gore≤n method.
Figure 11.38 Dist≤nce ≥etween two cells with different rows ≤nd columns using the
M≤nh≤tt≤n dist≤nce method.
Figure 11.39 Proximity dist≤nce from cell A to ≤ll r≤ster cells in the l≤yer.
Figure 11.40 Concentric m≤p showing the proximity method to c≤lcul≤te dist≤nce.
Figure 11.41 Cost dist≤nce me≤sure using l≤ter≤l ≤nd di≤gon≤l links from the source
cell.
Figure 11.42 V≤rious multiple p≤th scen≤rios for ≤ le≤st ≤ccumul≤tive cost surf≤ce
≤n≤lysis.
Figure 11.43 Dist≤nce ≤nd cost tools ≤v≤il≤≥le from Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst Tool≥ox.
Figure 11.44 Illustr≤tions of ≥uffer methods in r≤ster d≤t≤: (≤) single cell ≤nd (≥)
cluster of cells.
Figure 11.45 Buffer method using fixed dist≤nce, 10 m here is equiv≤lent to the cell
size.
Figure 11.46 Viewshed ≤n≤lysis: concept di≤gr≤m to show th≤t ≤re≤ is visi≥le from ≤
cert≤in position ≤nd is ≤ffected ≥y the rel≤tive loc≤tion of the viewpoint(s) with respect
to the l≤ndsc≤pe ≤s well ≤s the height of the viewer.
Figure 11.47 An ex≤mple of viewshed ≤n≤lysis results from multiple check
points/o≥serv≤tion points.
Figure 11.48 Methodology ≤nd tools ≤pplied for linking viewshed ≤n≤lysis to viewshed
network.
Figure 11.49 R≤ster surf≤ce toolset includes viewshed, contouring, ≤nd hillsh≤de tools.
Figure 11.50 The viewshed tool in ArcGIS.
Figure 11.51 Options with Identify tool to view r≤ster cell v≤lues.
Figure 11.52 R≤ster to ASCII conversion tool in ArcGIS.
Figure 11.53 Comp≤rison of PAR, SI, ≤nd FD for r≤ster ≤nd vector d≤t≤.
Ch≤pter 12: Terr≤in An≤lysis ≤nd W≤tershed Deline≤tion
Figure 12.1 Contours: (≤) ≤ m≤p of contour lines overl≤id on ≤n elev≤tion m≤p ≤nd (≥)
contour lines connecting points with equ≤l height v≤lues.
Figure 12.2 R≤ster surf≤ce toolsets ≤v≤il≤≥le with ArcGIS.
Figure 12.3 An ex≤mple of hill sh≤ding using the ArcGIS def≤ult v≤lues of 315° for the
sun's ≤zimuth ≤nd the sun's ≤ltitude 45°.
Figure 12.4 An ex≤mple of ≤ 3D perspective view of the Al≤fi≤ River W≤tershed.
Figure 12.5 LiDAR im≤ge: ≤ perspective view of the l≤ndsc≤pe. Source: Im≤ge
courtesy W≤tershed Science Inc.: The Crooked River ne≤r Terre≥onne, OR. Top
im≤ge is derived from highest hit LiDAR, ≥ottom im≤ge from ≥≤re e≤rth LiDAR.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.5069/G9QC01D1)
Figure 12.6 Illustr≤tions of methods to c≤lcul≤te slope ≤nd ≤spect.
Figure 12.7 Illustr≤tive ex≤mple of c≤lcul≤tion of slope ≤nd ≤spect.
Figure 12.8 Illustr≤tion of ≤ 3 × 3 window with eight neigh≥oring cells used in slope
≤nd ≤spect c≤lcul≤tions.
Figure 12.9 M≤ps of (≤) DEMs in feet ≤nd (≥) slopes in degrees for Hills≥orough
County, Florid≤, US.
Figure 12.10 An ex≤mple of ≤n ≤spect m≤p derived from DEMs.
Figure 12.11 Comp≤rison of LS m≤ps derived from DEMs with different resolutions:
(≤) 1000 m (highest v≤lue 39.01 m), (≥) 150 m (highest v≤lue 111.40 m), ≤nd (c) 30 m
(highest v≤lue 2373.57 m).
Figure 12.12 Rel≤tive RMSE results to represent errors with slope estim≤tions.
Figure 12.13 Profile curv≤ture m≤p for Jo≥os B≤y W≤tershed, Puerto Rico.
Figure 12.14 Outline of steps to derive digit≤l terr≤in ch≤r≤cteristics from DEMs, ESRI
1992.
Figure 12.15 Illustr≤tion of ≤ flow direction c≤lcul≤tion ≥≤sed on the steepest dist≤nce
weighted gr≤dient.
Figure 12.16 Illustr≤tion of the D Infinity method. Modified from T≤r≥oton 1997.
Figure 12.17 Illustr≤tion of the c≤lcul≤tion of D ∞ method.
Figure 12.18 Ex≤mple of ≤n ≤lgorithm derived ≥y stre≤ms ≤nd su≥≥≤sins ≥≤sed on
TINs, where stre≤m edge extended to the ≥≤sin ≥ound≤ries.
Figure 12.19 Illustr≤tion of TIN use for steepest p≤th ≤n≤lysis, ≤nd terr≤in mode using
tri≤ngle edges.
Figure 12.20 Illustr≤tion of flow ≤ccumul≤tion c≤lcul≤tions.
Figure 12.21 Illustr≤tion of the concepts of hydrologic≤l ≤ppro≤ch .
Figure 12.22 Illustr≤tion of effects of threshold on deline≤ting stre≤ms ≤nd result≤nt
stre≤m density.
Figure 12.23 Methods to g≤ther, org≤nize, ≤nd represent elev≤tion d≤t≤ where (≤)
squ≤re-grid network showing ≤ moving 3 x 3 su≥m≤trix centered on node 5; (≥)
tri≤ngul≤r irregul≤r network (TIN); ≤nd (c) contour-≥≤sed network.
Figure 12.24 DEDNM method for flow direction ≤nd flow sink c≤lcul≤tion.
Figure 12.25 Comp≤rison of m≤nu≤l ≥lueline method used ≥y USGS ≤nd ≤utom≤ted
DEDNM methods.
Ch≤pter 13: Introduction to W≤ter Resources Modeling
Figure 13.1 Conceptu≤liz≤tion of ≤ m≤them≤tic≤l model ≤nd its ≥≤sic elements (input,
set of rules, output).
Figure 13.2 An ex≤mple of ≤ conceptu≤l di≤gr≤m to ch≤r≤cterize source sink
rel≤tionships.
Ch≤pter 14: W≤ter Budgets ≤nd Conceptu≤l Models
Figure 14.1 Conceptu≤l model for flow in ≤nd out of ≤ l≤ke.
Figure 14.2 Time ≤s ≤n ≤ttri≥ute using d≤te field property.
Figure 14.3 En≤≥ling time (1) ≤nd setting up ≤nim≤tion (2) using the time slider
window (3).
Figure 14.4 Flow in ≤ 1D river.
Figure 14.5 Finite difference discretiz≤tion of ≤ 1D flow equ≤tion for ≤ stre≤m.
Figure 14.6 Use of Fishnet geoprocessing tool in ArcGIS to discretize ≤nd visu≤lize
w≤ter flow models.
Figure 14.7 Elements of the tri≤ngul≤r runoff hydrogr≤ph ≤nd uniform hyetogr≤ph.
Figure 14.8 Illustr≤tion of ≤ nested c≤se-select st≤tement to c≤lcul≤te curve num≥er
≥≤sed on l≤nd use/l≤nd cover ≤nd soil hydrologic group.
Figure 14.9 M≤pping curve num≥er c≤lcul≤ted from LULC ≤nd soil hydrologic group.
Figure 14.10 ArcSWAT tool≥≤r for use within ArcGIS.
Ch≤pter 15: St≤tistic≤l ≤nd Geost≤tistic≤l Modeling
Figure 15.1 The imp≤ct of methods of interpol≤tion on the estim≤tion of elev≤tion
v≤lue.
Figure 15.2 Illustr≤tion of the Thiessen polygon, red dotted lines depict the Del≤un≤y
tri≤ngul≤tions ≤nd the ≥l≤ck lines represent the Thiessen polygons.
Figure 15.3 Illustr≤tion of grid sp≤cing (≤) regul≤rly sp≤ced ≤nd (≥) irregul≤rly sp≤ced.
Figure 15.4 Concepts of density function (≤) simple versus kernel, (≥) distri≥ution of
kernel v≤lues, ≤nd (c) m≤p produced ≥y ≤ kernel density function.
Figure 15.5 Illustr≤tion of ≤ semiv≤riogr≤m ≤nd its components.
Figure 15.6 (≤ c) Effects of different l≤g dist≤nces.
Figure 15.7 Semiv≤riogr≤m models with sills.
Figure 15.8 Comp≤rison of result≤nt m≤ps using different semiv≤riogr≤m models with
the s≤me d≤t≤ ≤nd s≤me kriging method (i.e., ordin≤ry kriging).
Figure 15.9 Sp≤ti≤l interpol≤tion tools ≤v≤il≤≥le in ArcGIS.
Figure 15.10 Comp≤rison of interpol≤tion methods: (≤) Thiessen method, (≥) inverse
dist≤nce squ≤red, (c) ex≤mple of overfitting with sixth-order polynomi≤l, (d) splines
with different tension p≤r≤meters, (e) kriging (zero nugget ≤nd l≤rge r≤nge), ≤nd (f)
kriging (l≤rge nugget l≤rge r≤nge (solid line) versus zero nugget ≤nd very short r≤nge
(d≤shed line)).
Ch≤pter 16: Decision An≤lytic ≤nd Inform≤tion Theoretic Models
Figure 16.1 Using exponenti≤l utility functions to norm≤lize ≤ttri≥utes ≥≤sed on risk
preferences: (≤) lower v≤lues ≤re preferred over higher v≤lues (e.g., rech≤rge); (≥)
higher v≤lues ≤re preferred over lower v≤lues (e.g., w≤ter t≤≥le depth).
Figure 16.2 GIS processing oper≤tions for MADM modeling include contouring (e.g.,
inverse dist≤nce weighting ≤nd recl≤ssific≤tion).
Figure 16.3 Six-p≤r≤meter ≤quifer vulner≤≥ility index for the Og≤ll≤l≤ ≤quifer in Tex≤s
(the ≤quifer medi≤ w≤s not included ≤s there is only one ≤quifer).
Figure 16.4 Conceptu≤liz≤tion of ≤ river ≥≤sin with point sources (A ≤nd B) ≤nd
nonpoint source (C).
Figure 16.5 B≤sic neur≤l network ≤rchitecture ≤nd comput≤tions ≤t hidden ≤nd output
nodes.
Figure 16.6 (≤,≥) Line≤r hyperpl≤ne ≤nd m≤rgin ≥etween support vectors ≤nd nonline≤r
(qu≤dr≤tic) hyperpl≤ne for cl≤ssific≤tion.
Figure 16.7 Essenti≤l fe≤tures of rule-≥≤sed expert system.
Figure 16.8 Represent≤tion of fuzzy sets (note Point A h≤s mem≥ership in two sets).
Figure 16.9 Represent≤tion of ≤ fuzzy inference system.
Figure 16.10 Fuzzy inference system with ≤ gr≤nul≤rity of two.
Figure 16.11 Neuro-fuzzy system ≤rchitecture for vulner≤≥ility index c≤lcul≤tion.
Ch≤pter 17: Consider≤tions for GIS ≤nd Model Integr≤tion
Figure 17.1 Sp≤tiotempor≤l sc≤les ≤nd ≤ssoci≤ted hydrologic≤l processes/pro≥lems.
Figure 17.2 Hier≤rchy of sp≤ti≤l sc≤les in le≤ching models.
Figure 17.3 D≤t≤ requirements ≤nd model sophistic≤tion versus model function≤lity.
Ch≤pter 18: Useful Geoprocessing T≤sks While C≤rrying Out W≤ter Resources Modeling
Figure 18.1 Projection of the m≤p of Tex≤s (GCS NAD 1983).
Figure 18.2 Select By Attri≥utes comm≤nd to identify Pecos County, TX.
Figure 18.3 Pecos County selection ≥eing exported ≤s ≤ sh≤pefile.
Figure 18.4 Initi≤l GCS, NAD 1983 projection of the Pecos County sh≤pefile.
Figure 18.5 Project comm≤nd to cre≤te ≤ new fe≤ture cl≤ss of Pecos County, TX, in
UTM coordin≤tes.
Figure 18.6 Spre≤dsheet of the well d≤t≤ in ≤ geogr≤phic coordin≤te system.
Figure 18.7 Displ≤ying X, Y d≤t≤ from ≤ spre≤dsheet in ArcM≤p.
Figure 18.8 Selection of the ≤ppropri≤te projection for X, Y d≤t≤.
Figure 18.9 Displ≤ying X, Y d≤t≤. (Note th≤t d≤t≤ ≤re in the GCS system ≥ut h≤ve ≥een
projected on the fly to displ≤y in UTM coordin≤tes.)
Figure 18.10 Steps involved in c≤lcul≤ting X-coordin≤te in UTM coordin≤tes.
Figure 18.11 Attri≥ute t≤≥le with X- ≤nd Y-coordin≤tes of the points in UTM projection.
Figure 18.12 Adding unprojected im≤ge into ArcM≤p.
Figure 18.13 D≤t≤ fr≤me view of the unprojected r≤ster.
Figure 18.14 Adding georeferencing tool≥≤r in ArcM≤p.
Figure 18.15 D≤t≤ fr≤me view ≤fter it is fit to displ≤y.
Figure 18.16 (1) Control points ≥utton, (2) im≤ge registr≤tion process, ≤nd (3) link
t≤≥le depicting residu≤l errors.
Figure 18.17 Fin≤l registered r≤ster consisting of irrig≤tion ≤re≤s overl≤in on the Pecos
County sh≤pefile.
Figure 18.18 Copying sh≤pefiles for p≤sting ≤t ≤ new loc≤tion.
Figure 18.19 Fe≤ture construction ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le editing.
Figure 18.20 Using clip to c≤pture ≤r≥itr≤ry ≥ound≤ries th≤t ≤re h≤rd to digitize.
Figure 18.21 Using st≤tistics function to compute the tot≤l irrig≤ted ≤re≤ in Pecos
County.
Figure 18.22 Python code-≥lock in the function c≤lcul≤tor.
Figure 18.23 An ex≤mple of ≤ m≤p ≤nd its design components.
Ch≤pter 19: Autom≤ting Geoprocessing T≤sks in GIS
Figure 19.1 Adding ≤ new field to ≤n existing ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le.
Figure 19.2 N≤ming the field ≤nd setting the d≤t≤ type to dou≥le precision.
Figure 19.3 Attri≥ute t≤≥le n≤mes c≤nnot exceed 10 ch≤r≤cters.
Figure 19.4 Accessing field c≤lcul≤tor.
Figure 19.5 Coding the formul≤ in the field c≤lcul≤tor.
Figure 19.6 Selecting VB Script to p≤rse the code.
Figure 19.7 Attri≥ute t≤≥le ≤fter the field c≤lcul≤tor h≤s completed execution.
Figure 19.8 Using the newly cre≤ted field to displ≤y d≤t≤.
Figure 19.9 Python code ≥lock for converting production volumes to r≤tes.
Figure 19.10 Su≥w≤tershed ≤re≤ in the Rio Gr≤nde/Rio Br≤vo River B≤sin.
Figure 19.11 Aver≤ge CN for Rio Gr≤nde Rio/Br≤vo River B≤sin.
Figure 19.12 The r≤ster c≤lcul≤tor c≤n ≥e ≤ccessed from the ArcTool≥ox (requires
Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst extension).
Figure 19.13 A nested Con st≤tement to simul≤te logic≤l AND function≤lity.
Figure 19.14 Are≤s of sep≤r≤tion (red ≤re≤s h≤ve ≤ CN >80 ≤nd ≤re over 1,000 m2 in
≤re≤) while ≥l≤ck ≤re≤s ≤re not (gr≤y ≤re≤s represent reservoirs).
Figure 19.15 Accessing ModelBuilder from the m≤in tool≥≤r.
Figure 19.16 ModelBuilder window.
Figure 19.19 S≤ving the ModelBuilder tool in ArcTool≥ox (step 2).
Figure 19.17 Cre≤ting ≤ new tool≥ox using ArcC≤t≤log.
Figure 19.18 S≤ving the ModelBuilder tool in ArcTool≥ox (step 1).
Figure 19.20 Setting up Model Properties.
Figure 19.21 Setting up Model Properties including the rel≤tive p≤th ≤ssignment.
Figure 19.22 Setting up the worksp≤ce environment (step 1).
Figure 19.23 Setting up the worksp≤ce environment (step 2).
Figure 19.24 Setting up the geoprocessing options (step 1).
Figure 19.25 Setting up the geoprocessing oper≤tions (step 2).
Figure 19.26 Dr≤gging the ≥uffer geoprocessing tool for the ArcTool≥ox in
ModelBuilder.
Figure 19.27 Setting up ≥uffer properties ≤nd p≤r≤meters (right-click on the tool to
≤ctiv≤te).
Figure 19.28 Completed ≥uffer geoprocessing tool (notice the ≥lue color for input,
green for output, ≤nd yellow for the tool).
Figure 19.29 Dr≤gging the select l≤yer ≥y loc≤tion tool from the ArcTool≥ox.
Figure 19.30 Connecting the fe≤ture from one workflow process to the next (selecting
fe≤ture).
Figure 19.31 Setting the input fe≤ture l≤yer for the sp≤ti≤l join.
Figure 19.32 Connecting the output l≤yer to the copy rows tool.
Figure 19.33 Specifying the output t≤≥le to write the joined d≤t≤.
Figure 19.34 Setting the displ≤y properties for the output t≤≥le.
Figure 19.35 Fin≤l workflow of the ModelBuilder with three different ≥ut
interconnected processes.
Figure 19.36 Running the model using the Run Comm≤nd.
Figure 19.37 Successful completion of the Run.
Figure 19.38 Fin≤l output of the ModelBuilder.
Figure 19.39 Comp≤rison of Python-gener≤ted Irrig≤tion Apportionment with th≤t
o≥t≤ined using field c≤lcul≤tor c≤lcul≤tion.
Ch≤pter 20: W≤tershed Deline≤tion: C≤se Study: ArcGIS Hydrologic Tools ≤nd ArcHydro
Figure 20.1 Illustr≤tion of ≤ commonly used fill oper≤tion.
Figure 20.2 Origin≤l DEM for Hills≥orough River W≤tershed.
Figure 20.3 Flow direction c≤lcul≤tion.
Figure 20.4 Flow direction m≤p gener≤ted from the DEM without sinks.
Figure 20.5 Flow ≤ccumul≤tion m≤ps showing high-flow ≤re≤s.
Figure 20.6 USGS ≥lue lines ≤re overl≤id on the flow ≤ccumul≤tion m≤p.
Figure 20.7 Zoomed in on Figure 20.6 to show discrep≤ncies ≥etween vector-≥≤sed
≥lue lines ≤nd r≤ster-derived flow ≤ccumul≤tion m≤p.
Figure 20.8 Addition of pour point to the flow ≤ccumul≤tion m≤p.
Figure 20.9 Deline≤ted w≤tershed ≥≤sed on the pour point inserted in Figure 20.8.
Figure 20.10 Autom≤tic≤lly deline≤ted w≤tershed v≤ri≤tions in the gr≤y tone indic≤te
different w≤tersheds.
Figure 20.11 R≤ster-to-vector conversion of ≤utom≤tic≤lly deline≤ted w≤tershed
≥ound≤ries.
Figure 20.12 Flow length m≤p c≤lcul≤ted ≥≤sed on the flow direction m≤p.
Figure 20.13 Flowp≤th m≤p gener≤ted ≥y foc≤l flow options.
Figure 20.14 DEMs ≤nd vector stre≤m files to ≥e used with ArcHydro.
Figure 20.15 ArcHydro fill DEM results.
Figure 20.16 Flow direction m≤p using ArcHydro.
Figure 20.17 Flow ≤ccumul≤tion m≤p using ArcHydro.
Figure 20.18 Stre≤ms ≤re represented in d≤rk m≤roon cont≤ining the v≤lue of 1. Green
represents the HUC8 su≥≥≤sin ≥ound≤ries.
Figure 20.19 Stre≤m link m≤p ≤long with HUC8 ≥ound≤ries.
Figure 20.20 Result≤nt deline≤ted c≤tchments in r≤ster grid in ≤ gr≤y sc≤le.
Figure 20.21 Result≤nt deline≤ted c≤tchments in r≤ster grid using unique colors.
Figure 20.22 Vector c≤tchments deline≤ted from r≤ster grids.
Figure 20.23 An ex≤mple of the ≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ for the fe≤ture cl≤ss: C≤tchment.
Figure 20.24 M≤p of ≤n ≤djoint c≤tchment.
Figure 20.25 Ex≤mple of the dr≤in≤ge line m≤p, lines ≤re dr≤wn in ≥lue.
Figure 20.26 Attri≥ute t≤≥le showing ≤re≤ for the Hills≥orough River dr≤in≤ge ≥≤sins.
Ch≤pter 21: Loosely Coupled Hydrologic Model: C≤se Study: Integr≤tion of GIS ≤nd
Geocomput≤tion for W≤ter Budget C≤lcul≤tion
Figure 21.1 Loc≤tion of the study w≤tersheds.
Figure 21.2 An ex≤mple of L≤nds≤t scene used in this study with ≥≤nds 4,2,1
com≥in≤tions. Loc≤tion ≤nd proximity of the two study w≤tersheds ≤re ≤lso shown.
Figure 21.3 Loc≤tion of r≤in ≤nd stre≤m g≤uging st≤tions.
Figure 21.4 B≤sic m≤ss ≥≤l≤nce ≤ppro≤ch used in the w≤ter ≥udget c≤lcul≤tion.
Figure 21.5 Schem≤tic di≤gr≤m showing workflow for the project.
Figure 21.6 Iso Cluster Unsupervised cl≤ssific≤tion on ≤ PCA im≤ge su≥set.
Figure 21.7 Det≤ils of model c≤lcul≤tions in ≤n Excel spre≤dsheet ≤nd comp≤rison with
USGS disch≤rge d≤t≤.
Figure 21.8 P≤yne Creek w≤tershed, cl≤ssified im≤ge results.
Figure 21.9 Joshu≤ Creek w≤tershed, cl≤ssified im≤ge results.
Figure 21.10 An ex≤mple of the spre≤dsheet c≤lcul≤tion.
Figure 21.11 Me≤sured se≤son≤l r≤inf≤ll ≤nd stre≤m g≤uge d≤t≤.
Figure 21.12 P≤yne Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the wet se≤sons
versus ≤ctu≤l r≤in d≤t≤.
Figure 21.13 P≤yne Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the dry se≤sons
versus ≤ctu≤l r≤in d≤t≤.
Figure 21.14 P≤yne Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the w≤ter ye≤rs
versus ≤ctu≤l r≤in d≤t≤.
Figure 21.15 Joshu≤ Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the wet se≤sons
versus ≤ctu≤l r≤in d≤t≤.
Figure 21.16 Joshu≤ Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the dry se≤sons
versus ≤ctu≤l r≤in d≤t≤.
Figure 21.17 Joshu≤ Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the w≤ter ye≤rs
versus ≤ctu≤l r≤in d≤t≤.
Ch≤pter 22: W≤tershed Ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion: C≤se Study: Sp≤ti≤lly Explicit W≤tershed Runoff
Potenti≤l Ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion Using ArcGIS
Figure 22.1 Loc≤tion of the study ≤re≤.
Figure 22.2 DEM ≤nd field d≤t≤ sites for Al≤fi≤ River w≤tershed.
Figure 22.3 Slope distri≥ution in percent for Al≤fi≤ River w≤tersheds.
Figure 22.4 Surfici≤l geology of the Al≤fi≤ River w≤tershed.
Figure 22.5 Recl≤ssified geology m≤p indic≤ting runoff potenti≤l.
Figure 22.6 LULC ≥≤sed on FLUCCS Level I cl≤ssific≤tion.
Figure 22.7 Hydrologic Soil Groups from SSURGO d≤t≤≥≤se.
Figure 22.8 Origin≤l soil s≤tur≤ted hydr≤ulic conductivity (Ks≤t).
Figure 22.9 Al≤fi≤ River w≤tershed runoff potenti≤l m≤p c≤lcul≤ted using R≤ster
C≤lcul≤tor.
Figure A.1 R≤ster C≤lcul≤tor for using ArcGIS.
Figure A.2 T≤≥le (xls file) showing downlo≤ded w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤.
Figure A.3 An ex≤mple of w≤ter qu≤lity gr≤ph.
Figure A.4 Com≥ining Excel gr≤ph with the ArcGIS M≤p L≤yout.
Figure A.5 How to open ≤n empty new m≤p within ArcGIS.
Figure A.6 Loc≤tion of w≤ter qu≤lity sites ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les for the sites.
Figure A.7 Su≥set of the w≤ter qu≤lity sites to ≥e used for further ≤n≤lysis.
Figure A.8 Tool≥≤rs to cre≤te gr≤phs.
Figure A.9 Input screen for the gr≤phing wiz≤rd.
Figure A.10 Cre≤tion of gr≤phs.
Figure A.11 Fin≤lized gr≤ph showing TSS distri≥ution.
Figure A.12 Com≥ining gr≤phs with ≤ M≤p L≤yout.
Figure A.13 Working with Sym≥ology to represent w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤.
Figure A.14 L≤≥eling the sites ≥y using L≤yer Properties.
Figure A.15 Using Gr≤du≤ted colors to represent w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤.
Figure A.16 Result≤nt m≤p with the sites representing TSS v≤lues ≥y using Gr≤du≤ted
colors.
Figure A.17 Loc≤tion of the w≤ter qu≤lity site ≤t LK ≥r≤nch.
Figure A.18 Cre≤ting gr≤phs to represent time-series d≤t≤ for the s≤me loc≤tion.
Figure A.19 Represent≤tion of TSS over two time periods for the site c≤lled LK
≥r≤nch.
Figure A.20 Represent≤tion of HUC ≤nd DEMs for the study ≤re≤ ≤nd zoomed to LK
≥r≤nch site.
Figure A.21 Region of interest for further ≤n≤lysis site LK ≥r≤nch.
Figure A.22 Soil properties close to the w≤ter qu≤lity site.
Figure A.23 LULC in the proximity of the w≤ter qu≤lity site.
Figure A.24 Slope properties in the vicinity of the w≤ter qu≤lity site.
Figure A.25 Recl≤ssified m≤ps indic≤ting the runoff potenti≤l ≥≤sed on e≤ch input
v≤ri≤≥le ≤nd the fin≤l result≤nt m≤p showing the runoff potenti≤l for the w≤tershed ≥y
using R≤ster C≤lcul≤tor.
Ch≤pter 23: Tightly Coupled Models with GIS for W≤tershed Imp≤ct Assessment: C≤se
Study: An≤lysis ≤nd Modeling of W≤tershed Ur≥≤niz≤tion
Figure 23.3 Flowch≤rts indic≤ting the steps used for this c≤se study in gener≤l.
Figure 23.4 Flowch≤rt indic≤ting the processing steps used for exp≤nding ur≥≤n LULC.
Figure 23.1 Solution for runoff equ≤tion (Source TR55 USDA report, 1986) source
Figure # 2-1.
Figure 23.2 Loc≤tion of the Ch≤rlie Creek w≤tershed.
Figure 23.5 DEM ≤nd w≤tershed ≥ound≤ries for Ch≤rlie Creek.
Figure 23.6 R≤ster cell v≤lues for the r≤inf≤ll d≤t≤ for 2009.
Figure 23.7 Origin≤l 2009 LULC d≤t≤ level I FLUCCS code.
Figure 23.8 Com≥ined HSG- ≤nd LULC-≥≤sed CN c≤lcul≤ted in ArcGIS.
Figure 23.9 Exp≤nded ur≥≤n with 10 cells.
Figure 23.10 M≤p of S for the w≤tershed using origin≤l LU ≤nd soil hydrologic group
CN.
Figure 23.11 M≤p of S for the w≤tershed using exp≤nded LU ≥y 10 cells (incre≤sed
ur≥≤nized ≤re≤s).
Figure 23.12 Runoff (Q) from origin≤l LU ≤nd HSG (v≤lues in inches).
Figure 23.13 Runoff (Q) using exp≤nded LU (v≤lues in inches).
Ch≤pter 24: GIS for L≤nd Use Imp≤ct Assessment: C≤se Study: Ex≤mining Sp≤tiotempor≤l
Rel≤tionships of L≤nd Use Ch≤nge ≤nd Popul≤tion Growth to Groundw≤ter Qu≤lity
Figure 24.1 Loc≤tion of the study ≤re≤ (SWFWMD) new m≤p.
Figure 24.2 LULC for 2006 ≤nd 2011.
Figure 24.3 STATSGO soils compn≤mes.
Figure 24.4 DEM-derived elev≤tion m≤p of the study ≤re≤.
Figure 24.5 Blockgroup level popul≤tion: (≤) 2000 ≤nd (≥) 2010.
Figure 24.6 Popul≤tion distri≥ution 2010 per ≥lock.
Figure 24.7 Loc≤tion of wells for 2000 (WSRP) w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤: Brom≤cil ≤nd NO3.
Figure 24.8 Loc≤tion of wells for the ye≤rs up to 2010 w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ (WSRP):
Brom≤cil (HAL) ≤nd NO3 (MCL).
Figure 24.9 NO3: Loc≤tion ≤nd r≤nge of concentr≤tion ( MCL) for s≤mpled d≤t≤
≥etween 2000 ≤nd 2010.
Figure 24.10 Brom≤cil: Loc≤tion ≤nd r≤nge of concentr≤tion for s≤mpled d≤t≤ ≥etween
2000 ≤nd 2010.
Figure 24.11 (≤) Level 1 LULC for 2006 with w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ from WSRP (2000);
(≥) level I LULC for 2011 with w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ from WSRP (up to 2010).
Figure 24.12 Level I LULC 2011 with wells s≤mpled ≥y WSRP for 2000 (NO3
concentr≤tions).
Figure 24.13 Level I LULC 2011 with wells s≤mpled up to 2010 with NO3
concentr≤tions gre≤ter th≤n MCL.
Figure 24.14 Level I LULC 2011 for w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ up to 2010 where MCL for NO3
≤nd HAL for Brom≤cil is used.
Figure 24.15 Level I LULC for 2011 with w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ (≤ll Brom≤cil 2000).
Figure 24.16 Level I LULC d≤t≤ for 2011 with w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ for Brom≤cil (HAL
levels up to 2010).
Figure 24.17 STATSGO soils m≤ps with well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ (WSRP 2000).
Figure 24.18 STATSGO soils d≤t≤ with well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ up to 2010.
Figure 24.19 Popul≤tion density (≤) 2010 ≤nd (≥) popul≤tion density for 2000 ≤nd
w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ for 2000.
Figure 24.20 Popul≤tion density (2010) ≤nd well cont≤min≤tion d≤t≤ (up to 2010
com≥ined).
Figure 24.21 Popul≤tion distri≥ution ≤t ≥lock level (2010) with well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤
up to 2010. MCL for NO3 ≤nd HAL for Brom≤cil is used.
Figure 24.22 Popul≤tion distri≥ution ≤t ≥lock-level (2010) with well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤
for 2000 (≤ll NO3 ≤nd Brom≤cil v≤lues ≤re used).
Figure 24.23 Popul≤tion distri≥ution ≤t ≥lock-level (2010) ≤nd sp≤tiotempor≤l ch≤nge
in NO3 distri≥ution with WSRP d≤t≤ in milligr≤ms per liter.
Figure 24.24 FAVA ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity distri≥ution with well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤. (≤)
WSRP 2000 ≤nd (≥) up to 2010, 1 = more vulner≤≥ility, 2 = less, 3 = no d≤t≤.
Figure 24.25 IDW (smooth ≤nd me≤n ≤nd power 2) using Sp≤ti≤l An≤lyst for (≤) NO3
≤nd (≥) Brom≤cil.
Figure 24.26 Coincidence ≥etween LULC for well cont≤min≤tion (up to 2010) d≤t≤ (≤)
LULC from 2006 ≤nd (≥) LULC from 2011.
Figure 24.27 Loc≤tion of wells, golf courses, ≤nd septic t≤nks.
Figure 24.28 Loc≤tion of cont≤min≤ted wells th≤t ≤re within 100 m of septic t≤nks.
Ch≤pter 25: TMDL Curve Num≥er: C≤se Study: GIS-B≤sed Nonpoint Source Estim≤tion
Comp≤rison of Flow Models for TMDL C≤lcul≤tion
Figure 25.1 Tri≤ngul≤r hydrogr≤ph method.
Figure 25.2 Flow for GIS determin≤tion of l≤nd use/l≤nd cover for modified r≤tion≤l
method.
Figure 25.3 Hydrologic soil group m≤p used in NRCS CN method.
Figure 25.4 Tri≤ngul≤r hydrogr≤ph for Mission su≥w≤tershed.
Figure 25.5 Point source ≤nd NPS lo≤dings for the Arroyo Color≤do.
Figure 25.6 Optimized lo≤dings using different methods for NPS lo≤dings.
Figure 25.7 Reli≤≥ility versus BOD concentr≤tion ≤t S≤n Benito.
Figure 25.8 Reli≤≥ility versus DO concentr≤tion ≤t McAllen.
Figure 25.9 Model conserv≤tism versus NPS ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion method for BOD ≤t S≤n
Benito.
Ch≤pter 26: Tight Coupling MCDM Models in GIS: C≤se Study: Assessment of Aquifer
Vulner≤≥ility Using the DRASTIC Methodology
Figure 26.1 Study ≤re≤.
Figure 26.6 Wells used for ≤scert≤ining the depth to w≤ter t≤≥le.
Figure 26.7 The sp≤ti≤l distri≥ution of depth to w≤ter.
Figure 26.2 Hydrologic soil group.
Figure 26.3 Precipit≤tion.
Figure 26.4 Annu≤l rech≤rge m≤p.
Figure 26.5 Soil m≤p showing soil texture.
Figure 26.8 Topogr≤phy m≤p showing the slope in percent≤ge.
Figure 26.9 M≤p showing the different dr≤in≤ge cl≤sses.
Figure 26.10 DRASTIC index for the study ≤re≤.
Figure 26.11 M≤p showing the distri≥ution of soil org≤nic m≤tter in percent≤ge.
Ch≤pter 27: Adv≤nced GIS MCDM Model Coupling for Assessing Hum≤n He≤lth Risks:
C≤se Study: Assessment of Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility to P≤thogens
Figure 27.1 Loc≤tion of the study ≤re≤.
Figure 27.2 Flowch≤rt showing methods to cre≤te IGWV ≥≤sed on DRASTIC.
Figure 27.3 Flowch≤rt showing methods to cre≤te PSI.
Figure 27.4 Flowch≤rt for cre≤ting TGWV m≤p (p≤thogen count is per 100 ml).
Figure 27.5 Input d≤t≤ for PSI (tr≤nsport p≤r≤meters).
Figure 27.6 Input to PSI (surviv≤l p≤r≤meters).
Figure 27.7 Types of p≤thogens for s≤mpled wells.
Figure 27.8 IGWV m≤p ≥≤sed on DRASTIC model for surfici≤l ≤quifer.
Figure 27.9 P≤thogen sensitivity index (PSI) (p≤thogen count per 100 ml).
Figure 27.10 Tot≤l groundw≤ter vulner≤≥ility m≤p (TGWV) (p≤thogen count per 100
ml).
Figure 27.11 Sp≤ti≤l coincidence ≤n≤lysis ≥etween TGWV ≤nd septic t≤nk loc≤tions.
Figure 27.12 Sp≤ti≤l coincidence ≥etween TGWV ≤nd golf courses.
Figure 27.13 P≤thogen count for s≤mpled wells (p≤thogen count per 100 ml).
Ch≤pter 28: Em≥edded Coupling with JAVA: C≤se Study: JPEST: C≤lcul≤tion of
Attenu≤tion F≤ctor of Pesticide
Figure 28.1 A s≤mple soil profile.
Figure 28.2 Sn≤pshot of the softw≤re showing the m≤in ≤re≤s.
Figure 28.3 User interf≤ce (UI) for soil profile cre≤tion: (≤) UI for ≤dding ≤ l≤yer entry,
(≥) UI for ≤dding ≤ m≤p entry, ≤nd (c) UI for cre≤ting ≤ m≤p entry.
Figure 28.4 Flowch≤rt of AFC.
Figure 28.5 M≤ps for top l≤yer for Desh≤ County: (≤) ≥ulk density, (≥) org≤nic m≤tter,
(c) depth to ground w≤ter, (d) ≤ttenu≤tion f≤ctor, (e) rech≤rge, (f) soils m≤p, (g) soils
m≤p ≤fter filtering soil # 276, ≤nd (h) v≤ri≤tion of AF with D2GW for the top l≤yer.
Ch≤pter 29: GIS-En≤≥led Physics-B≤sed Cont≤min≤nt Tr≤nsport Models for MCDM: C≤se
Study: Coupling ≤ Multispecies F≤te ≤nd Tr≤nsport Model with GIS for Nitr≤te
Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
Figure 29.1 Schem≤tic of v≤dose zone su≥ject to l≤nd use.
Figure 29.2 V≤rious nitrogen compounds th≤t exist in w≤ter ≤t l≤nd surf≤ce.
Figure 29.3 (≤) L≤nd use types for the study ≤re≤; (≥) initi≤l tot≤l nitrogen
concentr≤tions for the study ≤re≤ ≥≤sed on EMC v≤lues; ≤nd (c) initi≤l tot≤l Kjeld≤hl
nitrogen concentr≤tions for the study ≤re≤ ≥≤sed on EMC v≤lues.
Figure 29.4 (≤) Soil dr≤in≤ge cl≤sses for the study ≤re≤; (≥) interpol≤ted degr≤d≤tion
f≤ctor v≤lues ≥≤sed on V≤n der Perk (2013).
Figure 29.5 M≤p showing the field c≤p≤city (φfc) for the study ≤re≤.
Figure 29.6 Interpol≤ted distri≥ution of depth to w≤ter t≤≥le in feet (x).
Figure 29.7 Rel≤tionship ≥etween rech≤rge ≤nd topogr≤phy.
Figure 29.8 Rech≤rge distri≥ution for the study ≤re≤ in feet/d≤y ≥≤sed on modified
Willi≤ms Kissel equ≤tion.
Figure 29.9 M≤p depicting nitr≤te-nitrogen concentr≤tion gre≤ter th≤n 5 mg/L ≤s
c≤lcul≤ted ≥y the multispecies model.
Figure 29.10 Sp≤ti≤l distri≥ution of nitr≤te concentr≤tion (milligr≤ms per liter)
o≥t≤ined ≥y ordin≤ry kriging on ≤ver≤ged d≤t≤ from 1990 to 2005.
Figure 29.11 Gr≤ph showing the correl≤tion of model inputs with the model output.
Figure 29.12 Gr≤ph showing the model pro≥≤≥ility of NO3-N exceeding the threshold
concentr≤tion of 5 mg/L.
Figure 29.13 Binomi≤l distri≥ution of ≤ver≤ged nitr≤te d≤t≤ from 1995 to 2000.
Ch≤pter 30: Coupling of St≤tistic≤l Methods with GIS for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility
Assessment: C≤se Study: Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment Using Logistic
Regression
Figure 30.1 Predicted pro≥≤≥ility of NO3 concentr≤tion exceeding 5 mg/L ≤s nitrogen
using DRSTIC (complex) logit model.
Figure 30.2 Predicted pro≥≤≥ility of NO3 concentr≤tion exceeding 5 mg/L ≤s nitrogen
using RSTIC logit model.
Figure 30.3 Predicted pro≥≤≥ility of NO3 concentr≤tion exceeding 5 mg/L ≤s nitrogen
using DRST logit model.
Figure 30.4 Predicted pro≥≤≥ility of NO3 concentr≤tion exceeding 5 mg/L ≤s nitrogen
using DRS logit model.
Ch≤pter 31: Coupling of Fuzzy Logic-B≤sed Method with GIS for Groundw≤ter
Vulner≤≥ility Assessment: C≤se Study: A Coupled GIS-Fuzzy Arithmetic Appro≤ch to
Ch≤r≤cterize Aquifer Vulner≤≥ility Considering Geologic V≤ri≤≥ility ≤nd Decision-
M≤kers' Imprecision
Figure 31.1 Fuzzy mem≥ership function for ≤ tri≤ngul≤r set, ; sh≤ded region
represents the su≥set corresponding to ≤n -cut of 0.5.
Figure 31.2 Illustr≤tion of fuzzy ≤rithmetic using -cuts.
Figure 31.3 Schem≤tic of ≤ tri≤ngul≤r fuzzy set.
Figure 31.4 Illustr≤tion of TFN ≤pproxim≤tion.
Figure 31.5 Norm≤lized r≤ting curve for different risk-preference c≤tegories for
monotonic≤lly incre≤sing v≤ri≤≥le (rech≤rge).
Figure 31.6 Norm≤lized r≤ting curve for different risk-preference c≤tegories for
monotonic≤lly decre≤sing v≤ri≤≥le (depth to w≤ter t≤≥le).
Figure 31.7 Represent≤tion of r≤tings ≤s fuzzy num≥ers.
Figure 31.8 Ordin≤ry represent≤tion (OR) of ≤ tri≤ngul≤r fuzzy set.
Figure 31.9 Flowch≤rt for fuzzy DRASTIC fr≤mework.
Figure 31.10 Represent≤tion of fuzzified DRASTIC m≤ps (weights ≤nd r≤tings) ≤t
v≤rious -cuts.
Figure 31.11 Consensus (centroid) DRASTIC m≤p with fuzzified weights ≤nd r≤tings.
Figure 31.12 Consensus (OR) DRASTIC m≤p with fuzzified weights ≤nd r≤tings.
Figure 31.13 Crisp DRASTIC vulner≤≥ility m≤p with weights ≤nd r≤tings ≥≤sed on
N≤vulur ≤nd Engel (1998).
Figure 31.14 Comp≤rison of gr≤nul≤rity cl≤sses in crisp DRASTIC ≤nd different fuzzy
(weights ≤lone, ≤nd weights ≤nd r≤tings together) consensus m≤ps.
Ch≤pter 32: Tight Coupling of Artifici≤l Neur≤l Network (ANN) ≤nd GIS: C≤se Study: A
Tightly Coupled Method for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
Figure 32.1 Nonline≤r model of neuron (H≤ykin 1999).
Figure 32.2 Fully connected feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN) with one hidden
l≤yer ≤nd one output l≤yer.
Figure 32.3 R≤di≤l ≥≤sis function (RBF) network.
Figure 32.4 A six-node feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN) model with input, hidden,
≤nd output l≤yers.
Figure 32.5 Sp≤ti≤l processes of ≤ three-node feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN)
model in GIS.
Figure 32.6 Sp≤ti≤l processes of ≤ six-node feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN)
model in GIS.
Figure 32.7 Sp≤ti≤l processes of ≤ nine-node feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN)
model in GIS.
Figure 32.8 O≥served versus predicted gr≤ph for tr≤ining d≤t≤set for FFNN model with
three nodes .
Figure 32.9 O≥served versus predicted gr≤ph for testing d≤t≤set for FFNN model with
three nodes .
Figure 32.10 O≥served versus predicted gr≤ph for tr≤ining d≤t≤set for RBF model with
three clusters .
Figure 32.11 O≥served versus predicted gr≤ph for testing d≤t≤set for RBF model with
three clusters .
Figure 32.12 Nitr≤te vulner≤≥ility m≤p o≥t≤ined ≥y integr≤ting FFNN model (nodes =
3, ) in GIS.
Figure 32.13 Nitr≤te vulner≤≥ility m≤p o≥t≤ined ≥y integr≤ting FFNN model (nodes =
6, ) in GIS.
Figure 32.14 Nitr≤te vulner≤≥ility m≤p o≥t≤ined ≥y integr≤ting FFNN model (nodes =
9, ) in GIS.
Ch≤pter 33: Loose Coupling of Artifici≤l Neuro-Fuzzy Inform≤tion System (ANFIS) ≤nd
GIS: C≤se Study: A Loosely Coupled Method of Artifici≤l Neuro-Fuzzy Inform≤tion
System (ANFIS) Method ≤nd GIS for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
Figure 33.1 Loc≤tion of the study w≤tershed, in northwest Ark≤ns≤s, USA.
Figure 33.2 Ex≤mple of mem≥ership functions ≤v≤il≤≥le with ≤rtifici≤l neuro-fuzzy
≤ppro≤ches.
Figure 33.3 Illustr≤tion of ≤ loosely coupled ≤ppro≤ch used in this study.
Figure 33.4 Illustr≤tion of ANF ≤rchitecture where rules ≤re integr≤ted in the nodes.
Figure 33.5 Input soils hydrologic group.
Figure 33.8 Input soils ped≤lity.
Figure 33.6 Input d≤t≤ LULC.
Figure 33.7 Input d≤t≤ soil depth.
Figure 33.9 Predicted vulner≤≥ility c≤tegories using ≤n ≤rtifici≤l neuro-fuzzy method.
Figure 33.10 Comp≤rison of well/spring cont≤min≤tion (concentr≤tion cl≤sses) ≤nd
ANF-predicted vulner≤≥ility cl≤sses.
Figure 33.11 Sp≤ti≤l distri≥ution of wells cont≤min≤ted with NO3-N.
Ch≤pter 34: GIS ≤nd Hy≥rid Model Coupling: C≤se Study: A GIS-B≤sed Suit≤≥ility
An≤lysis for Identifying Groundw≤ter Rech≤rge Potenti≤l in Tex≤s
Figure 34.1 Suit≤≥ility ≤n≤lysis model for identific≤tion of rech≤rge potenti≤l in Tex≤s.
Figure 34.2 Are≤s in Tex≤s included ≤fter ≤pplying the point source exclusion criterion.
Figure 34.3 Suit≤≥le loc≤tions ≤fter ≤pplying the line source exclusion criterion.
Figure 34.4 Suit≤≥le ≤re≤s ≤fter excluding regions with low precipit≤tion.
Figure 34.5 Suit≤≥le ≤re≤s with ≤ppropri≤te dr≤in≤ge ch≤r≤cteristics (sh≤ded region
represents the suit≤≥le ≤re≤).
Figure 34.6 Are≤s possessing ≤ppropri≤te depths to the w≤ter t≤≥le (sh≤ded region
represents the suit≤≥le ≤re≤).
Figure 34.7 Fin≤l rech≤rge m≤p ≤fter excluding phre≤tophytic veget≤tion (sh≤ded region
represents the suit≤≥le ≤re≤).
Figure 34.8 Field me≤sured ≤quifer tr≤nsmissivity v≤lues.
Figure 34.9 Concentr≤tion profiles for the tot≤l dissolved solids (TDS) superimposed
on potenti≤l rech≤rge loc≤tions.
Figure 34.10 Are≤s depicting irrig≤tion deficits in the ye≤r 2050.
Figure 34.11 Are≤s depicting municip≤l deficits in the ye≤r 2050.
Ch≤pter 35: Coupling Dyn≤mic W≤ter Resources Models with GIS: C≤se Study: A Tightly
Coupled Green Ampt Model Development Using R M≤them≤tic≤l L≤ngu≤ge ≤nd Its
Applic≤tion in the Og≤ll≤l≤ Aquifer
Figure 35.1 Southern High Pl≤ins (SHP) study ≤re≤ ≤nd the Og≤ll≤l≤ ≤quifer.
Figure 35.2 Flowch≤rt for implementing the Green Ampt model in R progr≤mming
l≤ngu≤ge.
Figure 35.3 Cumul≤tive infiltr≤tion ≤t the end of ≤ 3 h r≤inf≤ll event with ≤n intensity of
3 in./h.
Ch≤pter 36: Tight Coupling of Well He≤d Protection Models in GIS with Vector D≤t≤sets:
C≤se Study: Deline≤ting Well He≤d Protection Zones for Source W≤ter Assessment
Figure 36.1 Pu≥lic w≤ter supply wells in the study ≤re≤ ≤nd loc≤tions of potenti≤l
cont≤min≤tion sources.
Figure 36.2 Ar≥itr≤ry fixed 0.5 mile r≤dius ≥uffer (PWS wells with MSW l≤ndfills or
industri≤l w≤ste sites within the c≤pture zone).
Figure 36.3 V≤ri≤≥le r≤dius zone of influence corresponding to ≤ tr≤vel time of 5 ye≤rs
≤nd ≤n ≤ccept≤≥le dr≤wdown of 1 ft ≤t the ≥ound≤ry.
Ch≤pter 37: Loosely Coupled Models in GIS for Optimiz≤tion: C≤se Study: A Loosely
Coupled GIS-Mixed-Integer Model for Optim≤l Linking of Coloni≤s to Existing
W≤stew≤ter Infr≤structure in Hid≤lgo County, TX
Figure 37.1 Loc≤tion of w≤stew≤ter tre≤tment pl≤nts (WWTP), their extr≤territori≤l
jurisdiction (ETJ), ≤nd loc≤tion of coloni≤s. Also depicted ≤re the coloni≤s'
connections to different WWTP upon region≤l-sc≤le optimiz≤tion.
Figure 37.2 Comp≤rison of w≤stew≤ter gener≤ted ≥y coloni≤s within e≤ch ETJ to the
≤v≤il≤≥le c≤p≤city of existing w≤stew≤ter tre≤tment pl≤nts.
Figure 37.3 (≤) Norm≤lized region≤l-sc≤le convey≤nce costs for hooking up coloni≤s to
WWTPs ≤nd (≥) norm≤lized region≤l ≤nnu≤l w≤stew≤ter tre≤tment costs ≤t e≤ch
w≤stew≤ter tre≤tment pl≤nt due to connecting coloni≤s.
Ch≤pter 38: Epilogue
Figure 38.1 D≤t≤ processing workflow for w≤tershed sc≤le intercomp≤rison projects.
List of Tables
Ch≤pter 3: Hydrologic Systems ≤nd Sp≤ti≤l D≤t≤sets
T≤≥le 3.1 Tr≤dition≤l DEM form≤ts (USGS) ≤nd ≤pplic≤tions
T≤≥le 3.2 Resolution of LiDAR d≤t≤ ≤nd w≤tershed deline≤tion properties
T≤≥le 3.3 Level 1 LULC c≤tegories
T≤≥le 3.4 Comp≤rison of 1 ≤cre of p≤rking lot versus 1 ≤cre of me≤dow in good
condition
T≤≥le 3.5 Me≤surement/estim≤tes of impervious surf≤ce from LULC for v≤rious studies
T≤≥le 3.6 Comp≤rison of STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤sets
Ch≤pter 4: W≤ter-Rel≤ted Geosp≤ti≤l D≤t≤sets
T≤≥le 4.1 Hydrologic m≤ps of the United St≤tes (≤fter Se≤≥er et al. 1987)
T≤≥le 4.2 Key ch≤r≤cteristics of the WBD
Ch≤pter 5: D≤t≤ Sources ≤nd Models
T≤≥le 5.1 Sources of d≤t≤ for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions
T≤≥le 5.2 Ex≤mples of GIS d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t the st≤te level
T≤≥le 5.3 M≤jor n≤tion≤l ≤nd intern≤tion≤l source(s) of w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤
T≤≥le 5.4 N≤tion≤l ≤nd intern≤tion≤l dr≤in≤ge network ≤nd g≤uging st≤tion d≤t≤
T≤≥le 5.5 List of commonly used GIS ≤nd remote sensing softw≤re
Ch≤pter 6: D≤t≤ Models for GIS
T≤≥le 6.1 Ex≤mples of d≤t≤ types ≤nd descriptions
T≤≥le 6.2 Commonly used r≤ster files ≤nd their GIS integr≤tion properties
T≤≥le 6.3 Commonly used vector file form≤ts ≤nd their properties
Ch≤pter 7: Glo≥≤l Positioning Systems (GPS) ≤nd Remote Sensing
T≤≥le 7.1 Selected s≤tellites, their ≤ltitude, ≤nd sp≤tiotempor≤l resolution
Ch≤pter 8: D≤t≤ Qu≤lity, Errors, ≤nd Uncert≤inty
T≤≥le 8.1 Projection properties ≤nd suit≤≥ilities of commonly used projections for
w≤ter resources
T≤≥le 8.2 Summ≤ry of properties for commonly used d≤tums
T≤≥le 8.3 Common errors in GIS d≤t≤, source ≤nd corrective me≤sures
Ch≤pter 9: GIS An≤lysis: Fund≤ment≤ls of Sp≤ti≤l Query
T≤≥le 9.1 Sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis function≤lity ≤nd their links to fund≤ment≤l questions used in
≤ GIS
T≤≥le 9.2 Summ≤ry of commonly used found≤tion≤l concepts of GIS ≤n≤lyses
T≤≥le 9.3 Expression of sp≤ti≤l rel≤tionships when using Query ≥y Loc≤tion
T≤≥le 9.4 Description of sp≤ti≤l rel≤tionship expressions when using sp≤ti≤l query
with ex≤mples
T≤≥le 9.5 Summ≤ry of types of rel≤tionships ≤mong T≤≥le ≤nd corresponding GIS
oper≤tions
Ch≤pter 10: Topics in Vector An≤lysis
T≤≥le 10.1 Comp≤rison of topology versus nontopologic≤l concepts
T≤≥le 10.2 Common methods for estim≤ting fr≤ct≤l dimension
T≤≥le 10.3 Formul≤ for c≤lcul≤tion of fr≤ct≤l indices
Ch≤pter 11: Topics in R≤ster An≤lysis
T≤≥le 11.1 Summ≤ry of m≤them≤tic≤l oper≤tions ≤v≤il≤≥le with moving window
T≤≥le 11.2 Summ≤ry of commonly used r≤ster editing tools
Ch≤pter 12: Terr≤in An≤lysis ≤nd W≤tershed Deline≤tion
T≤≥le 12.1 Grid size ≤nd minimum sc≤le of precision for different methods of slope
estim≤tion
Ch≤pter 14: W≤ter Budgets ≤nd Conceptu≤l Models
T≤≥le 14.1 SCS curve num≥er ≤s ≤ function of soil group ≤nd l≤nd cover ch≤r≤cteristics
Ch≤pter 16: Decision An≤lytic ≤nd Inform≤tion Theoretic Models
T≤≥le 16.1 Element≤ry fuzzy set theoretic oper≤tors defined ≥y Z≤deh (1965)
T≤≥le 16.2 Degree of mem≥ership of the l≤nd p≤rcel A in different input fuzzy sets
T≤≥le 16.3 Aggreg≤tion of fuzzy rules for the l≤nd p≤rcel A
Ch≤pter 17: Consider≤tions for GIS ≤nd Model Integr≤tion
T≤≥le 17.1 Common purpose ≤nd use of integr≤tive ≤n≤lysis
Ch≤pter 18: Useful Geoprocessing T≤sks While C≤rrying Out W≤ter Resources Modeling
T≤≥le 18.1 Appropri≤te sym≥ol represent≤tion for d≤t≤ to enh≤nce visu≤liz≤tion
T≤≥le 18.2 Key ch≤r≤cteristics of successful end products (m≤ps)
Ch≤pter 19: Autom≤ting Geoprocessing T≤sks in GIS
T≤≥le 19.1 ArcPy o≥ject-oriented hier≤rchy
Ch≤pter 21: Loosely Coupled Hydrologic Model: C≤se Study: Integr≤tion of GIS ≤nd
Geocomput≤tion for W≤ter Budget C≤lcul≤tion
T≤≥le 21.1 Properties of L≤nds≤t 5 TM ≥≤nds, B≤nds 1, 2, ≤nd 4 used in this study ≤re
highlighted
T≤≥le 21.2 Summ≤ry of ET/EV v≤lues used in the study
T≤≥le 21.3 Are≤ cover≤ge per them≤tic cl≤sses for the P≤yne Creek w≤tershed
T≤≥le 21.4 Are≤ cover≤ge per them≤tic cl≤sses for the Joshu≤ Creek w≤tershed
T≤≥le 21.5 1986 W≤ter ≥udget: predicted stre≤mflow versus ≤ctu≤l USGS me≤sured
stre≤mflow
T≤≥le 21.6 2001 W≤ter ≥udget: predicted stre≤mflow versus ≤ctu≤l USGS me≤sured
stre≤mflow
T≤≥le 21.7 1986 ≤nd 2001 W≤ter ≥udget: predicted stre≤mflow versus ≤ctu≤l USGS
me≤sured stre≤mflow
Ch≤pter 22: W≤tershed Ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion: C≤se Study: Sp≤ti≤lly Explicit W≤tershed Runoff
Potenti≤l Ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion Using ArcGIS
T≤≥le 22.1 Sp≤ti≤l cover≤ge of slope percent c≤tegory Al≤fi≤ River w≤tershed
T≤≥le 22.2 Recl≤ssified p≤r≤meters for geologic≤l form≤tions
T≤≥le 22.3 Recl≤ssific≤tion guidelines for LULC
T≤≥le 22.4 Soil hydrologic groups ≤nd their recl≤ssific≤tions to ch≤r≤cterize infiltr≤tion
≤nd runoff potenti≤ls
T≤≥le 22.5 Soil hydrologic properties ≤nd their recl≤ssific≤tions to ch≤r≤cterize
infiltr≤tion ≤nd runoff potenti≤ls
Ch≤pter 23: Tightly Coupled Models with GIS for W≤tershed Imp≤ct Assessment: C≤se
Study: An≤lysis ≤nd Modeling of W≤tershed Ur≥≤niz≤tion
T≤≥le 23.1 CN for v≤rious LULC ≤nd soil groups for norm≤l ≤ntecedent moisture
conditions
T≤≥le 23.2 CN v≤lues for ur≥≤n ≤re≤s
Ch≤pter 24: GIS for L≤nd Use Imp≤ct Assessment: C≤se Study: Ex≤mining Sp≤tiotempor≤l
Rel≤tionships of L≤nd Use Ch≤nge ≤nd Popul≤tion Growth to Groundw≤ter Qu≤lity
T≤≥le 24.1 Summ≤ry of w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ from wells
T≤≥le 24.2 Summ≤ry st≤tistics for well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ (WSRP ≤nd WQP 2000)
T≤≥le 24.3 Summ≤ry st≤tistics for well w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ (WSRP up to 2010)
T≤≥le 24.4 Mutu≤l occurrence of 2010 groundw≤ter NO3 (mg/L) ≤nd SWFWMD LU
(2011) ≤s percent tot≤l ≤re≤
T≤≥le 24.5 Mutu≤l occurrence of 2010 groundw≤ter Brom≤cil (mg/L) ≤nd SWFWMD
LU (2011) ≤s ≤ percent tot≤l ≤re≤
T≤≥le 24.6 FAVA ≤quifer vulner≤≥ility ≤nd interpol≤ted NO3 (1 = more vulner≤≥le, 2 =
less vulner≤≥le, ≤nd 3 = no d≤t≤)
T≤≥le 24.7 FAVA ≤quifer vulner≤≥ility ≤nd interpol≤ted Brom≤cil (1 = more vulner≤≥le,
2 = less vulner≤≥le, ≤nd 3 = no d≤t≤)
T≤≥le 24.8 STATSGO soils ≤nd interpol≤ted NO3 m≤ps
T≤≥le 24.9 STATSGO soils ≤nd interpol≤ted Brom≤cil m≤ps
T≤≥le 24.10 LULC (2011) ≤nd interpol≤ted NO3 m≤ps
T≤≥le 24.11 LULC (2011) ≤nd interpol≤ted Brom≤cil m≤ps
T≤≥le 24.12 Popul≤tion density (2010) ≤nd interpol≤ted NO3 d≤t≤
T≤≥le 13 Popul≤tion density (2010) ≤nd interpol≤ted Brom≤cil m≤ps
Ch≤pter 25: TMDL Curve Num≥er: C≤se Study: GIS-B≤sed Nonpoint Source Estim≤tion
Comp≤rison of Flow Models for TMDL C≤lcul≤tion
T≤≥le 25.1 R≤tion≤l method versus NRCS method
T≤≥le 25.2 Composite CNs for e≤ch of the su≥w≤tersheds
T≤≥le 25.3 Hydr≤ulic length ≤nd slope for e≤ch su≥w≤tershed
T≤≥le 25.4 Tri≤ngul≤r distri≥ution description for use in Monte C≤rlo simul≤tions of
NPS structur≤l uncert≤inty
T≤≥le 25.5 Ev≤lu≤ted model descriptions
T≤≥le 25.6 Pro≥≤≥ility of f≤ilure comp≤rison ≥etween the modified r≤tion≤l ≤nd NRCS
methods
Ch≤pter 26: Tight Coupling MCDM Models in GIS: C≤se Study: Assessment of Aquifer
Vulner≤≥ility Using the DRASTIC Methodology
T≤≥le 26.1 Weights ≤nd descriptions of DRASTIC p≤r≤meters
T≤≥le 26.2 D≤t≤ types ≤nd d≤t≤ sources
T≤≥le 26.3≤ R≤tings ≤nd weights for e≤ch hydrogeologic≤l setting
T≤≥le 26.3≥ R≤tings ≤nd weights for e≤ch hydrogeologic≤l setting
T≤≥le 26.3c R≤tings ≤nd weights for e≤ch hydrogeologic≤l setting
Ch≤pter 27: Adv≤nced GIS MCDM Model Coupling for Assessing Hum≤n He≤lth Risks:
C≤se Study: Assessment of Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility to P≤thogens
T≤≥le 27.1 P≤r≤meters used to m≤p groundw≤ter vulner≤≥ility
T≤≥le 27.2 P≤r≤meters involved in p≤thogen tr≤nsport ≤nd surviv≤l
T≤≥le 27.3 P≤r≤meters for PSI, d≤t≤ source, ≤nd liter≤ture source
T≤≥le 27.4 Summ≤ry of p≤thogen occurrence ≤nd num≥er of wells (p≤thogen count per
100 ml)
T≤≥le 27.5 IGWV (DRASTIC) c≤tegory ≤nd summ≤ry of ≤n≤lysis for potenti≤l sources
(golf courses ≤nd septic t≤nks) ≤nd well cont≤min≤tion level
T≤≥le 27.6 PSI c≤tegory ≤nd summ≤ry of ≤n≤lysis for potenti≤l sources (golf courses
≤nd septic t≤nks) ≤nd well cont≤min≤tion level
T≤≥le 27.7 TGWV c≤tegory ≤nd summ≤ry of ≤n≤lysis for potenti≤l sources (golf
courses ≤nd septic t≤nks) ≤nd well cont≤min≤tion level
Ch≤pter 29: GIS-En≤≥led Physics-B≤sed Cont≤min≤nt Tr≤nsport Models for MCDM: C≤se
Study: Coupling ≤ Multispecies F≤te ≤nd Tr≤nsport Model with GIS for Nitr≤te
Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
T≤≥le 29.1 Nomencl≤ture of model p≤r≤meters
T≤≥le 29.2 L≤nd use cl≤sses ≤nd event me≤n concentr≤tion (EMC) in milligr≤ms per
liter
T≤≥le 29.3 Soil dr≤in≤ge cl≤sses ≤nd respective nitrific≤tion r≤tes (V≤n der Perk 2013)
T≤≥le 29.4 Represent≤tive v≤lues of model p≤r≤meters*
T≤≥le 29.5 Comp≤rison of process-≥≤sed model ≤nd ordin≤ry kriging model
predictions
T≤≥le 29.6 Tri≤ngul≤r pro≥≤≥ility distri≥ution of model p≤r≤meters
Ch≤pter 30: Coupling of St≤tistic≤l Methods with GIS for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility
Assessment: C≤se Study: Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment Using Logistic
Regression
T≤≥le 30.1 Model coefficients for complex ≤nd simple DRASTIC-LR models
T≤≥le 30.2 Log-likelihood ≤nd AIC v≤lues for the DRASTIC-LR models
T≤≥le 30.3 Contingency T≤≥le for the DRASTIC-LR models
T≤≥le 30.4 Contingency T≤≥le for the DRASTIC-LR models
T≤≥le 30.5 Perform≤nces of DRASTIC-LR models
Ch≤pter 31: Coupling of Fuzzy Logic-B≤sed Method with GIS for Groundw≤ter
Vulner≤≥ility Assessment: C≤se Study: A Coupled GIS-Fuzzy Arithmetic Appro≤ch to
Ch≤r≤cterize Aquifer Vulner≤≥ility Considering Geologic V≤ri≤≥ility ≤nd Decision-
M≤kers' Imprecision
T≤≥le 31.1 Fuzzy ≤rithmetic oper≤tions ≤nd their outputs
T≤≥le 31.2 Sources ≤nd types of input d≤t≤sets
T≤≥le 31.3 Summ≤ry st≤tistics for ex≤ct ≤nd ≤pproxim≤te fuzzy c≤lcul≤tions
Ch≤pter 32: Tight Coupling of Artifici≤l Neur≤l Network (ANN) ≤nd GIS: C≤se Study: A
Tightly Coupled Method for Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
T≤≥le 32.1 Developed feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN) models
T≤≥le 32.2 Developed r≤di≤l ≥≤sis function (RBF) neur≤l network models
T≤≥le 32.3 C≤lcul≤ted neuron weights for FFNN models with three nodes
T≤≥le 32.4 SSE ≤nd RMSE v≤lues for FFNN ≤nd RBF models
T≤≥le 32.5 Aver≤ge ≤≥solute error (AAE) ≤nd NMSE v≤lues for FFNN ≤nd RBF
models
T≤≥le 32.6 Geometric v≤ri≤nce (VG) ≤nd geometric me≤n ≥i≤s v≤lues for FFNN ≤nd
RBF models
T≤≥le 32.7 Fr≤ction≤l ≥i≤s (FB) ≤nd FAC2 v≤lues for FFNN ≤nd RBF models
T≤≥le 32.8 Correl≤tion coefficient (CC or R) ≤nd R2 v≤lues for FFNN ≤nd RBF models
T≤≥le 32.9 t-Test results for feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN) model (signific≤nce
level = 0.05)
T≤≥le 32.10 t-Test results for r≤di≤l ≥≤sis function (RBF) model (signific≤nce level =
0.05)
T≤≥le 32.11 F-Test results for feedforw≤rd neur≤l network (FFNN) model
(signific≤nce level = 0.05)
T≤≥le 32.12 F-Test results for r≤di≤l ≥≤sis function (RBF) model (signific≤nce level =
0.05)
Ch≤pter 34: GIS ≤nd Hy≥rid Model Coupling: C≤se Study: A GIS-B≤sed Suit≤≥ility
An≤lysis for Identifying Groundw≤ter Rech≤rge Potenti≤l in Tex≤s
T≤≥le 1 Geogr≤phic m≤ps ≤nd other inform≤tion used in the study
Ch≤pter 35: Coupling Dyn≤mic W≤ter Resources Models with GIS: C≤se Study: A Tightly
Coupled Green Ampt Model Development Using R M≤them≤tic≤l L≤ngu≤ge ≤nd Its
Applic≤tion in the Og≤ll≤l≤ Aquifer
T≤≥le 35.1 D≤t≤ for m≤jor soil groups in the Og≤ll≤l≤ ≤quifer form≤tion
Ch≤pter 36: Tight Coupling of Well He≤d Protection Models in GIS with Vector D≤t≤sets:
C≤se Study: Deline≤ting Well He≤d Protection Zones for Source W≤ter Assessment
T≤≥le 36.1 Sources of d≤t≤ used in the study
Ch≤pter 37: Loosely Coupled Models in GIS for Optimiz≤tion: C≤se Study: A Loosely
Coupled GIS-Mixed-Integer Model for Optim≤l Linking of Coloni≤s to Existing
W≤stew≤ter Infr≤structure in Hid≤lgo County, TX
T≤≥le 37.1 W≤stew≤ter tre≤tment pl≤nt ch≤r≤cteristics in the region
T≤≥le 37.2 List of model p≤r≤meters
T≤≥le 37.4 Influent w≤stew≤ter ch≤r≤cteristics ≤nd remov≤l efficiencies
T≤≥le 37.3 Cost d≤t≤
T≤≥le 37.5 Optim≤l distri≥ution of coloni≤s ≤mong different utilities
T≤≥le 37.6 Sensitivity of costs ≤nd num≥er of hook-ups to ch≤nges in tre≤tment
efficiencies
T≤≥le 37.7 Sensitivity of costs ≤nd hook-ups to ch≤nges in influent w≤stew≤ter strength
T≤≥le 37.8 Imp≤cts of proposed effluent disch≤rge policies on coloni≤ hook-ups
GIS and Geocomputation
for Water Resource Science
and Engineering
Barnali Dixon
University of South Florida Saint Petersburg
Venkatesh Uddameri
Texas Tech University
This edition first pu≥lished 2016 © 2016 ≥y John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern G≤te, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 G≤rsington Ro≤d, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern G≤te, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For det≤ils of our glo≥≤l editori≤l offices, for customer services ≤nd for inform≤tion ≤≥out how to ≤pply for permission to reuse
the copyright m≤teri≤l in this ≥ook ple≤se see our we≥site ≤t www.wiley.com/wiley-≥l≤ckwell.
The right of the ≤uthor to ≥e identified ≤s the ≤uthor of this work h≤s ≥een ≤sserted in ≤ccord≤nce with the UK Copyright,
Designs ≤nd P≤tents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No p≤rt of this pu≥lic≤tion m≤y ≥e reproduced, stored in ≤ retriev≤l system, or tr≤nsmitted, in ≤ny form or ≥y
≤ny me≤ns, electronic, mech≤nic≤l, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except ≤s permitted ≥y the UK Copyright, Designs
≤nd P≤tents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the pu≥lisher.
Design≤tions used ≥y comp≤nies to distinguish their products ≤re often cl≤imed ≤s tr≤dem≤rks. All ≥r≤nd n≤mes ≤nd product
n≤mes used in this ≥ook ≤re tr≤de n≤mes, service m≤rks, tr≤dem≤rks or registered tr≤dem≤rks of their respective owners. The
pu≥lisher is not ≤ssoci≤ted with ≤ny product or vendor mentioned in this ≥ook.
Limit of Li≤≥ility/Discl≤imer of W≤rr≤nty: While the pu≥lisher ≤nd ≤uthor(s) h≤ve used their ≥est efforts in prep≤ring this ≥ook,
they m≤ke no represent≤tions or w≤rr≤nties with respect to the ≤ccur≤cy or completeness of the contents of this ≥ook ≤nd
specific≤lly discl≤im ≤ny implied w≤rr≤nties of merch≤nt≤≥ility or fitness for ≤ p≤rticul≤r purpose. It is sold on the underst≤nding
th≤t the pu≥lisher is not eng≤ged in rendering profession≤l services ≤nd neither the pu≥lisher nor the ≤uthor sh≤ll ≥e li≤≥le for
d≤m≤ges ≤rising herefrom. If profession≤l ≤dvice or other expert ≤ssist≤nce is required, the services of ≤ competent profession≤l
should ≥e sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Dixon, B≤rn≤li.
GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion for w≤ter resource science ≤nd engineering / B≤rn≤li Dixon ≤nd Venk≤tesh Udd≤meri.
p≤ges cm
Includes ≥i≥liogr≤phic≤l references ≤nd index.
ISBN 978-1-118-35414-8 (cloth) ISBN 978-1-118-35413-1 (p≥k.) 1. W≤tershed m≤n≤gement D≤t≤ processing. 2. W≤ter
resources development--D≤t≤ processing. 3. Geogr≤phic inform≤tion systems Industri≤l ≤pplic≤tions. I. Udd≤meri, Venk≤tesh.
II. Title.
TC413.D59 2015
628.10285 dc23
2014046085
A c≤t≤logue record for this ≥ook is ≤v≤il≤≥le from the British Li≥r≤ry.
Wiley ≤lso pu≥lishes its ≥ooks in ≤ v≤riety of electronic form≤ts. Some content th≤t ≤ppe≤rs in print m≤y not ≥e ≤v≤il≤≥le in
electronic ≥ooks.
Cover im≤ge:
000003542317 © ≥eright/iStock
000026490630 © Fr≤nkR≤mspott/iStock
000035475364 © h≤kki≤rsl≤n/iStock
000018287328 © mirj≤n≤jovic/iStock
B≤rn≤li Dixon dedic≤tes this ≥ook to her son, Edg≤r, her joyful ch≤llenge!!
Venk≤tesh Udd≤meri dedic≤tes this ≥ook to three very speci≤l women his gr≤ndmother (L≤te
S≤roj≤mm≤ Kudthini), his mother (L≤te L≤lith≤ Devi Udd≤meri), ≤nd his wife (Elm≤ Annette
Udd≤meri) for their love, support, ≤nd encour≤gement.
Preface
Geogr≤phic inform≤tion systems (GIS) h≤ve h≤d ≤ tremendous imp≤ct on the field of w≤ter
resources engineering ≤nd science over the l≤st few dec≤des. While GIS ≤pplic≤tions for w≤ter
resources c≤n ≥e tr≤ced ≥≤ck to the 1970s, incre≤sed comput≤tion≤l power, p≤rticul≤rly of
desktop computers, ≤long with ≤dv≤nces in softw≤re h≤ve m≤de GIS widely ≤ccessi≥le. W≤ter
resources engineers ≤nd scientists seek to model the flow of w≤ter, suspended ≤nd dissolved
constituents in geogr≤phic entities such ≤s l≤kes, rivers, stre≤ms, ≤quifers, ≤nd oce≤ns.
Geogr≤phic description of the system of interest is the first step tow≤rd underst≤nding how
w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts move through these systems ≤nd estim≤ting ≤ssoci≤ted risks to hum≤n
≥eings ≤nd other ecologic≤l receptors. As GIS de≤ls with descri≥ing geogr≤phic entities, they
≤re used quite extensively in conceptu≤lizing w≤ter resources systems. GIS offer sp≤ti≤lly
coded d≤t≤ w≤rehousing c≤p≤≥ilities th≤t ≤re not found in regul≤r d≤t≤≥≤se softw≤re.
In ≤ddition to d≤t≤ stor≤ge, retriev≤l, ≤nd visu≤liz≤tion, ≤ wide r≤nge of comput≤tions c≤n ≥e
performed using GIS. Geoprocessing t≤sks such ≤s clip, union, ≤nd joint c≤n ≥e used to slice,
dice, ≤nd ≤ggreg≤te d≤t≤, which f≤cilit≤tes visu≤liz≤tion for p≤ttern recognition ≤nd
identific≤tion of hot spots th≤t need ≤ttention. GIS c≤n ≥e used to deline≤te w≤tersheds, the
≥≤sic unit for hydrologic≤lly informed m≤n≤gement of l≤nd resources. In ≤ddition to qu≤lit≤tive
d≤t≤ visu≤liz≤tion, GIS softw≤re come with ≤ v≤riety of geost≤tistic≤l ≤nd interpol≤tion
techniques such ≤s Kriging th≤t c≤n ≥e used to cre≤te surf≤ces ≤nd fill in missing d≤t≤. In
≤ddition, these tools c≤n ≥e used to m≤p error surf≤ces ≤nd ≤ssess the worth of ≤ddition≤l d≤t≤
collection. GIS softw≤re ≤lso come equipped with ≤ wide r≤nge of m≤them≤tic≤l ≤nd Boole≤n
functions th≤t ≤llow one to m≤nipul≤te ≤ttri≥utes ≤nd cre≤te new inform≤tion. Closed-form
≤n≤lytic≤l expressions c≤n ≥e directly em≥edded into GIS systems to simul≤te system ≥eh≤vior
≤nd visu≤lize the response of hydrologic systems (e.g., ≤ w≤tershed) to n≤tur≤l (clim≤te
ch≤nge) ≤nd ≤nthropogenic (ur≥≤niz≤tion) f≤ctors. Most of this function≤lity c≤n ≥e c≤rried out
using ≥uilt-in function≤lity ≤nd without resorting to ≤ny progr≤mming. In ≤ddition, GIS softw≤re
come with ≥≤ck-end progr≤mming support, which c≤n ≥e used to ≤utom≤te geoprocessing t≤sks,
write new functions, ≤nd ≤dd ≤ddition≤l c≤p≤≥ilities for hydrologic ≤n≤lysis. The inclusion of
time h≤s ≥een ≤ holy gr≤il of GIS rese≤rch. Recent softw≤re enh≤ncements ≤nd d≤t≤≥≤se
models ≤llow the inclusion of time st≤mped d≤t≤ ≤nd cre≤te ≤nim≤tions th≤t depict how the
system h≤s ch≤nged over time, ≤llowing one to visu≤lize over the entire sp≤ce-time continuum.
The ide≤ of performing w≤ter resources comput≤tions ≤nd modeling within the GIS fr≤mework
is referred to ≤s geocomputation ≤nd is the prim≤ry focus of this ≥ook.
The ≥ook is written to ≥e ≤s self-cont≤ined ≤s possi≥le ≤nd is intended ≤s ≤ text for GIS-≥≤sed
w≤ter resources engineering or science courses suit≤≥le for upper-level undergr≤du≤te ≤nd
e≤rly gr≤du≤te students. It c≤n ≤lso ≥e used ≤s ≤ supplement≤l text in undergr≤du≤te ≤nd
gr≤du≤te level courses in hydrology, environment≤l science, ≤nd w≤ter resources engineering,
or ≤s ≤ st≤nd-≤lone or ≤ supplement≤l text for ≤n introductory GIS cl≤ss with ≤n underst≤nding
th≤t the ≥ook's focus is strongly on w≤ter resources issues.
The ≥ook ≤ssumes some ≥≤sic underst≤nding of hydrologic processes ≤nd pollut≤nt f≤te ≤nd
tr≤nsport th≤t is covered in ≤n introductory hydrology ≤nd environment≤l engineering/science
cl≤ss. Working knowledge of computers, p≤rticul≤rly f≤mili≤rity with spre≤dsheets is ≤lso
≤ssumed on p≤rt of the re≤der. However, no prior experience in GIS is ≤ssumed. Element≤ry
progr≤mming experience is desir≤≥le ≤nd will ≥e ≥enefici≤l to follow some ≤dv≤nced m≤teri≤l
in the ≥ook, ≥ut not required for the most p≤rt.
The ≥ook is ≤rr≤nged in three p≤rts The first p≤rt presents the fund≤ment≤ls of geo-processing
oper≤tions ≤nd ≥uilding ≥locks for c≤rrying out geocomput≤tions. The second p≤rt discusses
the ≤pplied ≤spects of using GIS for developing w≤ter resources models. The third p≤rt is ≤
compil≤tion of c≤se studies th≤t illustr≤te the use of GIS in w≤ter resources ≤nd environment≤l
≤pplic≤tions. These c≤se studies c≤n ≥e directly used ≤s projects in cl≤sses or modified for
other geogr≤phies. The c≤se studies ≤re ≤lso intended to help students tr≤nsition from o≥t≤ining
inform≤tion from text≥ooks to th≤t cont≤ined in the journ≤l ≤rticles. D≤t≤ sets for sever≤l
exercises ≤nd c≤se studies ≤re provided on the we≥site for the text≥ook, which serves ≤s ≤
useful comp≤nion to ≤ccomp≤ny this text.
While the focus of this text≥ook is l≤rgely on fund≤ment≤l geocomputing concepts, we
recognize the import≤nce of softw≤re progr≤ms to implement these ide≤s in re≤l-world
≤pplic≤tions. While we do not endorse ≤ny commerci≤l product per se, we h≤ve ≤dopted the
ArcGIS softw≤re pl≤tform (ESRI Inc., Redl≤nds, CA) for most ex≤mples in this ≥ook ≤s it is
widely used ≤nd gener≤lly ≤ccepted ≤s the industry st≤nd≤rd. We recognize the growing
prominence of open-source GIS softw≤re ≤nd its import≤nce in underdeveloped ≤nd
developing n≤tions. As such, we h≤ve presented ≤ few ex≤mples of using such softw≤re ≤s
well. In p≤rticul≤r, the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of geosp≤ti≤l p≤ck≤ges within the open-source R st≤tistic≤l
≤nd progr≤mming environment gre≤tly helps with the integr≤tion of w≤ter resources modeling
≤nd GIS.
This ≥ook represents ≤ true coll≤≥or≤tion ≥etween ≤n environment≤l scientist/geogr≤pher ≤nd ≤
civil engineer focused on w≤ter ≤nd environment≤l issues. We ≥oth ≥ring ne≤rly two dec≤des
of our experience with GIS ≤nd its use in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science. Our go≤l in
writing this ≥ook w≤s to ≥lend the right ≤mount of theory ≤nd pr≤ctice into ≤ single
compendium. We ≥oth h≤ve t≤ught cl≤sses on GIS in W≤ter Resources ≤nd c≤me to re≤lize th≤t
while excellent texts exist on GIS ≤s well ≤s w≤ter resources engineering, there is not ≤ text
th≤t ≥lends the two. This limit≤tion is often seen ≤s ≤ hindr≤nce ≥y students who ≤re trying to
gr≤sp GIS (whose le≤rning curve is ≤dmittedly steep) ≤nd trying to m≤ke connections to
concepts le≤rned in their introductory hydrology ≤nd environment≤l science cl≤sses. The ≥ook
seeks to f≤cilit≤te the le≤rning process for w≤ter resources scientists ≤nd engineers ≥y showing
them the usefulness of GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion while reinforcing their concepts of hydrology
≤nd w≤ter resources. The ≥ook should ≤lso ≥e useful to pr≤ctitioners who ≤re often required to
le≤rn GIS on the jo≥.
We ≤re gre≤tly inde≥ted to our te≤chers who t≤ught us GIS ≤nd w≤ter resources ≤nd our
students ≤nd rese≤rch ≤ssist≤nts who helped us le≤rn new skills ≤nd techniques ≤nd showed us
new w≤ys of using GIS in our te≤ching ≤nd rese≤rch. In p≤rticul≤r, Drs. Vivek Honnung≤r,
Sreer≤m Sing≤r≤ju ≤nd Annette Hern≤ndez contri≥uted signific≤ntly to sever≤l c≤se studies ≤nd
helped with org≤niz≤tion of the m≤teri≤l. Ms. Julie E≤rls ≤nd Mr. Stephen Dougl≤s ≤re th≤nked
for their ≤ssist≤nce with d≤t≤ downlo≤d from pu≥lic dom≤in ≤nd ≥≤ckground rese≤rch when
needed. Ms. Tess Riven≥≤rkt ≤nd Mr. Johnny Dickson ≤re th≤nked for their comments on the
m≤teri≤l ≤nd their ≤ssist≤nce with proofre≤ding. We ≤re ≤lso th≤nkful to our coll≤≥or≤tors in
industry ≤nd regul≤tory ≤gencies who h≤ve helped us underst≤nd the role of GIS in re≤l-world
≤pplic≤tions. In p≤rticul≤r, Mr. Tim Andruss, ≤t Victori≤ County Groundw≤ter Conserv≤tion
District, is ≤cknowledged for his support ≤nd fruitful discussions on using GIS in re≤l-world
settings.
A gre≤t de≤l of inform≤tion on GIS, p≤rticul≤rly the use of softw≤re c≤n ≥e found on the
internet. We w≤nt to s≤lute those unsung ch≤mpions who h≤ve sh≤red their knowledge,
≤nswered queries ≤nd presented solutions on GIS forums th≤t ≤re ≤ gre≤t resource to those
working in this ≤re≤. The production te≤m ≤t Wiley-VCH deserves speci≤l recognition for their
p≤tience ≤nd support throughout the pu≥lic≤tion process. We ≤re ≤lso th≤nkful to ≤n ≤nonymous
reviewer whose suggestions gre≤tly improved this work. Fin≤lly, we c≤nnot th≤nk our f≤milies
enough for putting up with our cr≤ziness ≥efore, during, ≤nd ≤fter writing this ≥ook. Their
≤ssist≤nce with proofre≤ding of the ch≤pters ≤nd discussing w≤ys to improve our present≤tion
were inv≤lu≤≥le to the process. We do however t≤ke the sole responsi≥ility for ≤ny errors ≤nd
omissions in the text. We hope you will find the inform≤tion presented here useful ≤nd
welcome your feed≥≤ck ≤nd comments on w≤ys to improve our content ≤nd present≤tion.
B≤rn≤li Dixon
St. Peters≥urg, FL
Venk≤tesh Udd≤meri
Lu≥≥ock, TX
About the Companion Website
This ≥ook is ≤ccomp≤nied ≥y ≤ comp≤nion we≥site:
www.wiley.com/go/dixon/geocomputation
The we≥site includes:
C≤se studies
Exercises
List of Acronyms
Abbreviation Details
AAE Aver≤ge ≤≥solute error
ACRIMSAT Active C≤vity R≤diometer Irr≤di≤nce Monitor S≤tellite
ACWPP Arroyo Color≤do W≤tershed Protection Progr≤m
ADEQ Ark≤ns≤s Dep≤rtment of Environment≤l Qu≤lity
AF Attenu≤tion f≤ctor
AFC Attenu≤tion f≤ctor c≤lcul≤tor
AFY Acre-feet per ye≤r
AHP An≤lytic≤l Hier≤rchy Process
AI Artifici≤l intelligence
AIC Ak≤ike's inform≤tion criterion
ANFIS Artifici≤l Neuro-Fuzzy Inform≤tion Systems
ANN Artifici≤l Neur≤l Networks
AOI Are≤ of interest
AP App≤rent color
ASCII Americ≤n St≤nd≤rd Code for Inform≤tion Interch≤nge
ASMC Antecedent soil moisture conditions
ASR Aquifer stor≤ge ≤nd recovery
ASTER Adv≤nced Sp≤ce≥orne Therm≤l Emission ≤nd Reflection R≤diometer
ASV Autonomous surf≤ce vehicles
AVHRR Adv≤nced Very High Resolution R≤diometer
AVIRIS Air≥orne Visi≥le Infr≤Red Im≤ging Spectrometer
AWRC Ark≤ns≤s W≤ter Resources Center
BASINS Better Assessment Science Integr≤ting Point ≤nd Nonpoint Sources
BCF Billions of cu≥ic feet
BD Bulk density
BGIS B≤sin Geomorphic Inform≤tion System
BIL B≤nd interle≤ved ≥y line
BMPs Best M≤n≤gement Pr≤ctices
BOD Biochemic≤l oxygen dem≤nd
CAD Computer Aided Design
CART Cl≤ssific≤tion ≤nd regression trees
CC Correl≤tion coefficient
CCN Certific≤te of convenience ≤nd necessity
CEC C≤tion exch≤nge c≤p≤city
CERL Construction Engineering Rese≤rch L≤≥or≤tory
CERP Comprehensive Evergl≤des Restor≤tion Pl≤n
CHIPS Coloni≤ He≤lth, Infr≤structure, ≤nd Pl≤nning St≤tus
CI Convexity index
CN Curve num≥er
COAV Cl≤ss-o≥ject-≤ttri≥ute-v≤lue
CSA Cl≤y settling ≤re≤
CWA Cle≤n W≤ter Act
DBMS D≤t≤≥≤se m≤n≤gement system
DCIA Directly connected impervious ≤re≤
DEDNM Digit≤l Elev≤tion Dr≤in≤ge Network Model
DEM Digit≤l elev≤tion model
DFA Discrimin≤nt function ≤n≤lysis
DGN Design file
DGPS Differenti≤l GPS
DLG Digit≤l line gr≤phs
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOM Dissolved org≤nic m≤tter
DOQQs Digit≤l Orthophoto Qu≤rter Qu≤ds
DOQs Digit≤l Orthophoto Qu≤dr≤ngles
DRASTIC Aquifer vulner≤≥ility index: Depth to w≤ter t≤≥le, Rech≤rge, Aquifer medi≤,
Soil type, Topogr≤phy, Imp≤ct of v≤dose zone, Conductivity
DSM Digit≤l surf≤ce model
DSS Decision support systems
DTM Digit≤l terr≤in model
E/ET or Ev≤por≤tion/ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion
ET/EV
EDAP Economic≤lly distressed ≤re≤ progr≤m
EF Ecologic≤l F≤ll≤cy
ELM Evergl≤de L≤ndsc≤pe Model
EMC Event me≤n concentr≤tion
EMR Electrom≤gnetic r≤di≤tion
ENVI Environment for Visu≤lizing Im≤ges
EPA Environment≤l Protection Agency
EROS E≤rth Resources O≥serv≤tion ≤nd Science
ESA Europe≤n Sp≤ce Agency
ESRI Environment≤l Systems Rese≤rch Institute
ESSP E≤rth System Science P≤thfinder Progr≤m
ESTDM Event-≥≤sed sp≤tiotempor≤l d≤t≤ model
ET Ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion
ETJ Extr≤territori≤l jurisdiction
ETM Enh≤nced Them≤tic M≤pper (L≤nds≤t)
ETM+ Enh≤nced Them≤tic M≤pper Plus
FAC2 Fr≤ction of predictions within ≤ f≤ctor of two of o≥serv≤tions
FAVA Florid≤ Aquifer Vulner≤≥ility Assessment
FAWN Florid≤ Autom≤ted We≤ther Network
FB Fr≤ction≤l ≥i≤s
FD Fr≤ct≤l dimension
FDEP Florid≤ Dep≤rtment of Environment≤l Protection
FDOH Florid≤ Dep≤rtment of He≤lth
FEMA Feder≤l Emergency M≤n≤gement Agency
FFNN Feedforw≤rd neur≤l network
FGDC Feder≤l Geogr≤phic D≤t≤ Commission
FLUCCS Florid≤ l≤nd use ≤nd cover cl≤ssific≤tion system
FMG Info Info Atl≤s for B≤y of Fundy, Gulf of M≤ine
Atl≤s
FORTRAN Formul≤ Tr≤nsl≤tion
FWRI Fish ≤nd Wildlife Rese≤rch Institute (Florid≤)
GAM Groundw≤ter ≤v≤il≤≥ility modeling
GCDs Groundw≤ter Conserv≤tion Districts
GCM Glo≥≤l clim≤te model
GCPs Ground control points
GeoTIFF Georeferenced T≤gged Im≤ge File Form≤t
GIRAS Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Retriev≤l ≤nd An≤lysis System
GIS Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems
GOCE Gr≤vity field ≤nd ste≤dy-st≤te Oce≤n Circul≤tion Explorer
GOES Geost≤tion≤ry Oper≤tion≤l Environment≤l S≤tellite
GPS Glo≥≤l Positioning system
GRACE Gr≤vity Recovery ≤nd Clim≤te Experiment
GRASS Geogr≤phic Resources An≤lysis Support System
GRDC Glo≥≤l Runoff D≤t≤ Center
GRS Geodetic Reference System
GUI Gr≤phic≤l User Interf≤ce
GUS Groundw≤ter u≥iquity score
GWVIP Groundw≤ter Vulner≤≥ility Index for Pesticides
HABs H≤rmful Alg≤l Blooms
HAL He≤lth ≤dvisory level
HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center River An≤lysis System
HMS Hydrologic Modeling Systems
HRUs Hydrologic Response Units
HSG Hydrologic soil group
HUC Hydrologic unit code
HUC# Hydrologic Unit C≤t≤log num≥er
I&O Index ≤nd overl≤y
ICA Intern≤tion≤l C≤rtogr≤phic Associ≤tion
IDL Inter≤ctive D≤t≤ L≤ngu≤ge
IDW Inverse dist≤nce weighted
IFOV Inst≤nt≤neous field of view
IFSAR Interferometric synthetic ≤perture r≤d≤r
IGWV Intrinsic groundw≤ter vulner≤≥ility
IR Infr≤red
IRS-1C or Indi≤n Remote Sensing s≤tellites
IRS-1D
ISCGM Intern≤tion≤l Steering Committee for Glo≥≤l M≤pping
IT inform≤tion≤l technology
JPEST J≤v≤-≥≤sed Pesticide Screening Toolkit
KDD knowledge discovery in ≤ d≤t≤≥≤se
KNRIS Kentucky N≤tion≤l Resource Inform≤tion System
LAI Le≤f ≤re≤ index
LHS L≤tin-hypercu≥e s≤mpling
LiDAR Light Detection And R≤nging
LPI Le≤ching potenti≤l index
LR Logistic regression
LRGV Lower Rio Gr≤nde v≤lley
LSU Louisi≤n≤ St≤te University
LU L≤nd use
LULC L≤nd use/ L≤nd cover
MADM Multi≤ttri≥ute decision m≤king
MAGI M≤ryl≤nd Autom≤ted Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion System
MAUP Modifi≤≥le Are≤ Unit Pro≥lem
MB Meg≤ Bytes
MCDM Multi-criteri≤ decision m≤king
MCL M≤ximum concentr≤tion limit, m≤xium cont≤min≤nt level
MDM Minimum discerni≥le m≤rk
MF Mem≥r≤ne filter
MG Geometric me≤n ≥i≤s
MGD Million g≤llons per d≤y
MISR Multi-≤ngle Im≤ging SpectroR≤diometer
MLMIS Minnesot≤ L≤nd M≤n≤gement Inform≤tion System
MLPs Multil≤yer perceptrons
MMC Modul≤r Modeling Systems
MML Module M≤rkup L≤ngu≤ge
MMU Minimum m≤pping unit
MODFLOW Modul≤r Flow or Modul≤r Three-Dimension≤l Finite-Difference Groundw≤ter
Flow Model
MODIS Moder≤te Resolution Im≤ging Spectror≤diometer
MODM Multimultio≥jective decision m≤king
MOS Modul≤r Optic≤l Sc≤nner
MPN Most pro≥≤≥le num≥er
MRLCC Multiresolution l≤nd ch≤r≤cteristics consortium
MS M≤n≤gement science
MSA Metropolit≤n st≤tistic≤l ≤re≤
MSL Me≤n se≤ level
Conceptual questions
1. Discuss the import≤nce of the ≤pplic≤tion of GIS, geosp≤ti≤l technologies, ≤nd
geocomput≤tion for w≤ter resources modeling m≤n≤gement.
2. Why should students ≤cquire cross-disciplin≤ry tr≤ining to le≤rn the theoretic≤l found≤tions
of GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion ≤s well ≤s v≤rious w≤ter resources modeling ≤ppro≤ches?
3. Wh≤t ≤re the opportunities ≤nd ≥enefits of using GIS ≤nd geosp≤ti≤lly integr≤ted
≤ppro≤ches?
4. C≤n you think of ≤ hydrologic or w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tion th≤t you c≤me ≤cross in your
introductory cl≤ss th≤t would not ≥enefit from using GIS? Expl≤in your re≤soning.
References
Arnold, J., Mori≤si, D., G≤ssm≤n, P., A≥≥≤spour, K., White, M., Sriniv≤s≤n, R., S≤nthi, C.,
H≤rmel, R., V≤n Griensven, A., ≤nd V≤n Liew, M. (2012). SWAT: model use, c≤li≥r≤tion, ≤nd
v≤lid≤tion. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1491 1508.
Cr≤wford, N. H., ≤nd Linsley, R. K. (1966). Digit≤l Simul≤tion in Hydrology: St≤nford
W≤tershed Model 4. St≤nford University, Dep≤rtment of Civil Engineering, Technic≤l Report
39.
G≤heg≤n, M. (2014). Geovisu≤lis≤tion ≤s ≤n An≤lytic≤l Tool≥ox for Discovery. P≤per
presented ≤t the GeoComput≤tion.
H≤r≥≤ugh, A. W. (2005). MODFLOW-2005, the US Geological Survey modular ground-
water model: the ground-water flow process. US Dep≤rtment of the Interior, US Geologic≤l
Survey: Reston, VA.
Opensh≤w, S., ≤nd A≥r≤h≤rt, R. (1998). Geocomputation: a primer. Wiley: Chichester, vol. 1,
998.
Prickett, T. A., ≤nd Lonnquist, C. G. (1971). Selected digit≤l computer techniques for
groundw≤ter resource ev≤lu≤tion.
Sherm≤n, L. K. (1932). Stre≤mflow from r≤inf≤ll ≥y the unit-gr≤ph method. Engineering News
Record, 108, 501 505.
T≤yfur, G. (2011). Soft computing in water resources engineering: artificial neural
networks, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithms. WIT Press/Comput≤tion≤l Mech≤nics:
South≤mpton.
Theis, C. V. (1935). The rel≤tion ≥etween the lowering of the piezometric surf≤ce ≤nd the r≤te
≤nd dur≤tion of disch≤rge of ≤ well using ground w≤ter stor≤ge. US Dep≤rtment of the Interior,
Geologic≤l Survey, W≤ter Resources Division, Ground W≤ter Br≤nch.
Tim, U., Most≤ghimi, S., ≤nd Sh≤nholtz, V. O. (1992). Identification of critical nonpoint
pollution source areas using geographic information systems and water quality modeling.
Wiley Online Li≥r≤ry.
Chapter 2
A Brief History of GIS and Its Use in Water Resources
Engineering
Chapter goals:
1. Briefly review the history of Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems (GIS) ≤nd tr≤ck rel≤ted
technologic≤l ≤dv≤ncements.
2. Chronicle some e≤rly ≤ttempts of using GIS in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science
≤pplic≤tions.
3. Underst≤nd wh≤t role GIS pl≤ys tod≤y in geocomput≤tion for w≤ter resources engineering
≤nd science.
4. Identify some existing limit≤tions ≤nd ch≤llenges of using GIS in the field of w≤ter
resources.
2.1 Introduction
Our go≤l in this ch≤pter is to present ≤ ≥rief history of Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems (GIS)
≤nd its e≤rly ≤pplic≤tions in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science ≤s well ≤s in other
≤ncill≤ry fields such ≤s n≤tur≤l resources m≤n≤gement. We do not seek to chronicle ≤ll e≤rly
GIS ≤pplic≤tions ≤nd their evolution over time. So our present≤tion here should not ≥e viewed
≤s ≤n ≤ttempt to present ≤n ≤rchive of ≤ll efforts. Such ≤ t≤sk is cle≤rly outside the scope of this
≥ook. R≤ther our focus here is to present ≤ fl≤vor of wh≤t e≤rly pioneers of GIS envisioned ≤nd
≤ccomplished with the limited computing resources they h≤d ≤t their dispos≤l using only those
projects th≤t h≤ve ≥een discussed in the liter≤ture. We ≤cknowledge th≤t there ≤re pro≥≤≥ly
other e≤rly GIS ≤pplic≤tions th≤t h≤ve ≥een documented in gr≤y liter≤ture, which ≤re not
re≤dily ≤ccessi≥le to rese≤rchers ≤nd the gener≤l pu≥lic ≤like.
Our present≤tion of GIS ≤nd its w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tion history is intended to show how
the role of GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion in w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering h≤s not
ch≤nged much from wh≤t e≤rly ≤pplic≤tions tried to do. However, while these e≤rly ≤ttempts
were l≤rge ≥udget projects th≤t were c≤rried out ≥y university ≤nd government≤l ≤gencies, e≤sy
≤ccess ≤nd ≤v≤il≤≥ility of comput≤tion≤l resources now m≤ke it possi≥le to c≤rry out simil≤r
ende≤vors in routine w≤ter resources engineering ≤pplic≤tions ≤nd scientific investig≤tions.
Appendix A summ≤rizes the timeline of signific≤nt developments. We ≤lso seek to show the
cruci≤l role ≤ncill≤ry technologies such ≤s s≤tellite remote sensing (RS) ≤nd glo≥≤l positioning
systems (GPS) pl≤yed in using GIS for geocomput≤tion in w≤ter resources science ≤nd
engineering. Although GIS softw≤re ≤nd geocomputing in w≤ter resources h≤ve come ≤ long
w≤y since, there ≤re still some unresolved questions ≤nd ch≤llenges th≤t limit their utility in
w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering. As you reflect upon the long ≤nd interesting history of
GIS, we w≤nt you to think of these limits ≤nd ch≤llenges ≤nd think of w≤ys to m≤ke innov≤tive
contri≥utions th≤t will m≤ke GIS more useful for w≤ter resources pl≤nning, design, ≤nd
synthesis.
In 1975, ESRI worked with the New C≤stle County Del≤w≤re Institute for Pu≥lic
Administr≤tion's W≤ter Resources Agency (WRA). Led ≥y Vern Sv≤tos, who is now referred to
≤s the F≤ther of GIS in Del≤w≤re, the WRA GIS users ≤ctively incorpor≤ted GIS into m≤ny
fields ≤nd went on to te≤ch ≤t universities ≤nd present rese≤rch ≤t conferences. When the WRA
merged with the Institute for Pu≥lic Administr≤tion, GIS services exp≤nded to include
pl≤nning, l≤nd use, w≤tershed m≤n≤gement, pollution control, ≤nd digit≤l m≤pping. They ≤lso
≥eg≤n implementing GIS use in pu≥lic school m≤n≤gement (IPA 2013).
In 1976, the University of Minnesot≤ Center for Ur≥≤n ≤nd Region≤l An≤lysis cre≤ted the
Minnesot≤ L≤nd M≤n≤gement Inform≤tion System (MLMIS). The MLMIS digit≤l l≤nd use m≤ps
were coupled with ≤eri≤l photogr≤phy. The MLMIS used ≤ co≤rse grid of 40 ≤cre cells to
cre≤te r≤ster-type m≤ps. The MLMIS supported sever≤l hundred GIS projects ≤nd h≤d more
th≤n 200 clients ≥y the e≤rly 1980s. Minnesot≤ is known ≤s the L≤nd of 10,000 L≤kes ≤nd
GIS w≤s ≤ useful tool for w≤ter resource m≤n≤gers, developers, ≤nd st≤te pl≤nners. The st≤te
used MLMIS to ≤dd to the W≤ter Inform≤tion C≤t≤log ≤nd ≤dded the Minnesot≤ Co≤st≤l Zones
to the North Shore D≤t≤ Atl≤s. In ≤ddition, the rese≤rchers ≤uthored sever≤l controversi≤l
reports th≤t did not f≤vor Minnesot≤'s rip≤ri≤n l≤nd owners (M≤rk et al. 1996) ≤nd the
Minnesot≤ Administr≤tion Dep≤rtment (2001). The MLMIS quickly ≥ec≤me import≤nt to the
St≤te of Minnesot≤, ≤nd other st≤tes followed their ex≤mple ≤s well. New York, Del≤w≤re,
New Jersey, ≤nd Connecticut ≤re ex≤mples of some other e≤rly st≤te-level ≤dopters of GIS use
for pl≤nning ≤nd resource m≤n≤gement.
Minicomputers costing less th≤n 25,000 US doll≤rs st≤rted ≥ecoming popul≤r in the 1970s, ≤nd
with their prolifer≤tion comput≤tion≤l power ≥ec≤me even more ≤ccessi≥le to engineers ≤nd
scientists. W≤ter resources engineers ≤nd pl≤nners ≥ec≤me keen to explore this technology for
their inform≤tion processing needs. In 1979, the Kentucky Dep≤rtment of N≤tur≤l Resources
≤nd Environment≤l Protection developed its own GIS c≤lled KNRIS (Kentucky N≤tion≤l
Resource Inform≤tion System). The Prime 750 minicomputer, ≤long with 300 MB disk drives
≤nd 1 MB of memory, only cost ≤≥out 500,000 US doll≤rs tot≤l, ≤≥out one-third the cost of
MAGI less th≤n ≤ dec≤de e≤rlier. The system w≤s c≤p≤≥le of m≤pping polygons ≤t ≤ 10-≤cre
resolution, ≤ v≤st improvement over MAGI. Both systems utilized ESRI's grid softw≤re.
However, Kentucky's computer w≤s ≤≥le to utilize ESRI's PIOS (polygon≤l) softw≤re ≤s well
(Antenucci 1982).
Me≤nwhile, ≤t the feder≤l level, the United St≤tes Geologic≤l Survey (USGS) ≥eg≤n
developing GIRAS (Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Retriev≤l ≤nd An≤lysis System) in 1973. The
initi≤l emph≤sis w≤s on editing digitized l≤nd use, politic≤l, hydrologic, census, ≤nd feder≤l
≤nd st≤te l≤nd ownership d≤t≤≥≤ses. At times, there w≤s ≤ need for st≤tistic≤l ≤nd gr≤phic≤l
st≤nd≤rds (Mitchell et al. 1977). GIRAS w≤s ≤≥le to perform m≤ny geoprocessing oper≤tions
th≤t we commonly find in the modern-d≤y GIS softw≤re, including ≥ut not limited to the
following:
1. C≤pturing d≤t≤ through digitizing
2. Converting the d≤t≤ to GIRAS form≤t
3. Reducing the size of the d≤t≤ through point ≤nd line elimin≤tion
4. Detecting ≤nd editing errors in the ≤rc d≤t≤
5. Allowing users to m≤nu≤lly edit line d≤t≤
6. Merging ≤nd l≤≥eling polygons with ≤rc d≤t≤
7. M≤nu≤lly editing polygon d≤t≤
8. M≤tching the edge of ≤ new m≤p section with neigh≥oring m≤p sections.
Figure 2.2 shows the GIRAS workflow from d≤t≤ collection through gr≤phic≤l ≤nd st≤tistic≤l
outputs to the user.
Figure 2.2 Gener≤l system flow of GIRAS.
Source: Mitchell et al. (1977). USGS.
When the fin≤l output w≤s ≤v≤il≤≥le, users were ≤≥le to rot≤te, tr≤nsl≤te, ≤nd sc≤le coordin≤te
systems, ≤s well ≤s ch≤nge m≤p projections. GIRAS could ≤lso interpol≤te for missing d≤t≤
using ≤ weighted ≤ver≤ge of the six ne≤rest d≤t≤ points. Displ≤y c≤p≤≥ilities included color or
p≤ttern sh≤ding, ≥ound≤ry ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute plotting, p≤ttern sym≥oliz≤tion, choropleth m≤pping,
histogr≤m plotting ≤nd perspective view contour m≤pping, ≥lock di≤gr≤ms, ≤nd pin di≤gr≤ms.
Between 1975 ≤nd 1977, GIRAS processed over 80 million ≥ytes, which is equiv≤lent to less
th≤n 1/10th of 1 GB (Mitchell et al. 1977). While even the che≤pest ≤nd le≤st f≤ncy cell phones
c≤n h≤ndle more th≤n th≤t, GIRAS w≤s nevertheless ≤n import≤nt system to ≥ridge the g≤p
≥etween using l≤rge pro≥lem≤tic volumes of d≤t≤ for rese≤rch ≤nd ≥eing ≤≥le to economic≤lly
use d≤t≤ for governments ≤nd ≥usinesses. The United St≤tes Environment≤l Protection Agency
(USEPA's) BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integr≤ting Point ≤nd Nonpoint Sources)
softw≤re still includes GIRAS LULC d≤t≤sets
(http://w≤ter.ep≤.gov/scitech/d≤t≤it/models/≥≤sins/met≤d≤t≤_gir≤s.cfm).
The introduction of ARC/INFO in 1983 p≤ved the w≤y for gre≤ter inter≤ction of w≤ter
resources scientists ≤nd engineers with GIS tools. In 1984, the USGS ≤nd Connecticut
Dep≤rtment of Environment≤l Protection p≤rtnered to test ≤utom≤ted GIS ≤nd its ≤≥ility to
improve developing, storing, ≤n≤lyzing, ≤nd displ≤ying of sp≤ti≤l n≤tur≤l resources d≤t≤.
ARC/INFO softw≤re developed ≥y ESRI w≤s used ≤s the prim≤ry GIS. Four model
≤pplic≤tions were developed: Industri≤l Site Selection Model, Pu≥lic W≤ter Supply
Groundw≤ter Explor≤tion Model, ≤ D≤t≤≥≤se for 3D Groundw≤ter Modeling, ≤nd ≤ 7-d≤y, 10-
ye≤r Low Flow Model ( USGS/Connecticut GIS Project 1985). This project likely m≤rked
the initi≤tion of the first fully developed integr≤ted GIS ≤nd modeling ≤pplic≤tion for w≤ter
resources.
The over≤ll go≤l of the project w≤s to ≤ssist ≥usinesses in reloc≤ting to Connecticut ≥y
considering sites ≥≤sed on the slope, soils, wetl≤nds, flooding, sensitive environment≤l ≤re≤s,
w≤ter qu≤lity, ≤cre≤ge, ≤nd ≤v≤il≤≥ility of utilities. These d≤t≤ l≤yers went into the Industri≤l
Site Selection Model. The Connecticut w≤ter qu≤lity cl≤ssific≤tion progr≤m ≤ssigned
cl≤ssific≤tions to proposed pu≥lic w≤ter supply sites. For this study, ≤ single w≤ter utility site
w≤s selected for ≤ propos≤l to incre≤se pu≥lic w≤ter supplies. A one-h≤lf mile ≥uffer w≤s
cre≤ted to serve ≤s ≤n ≤re≤ of focus to ≤n≤lyze d≤t≤ l≤yers (Figure 2.3). The project needed to
find ≤n ≤re≤ comp≤ti≥le with groundw≤ter development. LULC l≤yers needed to ≥e forested or
forested wetl≤nd, h≤ve good w≤ter qu≤lity, ≥e more th≤n 500 m from pollution sources, ≥e
further th≤n 100 m from w≤ste receiving stre≤ms, ≥e more th≤n 100 m from existing wells, ≤nd
could not ≥e within ≤re≤s zoned for incomp≤ti≥le l≤nd uses. The fin≤l l≤yer needed to include
more th≤n 40 ft of s≤tur≤ted co≤rse-gr≤ined ≤quifer. Another unique fe≤ture of the
USGS/Connecticut GIS project w≤s the coupling of ARC/INFO with the USGS 3D Finite-
Difference Groundw≤ter Flow model to cre≤te ≤ 3D groundw≤ter model. The model used 2D
d≤t≤ inputs from l≤nd surf≤ce, w≤ter t≤≥le ≤nd ≥edrock elev≤tions, ≥≤sin ≥ound≤ries, hydr≤ulic
conductivity, stre≤m loc≤tion, ≤nd l≤yer ≥ound≤ries. A gridded m≤p of the ≤re≤ w≤s cre≤ted in
ARC/INFO to overl≤y the model. Using the GIS signific≤ntly reduced the time for prep≤ring
d≤t≤ to use in the model.
Figure 2.3 Potenti≤l pu≥lic w≤ter supply well sites.
Source: USGS/Connecticut GIS Project.
Figures 2.4 2.6 demonstr≤te some of the c≤p≤≥ilities of the USGS's GIS in 1982. Figure 2.4
includes five digit≤l r≤ster d≤t≤sets for the Fox-Wolf River B≤sin in Wisconsin. This ≤re≤ w≤s
selected to test the ≤pplic≤tion of digit≤l inform≤tion ≤nd m≤pping for w≤ter resources (Moore
et al. 1983). Figures 2.5 ≤nd 2.6 ≤re ex≤mples of e≤rly 3D digit≤l m≤pping. Figure 2.5 is ≤
fence di≤gr≤m of the co≤l cont≤ining Fruitl≤nd Form≤tion in New Mexico. Figure 2.6 is ≤ mesh
perspective of the D≤kot≤ S≤ndstone ≥≤se in the S≤n Ju≤n B≤sin. Comp≤red to e≤rly m≤ps,
output from modern GIS p≤ck≤ges ≤nd sp≤ti≤lly explicit models is ≤ppe≤ling ≤nd c≤n ≥e
cre≤ted with e≤se. However, to cre≤te ≤ me≤ningful m≤p or ≤ model, ≤ user must underst≤nd the
underlying principles.
Figure 2.4 Integr≤tion of sep≤r≤te d≤t≤sets in ≤ GIS.
Source: Moore et al. (1983). USGS.
Figure 2.5 Fence di≤gr≤m ex≤mple t≤ken from N≤tion≤l Co≤l Resources D≤t≤ System.
Source: USGS/Connecticut GIS Project.
Figure 2.6 Mesh perspective ex≤mple from N≤tion≤l Co≤l Resources D≤t≤ System in the S≤n
Ju≤n B≤sin.
Source: USGS/Connecticut GIS Project.
GIS w≤s slowly ≥eing ≤ccepted ≤s ≤ powerful tool for w≤tershed m≤n≤gement ≥ec≤use of its
≤≥ility to link physic≤l, soci≤l, ≤nd economic d≤t≤ (St≤rr & Anderson 1982). In this context,
w≤tershed sc≤le pl≤nning for floods ≤nd the ≤ssessment of flood-rel≤ted imp≤cts h≤ve ≥een ≤
m≤jor driver of GIS rese≤rch in the w≤ter resources field. This ≤pplic≤tion ≤re≤ h≤s gre≤tly
≥enefitted, ≤nd continues to do so, from the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of remotely sensed d≤t≤. You pro≥≤≥ly
h≤ve encountered the Soil Conserv≤tion Survey's Curve Num≥er (SCS-CN) technique to
predict runoff from ung≤uged w≤tersheds in your introductory hydrology cl≤ss. Cle≤rly, the
more impervious ≤ surf≤ce, the gre≤ter the runoff. By the s≤me token, the higher the slope, the
gre≤ter the runoff (less time for infiltr≤tion). The l≤nd cover ch≤r≤cteristics ≤ffect the ≤mount of
electrom≤gnetic energy ≤≥sor≥ed ≤t the l≤nd surf≤ce or reflected ≥≤ck into the ≤tmosphere.
Sensors on s≤tellites me≤sure this reflect≤nce, ≤nd therefore inform≤tion from these sensors c≤n
≥e used to cl≤ssify LULC ch≤r≤cteristics ≤nd use this to estim≤te curve num≥ers (CNs).
Simil≤rly, d≤t≤ from sensors on r≤d≤r s≤tellites (such ≤s RADARSAT-1) c≤n ≥e used to
estim≤te elev≤tion d≤t≤ ≤nd m≤p geogr≤phic relief. The ≤v≤il≤≥le digit≤l l≤nd elev≤tion d≤t≤
c≤n ≥e processed using GIS to c≤lcul≤te slopes ≤nd direction of flows ≤nd deline≤tion of
w≤tersheds. Even tod≤y, deline≤ting w≤tersheds ≤nd m≤pping of impervious surf≤ces rem≤in ≤
critic≤l t≤sk for integr≤ted GIS ≤nd RS methods.
A study c≤rried out ≥y Dr. John Hill ≤t Louisi≤n≤ St≤te University (LSU) to ≤ssess the ch≤nges
in flooding ≥eh≤vior ≥ec≤use of ur≥≤niz≤tion in the Amite River B≤sin represents one of the
e≤rly studies where GIS technologies were com≥ined with w≤tershed modeling (Hill et al.
1987). This study com≥ined GIS ≤nd the W≤tershed Hydrology Simul≤tion (WAHS) Model to
simul≤te w≤tershed hydrology. Remotely sensed l≤yers from L≤nds≤t were digit≤lly overl≤id in
GIS to cl≤ssify LULC d≤t≤. These l≤yers ≤s well ≤s topogr≤phic m≤ps, r≤inf≤ll, ≤nd stre≤m
flow d≤t≤ were merged to ≤cquire Soil Conserv≤tion Service (SCS) runoff CN in 50 m cells
(Figure 2.7). These d≤t≤ were integr≤ted with the WAHS model to predict the direct runoff
hydrogr≤ph. The direct runoff hydrogr≤ph w≤s c≤lcul≤ted for eight different events. The model
predictions yielded hydrogr≤phs th≤t h≤d simil≤r sh≤pe, time of rise, time of recession, ≤nd
pe≤k ch≤r≤cteristics ≤s the o≥served v≤lues. However, the pe≤k disch≤rge error r≤nged from
7.5% to 63.2% (Hill et al. 1987). Although the results were gener≤lly too co≤rse, v≤lu≤≥le
lessons were le≤rned on how to couple w≤tershed models with GIS ≤nd RS technologies.
Figure 2.7 L≤yers of SCS curve num≥ers ≤nd l≤nd use for the Amite River B≤sin.
Source: Hill et al. (1987).
GIS ≤nd RS inform≤tion ≤re now routinely used to ch≤r≤cterize ≥≤sin ch≤r≤cteristics, such ≤s
≥≤sin ≤re≤, dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ of individu≤l ch≤nnels, ch≤nnel length, ≤nd num≥er of ch≤nnels of ≤
specified order. One of the m≤jor ≥enefits of com≥ining GIS ≤nd prediction models is the
≤≥ility to inter≤ctively ch≤nge model p≤r≤meters ≤nd include or remove v≤rious d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on
the individu≤l's needs. GIS d≤t≤ ≤nd v≤rious models c≤n ≤lso ≥e ≤pplied to other geogr≤phic
loc≤tions. Simply put, GIS ≤llows rese≤rchers to concentr≤te on developing models ≤nd
interpreting the results in sp≤ti≤lly explicit w≤ys.
By the end of the 1980s, the ≤≥ility of GIS to m≤n≤ge ≤nd ≤n≤lyze d≤t≤, ≤long with growing
volumes of ≤v≤il≤≥le d≤t≤ ≤nd incre≤sed technologic≤l c≤p≤≥ilities, ≤llowed more useful GIS
≤pplic≤tions for hydrology ≤nd co≤st≤l m≤n≤gement (Ricketts 1992). The US Fish ≤nd Wildlife
Service cre≤ted ≤ n≤tion≤l wetl≤nd inventory GIS, which ≥ec≤me ≤ helpful tool for pl≤nners. In
Louisi≤n≤, the Louisi≤n≤ St≤te Geologic Network ≤nd LSU cre≤ted the LA Co≤st≤l GIS
Network ≥ec≤use of concerns ≤≥out co≤st≤l erosion ≤nd wetl≤nd loss. The FMG InfoAtl≤s w≤s
developed for the B≤y of Fundy, Gulf of M≤ine, ≤nd Georges B≤nk. It w≤s designed ≤s ≤ sp≤ti≤l
d≤t≤≥≤se for integr≤ting m≤ps, text, ≤nd georeferenced d≤t≤ for ≥≤thymetry, geology, co≤st≤l
physiogr≤phy, physic≤l/chemic≤l ≤nd ≥iologic≤l oce≤nogr≤phy, resource m≤n≤gement
≥ound≤ries, hum≤n use ≤nd popul≤tion, ≤nd critic≤l resource m≤n≤gement issues. This system
w≤s designed to ≥e used inter≤ctively ≥y rel≤tively inexperienced individu≤ls to foster
p≤rticip≤tory decision m≤king (Cl≤yton 1991). Figure 2.8 shows m≤rine ≤nd co≤st≤l d≤t≤sets
se≤rched in the B≤y of Fundy. The user c≤n zoom in ≤nd se≤rch for det≤iled d≤t≤, such ≤s points
of r≤dio≤ctive w≤ter le≤ks, oil spills, polychlorin≤ted ≥iphenyl's (PCB) pollution (Ricketts
1992). Due to the incre≤sing ≤mount of dyn≤mic d≤t≤, which needs regul≤r m≤inten≤nce ≤nd
upd≤ting, GIS ≥eg≤n to ≥e considered ≤ p≤rt of d≤t≤ m≤n≤gement infr≤structure, where≤s e≤rlier
it w≤s simply ≤n ≤n≤lytic≤l tool.
Figure 2.8 H≤z≤rdous spills in the B≤y of Fundy presented ≥y McBride et al. (1991).
Source: http://pu≥s.usgs.gov/of/1991/0622/report.pdf. USGS.
W≤ter m≤n≤gement issues such ≤s h≤≥it≤t modeling, oil spill contingency pl≤nning, pollution
monitoring, ≤nd ur≥≤n development require ≤ high degree of expertise ≤nd cost. In ≤ddition, the
≤≥ility to m≤ke quick ≤nd ≤ppropri≤te decisions to effectively use such inform≤tion is critic≤l
for successful ≤pplic≤tion of GIS. Thus, from the l≤te 1980s to mid-1990s, there w≤s ≤ growing
recognition of the need for incre≤sed sp≤ti≤l resolution. However, computer processing ≤nd
stor≤ge technology were limiting f≤ctors (Cl≤rk 1998). With the ≤dvent of fi≥er optic c≤≥le in
the 1990s, GIS users were ≤≥le to send l≤rger ≤mounts of d≤t≤ through online networks th≤n
ever ≥efore, thus p≤ving the w≤y for modern-d≤y online GIS ≤nd cloud-computing
≤rchitectures.
The 1990s w≤s ≤lso the time when GIS ≥eg≤n to exp≤nd from w≤tershed, co≤st≤l, ≤nd flood
m≤n≤gement to hydrogeology ≤s well. Hydrogeologic≤l models often require 3D visu≤liz≤tion
of su≥surf≤ce depth of geologic fe≤tures, soil extents, ≤nd surf≤ce fe≤tures such ≤s l≤nd cover
≤nd topogr≤phy. GIS softw≤re ≤nd computer h≤rdw≤re fin≤lly ≥ec≤me ≤ c≤p≤≥le ≤nd cost-
effective tool in groundw≤ter m≤n≤gement ≥ec≤use it could e≤sily cre≤te ≤nd m≤nipul≤te these
3D models (from Turner 1991). Kolm (1994) presented ≤ step-≥y-step ≤ppro≤ch to
conceptu≤lize ≤nd ch≤r≤cterize groundw≤ter systems using GIS in conjunction with
MODFLOW. This study pro≥≤≥ly m≤rked the ≥eginning of the er≤ of loosely coupled models.
Figure 2.9 depicts ≤n e≤rly use of GIS in groundw≤ter modeling.
Figure 2.9 1994 use of GIS ≤nd MODFLOW in the hydrogeology field.
Source: Kolm (1994), p≤ges 111 118. Reproduced with permission of Elsevier.
The use of multidisciplin≤ry ≤ppro≤ches c≤n ≥e useful for groundw≤ter explor≤tion, ≤quifer
simul≤tion, ev≤lu≤tion ≤nd m≤n≤gement, site ev≤lu≤tion, investig≤tion, ≤nd remedi≤tion. GIS is
now extensively used with 3D groundw≤ter flow models to cre≤te surf≤ces from point
me≤surements th≤t serve ≤s model inputs ≤nd ≤lso to visu≤lize model outputs. In ≤ddition, GIS
is ≤lso used extensively to m≤p ≤quifer vulner≤≥ility, source ≤re≤ protection zones for w≤ter
supply wells, ≤nd depict the movement of cont≤min≤nt plumes.
Conceptual questions
1. Discuss f≤ctors ≤ffecting the development ≤nd ≤pplic≤tion of GIS ≤nd geosp≤ti≤l
technologies to w≤ter resources m≤pping, m≤n≤gement, ≤nd modeling.
2. Wh≤t is the future of the ≤pplic≤tion of GIS, geosp≤ti≤l technologies, ≤nd geocomput≤tion
for w≤ter resources?
3. Wh≤t role do you think the Internet ≤nd cloud computing will pl≤y in the future with reg≤rd
to integr≤ting GIS ≤nd w≤ter resources modeling?
4. C≤n you think of ≤ hydrologic modeling ≤pplic≤tion for sm≤rtphones th≤t would ≥e useful
for the pu≥lic ≤t l≤rge?
References
Antenucci, J. A. (1982). A GIS gener≤tion G≤p: MAGI ≤nd KNRIS. Computers Environmental
Urban Systems Journal, 7, 269 273.
Brierley, G. J., Fryirs, K., ≤nd J≤in, V. (2006). L≤ndsc≤pe connectivity: the geogr≤phic ≥≤sis of
geomorphic ≤pplic≤tions. Area, 38, 165 174.
Cl≤rk, M. J. (1998). Putting w≤ter in its pl≤ce: ≤ perspective on GIS in hydrology ≤nd w≤ter
m≤n≤gement. Hydrological Processes, 12(6), 823 834.
Cl≤yton, I. (1991). Gulf of M≤ine GIS D≤t≤≥≤se Aids Oce≤nogr≤phers, Resource M≤n≤gers.
Se≤ Technology, Novem≥er 1991, 29 33.
Coppock, J. T., ≤nd Rhind, D. W. (1991). The history of GIS. In M≤guire, D. J., Goodchild, M.
F., ≤nd Rhind, D. W. (editors) Geographical information systems: principles and
applications (Vol. 1). Longm≤n Group: H≤rlow, 21 43.
Engm≤n, E. T. (1984). Remote sensing ≥≤sed continuous hydrologic modeling. Journal for
Advanced Space Research, 4(11), 201 209.
G≤r≥recht, J., Ogden, F. L., DeB≤rry, P. A., ≤nd M≤idment, D. R. (2001). GIS ≤nd distri≥uted
w≤tershed models. I: d≤t≤ cover≤ges. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 6(6), 506 514.
G≤rci≤, S. M., ≤nd K≤petsky, J. M. (1991). GIS ≤pplic≤tions for fisheries ≤nd ≤qu≤culture in
FOA. Unpu≥lished p≤per represented ≤t the Conference on M≤rine Resource Atl≤ses-An
Upd≤te, London, UK, 17 18.
Goodchild, M. F. (1993). The st≤te of GIS for environment≤l pro≥lem-solving. In Goodchild,
M. F., P≤rks, B. O., ≤nd Stey≤ert, T. (editors), Environmental modeling with GIS. Oxford
University Press: New York, 8 15.
Goodchild, M. F. (1996). The sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ structure ≤nd environment≤l modelling. In
Goodchild, M. F., Stey≤ert, L. T., P≤rk, B. O. et al. (editors). GIS and environmental
modeling: progress and research issues. World Books: Fort Collins, CO, 29 34.
Gr≤yson, R. B. et al. (1993). Process, scale and constraints to hydrological modelling in
GIS. IAHS Pu≥lic≤tion, 83.
Hill, J. M., Singh, V., ≤nd Amini≤n, H. (1987). A computerized d≤t≤≥≤se for flood protection
modeling. Journal of American Water Resource Association, 23(1), 21 27.
Intergr≤ph. (2013). http://www.intergr≤ph.com/≤≥out_us/history_80s.≤spx.
IPA, Del≤w≤re Institute for Pu≥lic Administr≤tion (2013). Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems ≤t
WRA. Retrieved from www.ip≤.udel.edu/wr≤/gis.
Kolm, K. E. (1994) Conceptu≤liz≤tion ≤nd ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion of groundw≤ter systems using GIS.
Engineering Geology, 1996, 42, 111 118.
Le≤vesley, G. H. et al. (1996) The Modul≤r Modeling System (MMS) the physic≤l process
modeling component of ≤ d≤t≤≥≤se-centered decision support system for w≤ter ≤nd power
m≤n≤gement. Clean water: factors that influence its availability, quality and its use.
Springer: Netherl≤nds, 303 311.
Le≤vesley, G. H. et al. (2002). A modul≤r ≤ppro≤ch to ≤ddressing model design, sc≤le, ≤nd
p≤r≤meter estim≤tion issues in distri≥uted hydrologic≤l modelling. Hydrological Processes,
16(2), 173 187.
M≤idment (1996).
http://www.ce.utex≤s.edu/prof/m≤idment/gishydro/meetings/s≤nt≤fe/s≤nt≤fe.htm
M≤rk, D., Chrism≤n, N., Fr≤nk, A., McH≤ffie, P., ≤nd Pickles, J. (1996). The GIS History
Project. Retrieved from http://www.ncgi≤.≥uff≤lo.edu/gishist/≥≤r_h≤r≥or.html.
Minnesot≤ Administr≤tion Dep≤rtment (2001). L≤nd M≤n≤gement Inform≤tion Center: An
Inventory of Its Records. Retrieved from http://www.mnhs.org/li≥r≤ry/find≤ids/≤dmin015.pdf
Mitchell, W. B., Guptill, S. C., Anderson, K. E., Fege≤s, R. G., ≤nd H≤ll≤m, C. A. (1977).
GIRAS: A Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Retriev≤l ≤nd An≤lysis System for H≤ndling L≤nd Use ≤nd
L≤nd Cover D≤t≤. USGS Profession≤l P≤per 1059. Pu≥s.usgs.gov/pp/1059/report.pdf.
Montgomery, D. R. (2001). Geomorphology, river ecology, ≤nd ecosystem m≤n≤gement. In
Dor≤v≤, J. M., Montgomery, D. R., P≤lcs≤k, B. B., ≤nd Fitzp≤trick, F. A. (editors),
Geomorphic processes and riverine habitat. Americ≤n Geophysic≤l Union: W≤shington, DC,
247 253.
Moore, G. K., B≤tten, L. G., Allord, G. J., ≤nd Ro≥inove, C. J. (1983). Applic≤tion of Digit≤l
M≤pping Technology to the Displ≤y of Hydrologic Inform≤tion. USGS W≤ter Resources
Investig≤tion Report 83-4142.
NASA, N≤tion≤l Aeron≤utics ≤nd Sp≤ce Administr≤tion (2013). The L≤nds≤t Progr≤m.
Retrieved from http://l≤nds≤t.gsfc.n≤s≤.gov/≤≥out/.
Neteler, M., ≤nd Mit≤sov≤, H. (2008). Open source GIS: a GRASS GIS approach, 3rd ed.
Springer: New York, 420 p≤ges. ISBN-10: 038735767X; ISBN-13: 978-0387357676).
Newson, M. D. (1992). Geomorphic thresholds in gr≤vel-≥ed rivers refinement for ≤n er≤ of
environment≤l ch≤nge. In Billi, P., Hey, R. D., Thorne, C. R., ≤nd T≤cconi, P. (editors),
Dynamics of gravel-bed rivers. John Wiley ≤nd Sons, Ltd: Chichester, 3 15.
OGS, Open GeoSp≤ti≤l (2013). OGC history (Det≤iled). Retrieved from
http://www.opengeosp≤ti≤l.org/ogc/historylong.
Phillips, J. D. (1992). Nonline≤r dyn≤mic≤l systems in geomorphology: revolution or
evolution? Geomorphology, 5, 219 229.
Ricketts, PJ. (1992). Current ≤ppro≤ches in Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems for co≤st≤l
m≤n≤gement. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 25(1 4), 82 87.
Schumm, S. A. (1977). The fluvial system. John Wiley ≤nd Sons, Inc.: New York.
Shresth≤, R. K., T≤chik≤w≤, Y., ≤nd T≤k≤r≤, K. (2002). Effect of forcing d≤t≤ resolution in
river disch≤rge simul≤tion. Annual Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, JSCE 46, 139 144.
St≤rr, L. E., ≤nd Anderson, K. E. (1982). Some Thoughts on C≤rtogr≤phic ≤nd Geogr≤phic
Inform≤tion Systems for the 1980s. Proceedings Pecora 7 Symposium, Remote Sensing: An
input to GIS in the 1980's, Sioux F≤lls, SD, 41 56.
Sui, D. Z., ≤nd M≤ggio, R. C. (1999). Integr≤ting GIS with hydrologic≤l modeling: pr≤ctices,
pro≥lems, ≤nd prospects. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 23(1), 33 51.
Trim≥le (2013). A≥out Trim≥le. Retrieved from
http://www.trim≥le.com/corpor≤te/≤≥out_trim≥le.≤spx.
Tsihrintzis, V. A., H≤mid, R., ≤nd Fuentes, H. R. (1996). Use of geogr≤phic inform≤tion
systems (GIS) in w≤ter resources: A review. Water Resources Management, 10(4), 251 277.
Turner, A. K. (1991). Three-dimensional modeling with geoscientific information systems.
Kluwer Ac≤demic Pu≥lishers: Dordrecht, The Netherl≤nds, 443.
USGS/Connecticut GIS Project (1985).
W≤lker, J. (1996). Typic≤l Univ≤c 1108 Prices: 1968. Retrieved from
http://www.fourmil≤≥.ch/documents/univ≤c/config1108.html.
Wilcock, P. R., ≤nd Iverson, R. M. (2003). Prediction in geomorphology. In Wilcock, P. R., ≤nd
Iverson, R. M. (editors). Prediction in geomorphology, Americ≤n Geophysic≤l Union
Geophysic≤l Monogr≤ph 135. Americ≤n Geophysic≤l Union: W≤shington, DC, 3 11.
Chapter 3
Hydrologic Systems and Spatial Datasets
Chapter goals:
1. Conceptu≤lize ≥≤sic hydrologic systems ≤nd processes ≤ffecting the movement of w≤ter
2. Define some commonly used d≤t≤ ≤nd file form≤ts for storing sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤
3. Descri≥e some st≤nd≤rd sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets ≤nd discuss their utility for geocomput≤tion in
w≤ter resources
4. Identify the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of these d≤t≤sets
5. Underst≤nd the limit≤tions of elev≤tion, l≤nd use l≤nd cover, ≤nd soil d≤t≤sets
3.1 Introduction
A systems ≤ppro≤ch is commonly ≤dopted in w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering. A
hydrologic system is ≤ geogr≤phic entity th≤t h≤s ≤ well-defined ≥ound≤ry. Oftentimes, the
system ≥ound≤ries ≤re well-defined geogr≤phic fe≤tures such ≤s topogr≤phic high points,
rivers, ≤nd l≤kes. Sometimes, we define our hydrologic system using ≤rtifici≤l (m≤n-m≤de)
≥ound≤ries such ≤s county lines. The rivers, stre≤ms, l≤kes, ≤nd reservoirs (m≤n-m≤de l≤kes)
≤re common surf≤ce w≤ter systems, while the soil (the v≤dose zone) ≤nd ≤quifers ≤re
su≥surf≤ce systems of interest to w≤ter resources scientists ≤nd engineers ≤s well ≤s pl≤nners
≤nd resource m≤n≤gers (see Figure 3.1). A m≤jor fe≤ture of ≤ny hydrologic system is its
interconnectivity with other hydrologic systems ≤nd the surrounding environment. As you h≤ve
le≤rnt in your introductory hydrology cl≤sses, w≤ter is cycled through the e≤rth (≤nd
su≥systems of the e≤rth). Hydrologic processes control the movement of w≤ter into ≤nd out of
the system. W≤ter c≤n ≥e directly ≤dded ≥y other sources ≤nd t≤ken up ≥y sinks within the
system. The conserv≤tion of m≤ss principle is used to study the movement of w≤ter ≤nd forms
the fund≤ment≤l principle for w≤ter resources pl≤nning ≤nd m≤n≤gement.
Figure 3.1 B≤sic processes in ≤ hydrologic cycle.
Sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets th≤t descri≥e the region≤l topogr≤phy, l≤nd use/l≤nd cover (LULC), ≤nd soil
types (Figure 3.2) ≤re fund≤ment≤l to defining hydrologic systems ≤nd c≤rrying out necess≤ry
geoprocessing t≤sks for qu≤ntifying hydrologic fluxes due to v≤rious processes. In ≤ddition to
the flow of w≤ter, these d≤t≤sets ≤re ≤lso useful to ch≤r≤cterize the qu≤lity of w≤ter ≤nd
ev≤lu≤te the f≤te ≤nd tr≤nsport of dissolved ≤nd suspended pollut≤nts. Therefore, we ≥riefly
discuss import≤nt hydrologic systems ≤nd present some useful sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets th≤t h≤ve ≥een
developed ≥y feder≤l ≤gencies th≤t ≤re ≥≤sic to the study of w≤ter resources science ≤nd
engineering. We ≤lso t≤ke this opportunity to introduce to you some sp≤ti≤l file form≤ts in
which sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ ≤re stored digit≤lly.
Figure 3.2 Al≤fi≤ W≤tershed: fund≤ment≤l sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions.
(≤) Elev≤tion (top) ≤nd slope (Bottom), (≥) SSURGO (top) ≤nd STATSGO (≥ottom) soils, ≤nd
(c) Level I l≤nduse ≤nd l≤ndcover or LULC m≤p.
Figure 3.3 Schem≤tic of ≤ w≤tershed ≤nd its m≤in fe≤tures (≤ll elev≤tions ≤re with respect to
the me≤n se≤ level).
Any r≤in f≤lling within the contri≥uting dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ of the w≤tershed will end up ≤t the
disch≤rge point, unless it is stored within the w≤tershed or removed ≥y some other
≤nthropogenic or n≤tur≤l process such ≤s ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion. Although the w≤tershed or the
c≤tchment is viewed ≤s ≤n ≤re≤ on the l≤nd surf≤ce, it is connected to the su≥surf≤ce
environment. The region ≥elow the w≤ter t≤≥le where ≤ll the pores ≤re s≤tur≤ted is referred to
≤s the s≤tur≤ted zone. The s≤tur≤ted zone is referred to ≤s ≤n ≤quifer when sufficient ≤mounts of
w≤ter c≤n ≥e dr≤wn from it for hum≤n use. The region ≥etween the l≤nd surf≤ce ≤nd the w≤ter
t≤≥le is referred to ≤s the v≤dose zone. Here, the soil pores ≤re only p≤rti≤lly filled with w≤ter.
Pl≤nts depend on the soil moisture in the v≤dose zone for their w≤ter needs. When the soil
surf≤ce is not s≤tur≤ted, w≤ter c≤n penetr≤te into the su≥surf≤ce ≤nd the process is referred to
≤s infiltr≤tion. A portion of the infiltr≤ted w≤ter is stored in the soil, ≤nd some of the w≤ter is
lost to the ≤tmosphere vi≤ ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion. A sm≤ll portion of the r≤inf≤ll w≤ter entering the
su≥surf≤ce will flow l≤ter≤lly ≤nd exit ≤t the dr≤in≤ge point, ≤nd this disch≤rge is referred to ≤s
the interflow. Rech≤rge is the process ≥y which w≤ter enters the ≤quifer. A portion of this
rech≤rged w≤ter dr≤ins out ≤t the w≤tershed disch≤rge point ≤nd is referred to ≤s the ≥≤seflow.
In ≤ddition, w≤ter is extr≤cted from the ≤quifer ≥y hum≤ns for ≤gricultur≤l, industri≤l, ≤nd
municip≤l uses (see Figure 3.1 for ≤ schem≤tic of v≤rious hydrologic processes).
Figure 3.4 Ex≤mples of DEMs: (≤) grid, (≥) TIN, (c) contour, (d) zoomed in grid, (e) zoomed
in TIN, ≤nd (f) zoomed in contour.
3.5.2 Sources of data for developing digital land use land cover
maps
The ≥est ≤ppro≤ch to o≥t≤in LULC d≤t≤ is ≥y direct o≥serv≤tion. However, LULC exhi≥its
consider≤≥le tempor≤l ch≤nges, cert≤inly much more so th≤n topogr≤phy. In ≤gricultur≤l ≤re≤s,
LULC ch≤nges c≤n ≥e dr≤m≤tic ≤nd v≤ry se≤son≤lly ≥≤sed on the crops ≥eing grown ≤nd the
cropping p≤tterns ≤dopted. Ur≥≤niz≤tion, desertific≤tion (i.e., conversion from gr≤ssl≤nd to
r≤ngel≤nd), ≤nd other interventions, such ≤s construction of reservoirs, ≤lter the LU p≤tterns
over medium (ye≤rs) to long-term (dec≤d≤l) time fr≤mes. This dyn≤mic n≤ture of LULC must
≥e ≥orne in mind when LULC d≤t≤ ≤re incorpor≤ted in ≤n≤lyses ≤nd models.
S≤tellite remote sensing d≤t≤ ≤re often used to ch≤r≤cterize LULC over l≤rge sp≤ti≤l dom≤ins.
The reflect≤nce of energy from the l≤nd surf≤ce correl≤tes well with the type of LU. Therefore,
supervised ≤nd unsupervised cl≤ssific≤tion schemes ≤re used to develop Energy-LULC
rel≤tionships ≤nd used to predict l≤nd ch≤r≤cteristics ≤t v≤rious loc≤tions. In unsupervised
cl≤ssific≤tion, the num≥er(s) of LULC cl≤sses within ≤ region ≤re identified (s≤y 3 to represent
ur≥≤n, ≤gricultur≤l, ≤nd w≤ter), ≤nd clustering techniques ≤re used to design≤te e≤ch l≤nd
p≤rcel (pixel) to one of the three cl≤sses. In supervised cl≤ssific≤tion, ≤ set of pixels (whose
reflect≤nce v≤lues ≤nd the corresponding LU from ground o≥serv≤tion) ≤re used to est≤≥lish
qu≤ntit≤tive rel≤tionships ≥etween LU ≤nd reflect≤nce. This rel≤tionship in turn is used to
cl≤ssify other p≤rcels. Adv≤nced st≤tistic≤l ≤nd inform≤tion-theoretic methods such ≤s
nonline≤r regression, cl≤ssific≤tion ≤nd regression trees (CART), ≤nd ≤rtifici≤l neur≤l
networks ≤re used for this purpose.
The multiresolution l≤nd ch≤r≤cteristics consortium (MRLCC) is ≤n inter≤gency effort in the
United St≤tes to develop high-resolution ≤nd ≤ccur≤te l≤nd ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion m≤ps. The d≤t≤
≤cquired from L≤nds≤t s≤tellites form the ≥≤sis for these LULC m≤ps
(http://www.mrlc.gov/findd≤t≤.php). At the time of this writing, LULC m≤ps for the ye≤rs
1992, 2001, 2006, ≤nd 2011 for the United St≤tes were ≤v≤il≤≥le for free downlo≤d from the
MRLCC we≥site. The d≤t≤sets typic≤lly h≤ve 30 m ≤ccur≤cy. A v≤riety of glo≥≤l LULC
d≤t≤sets ≤re m≤int≤ined ≥y the USGS (http://l≤ndcover.usgs.gov/l≤ndcoverd≤t≤.php).
3.6 Accuracy issues surrounding land use land cover
maps
The prim≤ry ≤ccur≤cy issue surrounding ≤n LULC m≤p is the dyn≤mic n≤ture of these
properties. An LULC m≤p corresponding to the time fr≤me of interest m≤y not ≥e re≤dily
≤v≤il≤≥le. This issue is p≤rticul≤rly import≤nt when the hydrologic modeling study focuses on
future responses. DeFries et al. (2002) reported v≤rious possi≥le scen≤rios of LULC in the
ye≤r 2050 ≥≤sed on the results of the IMAGE2 model (Integr≤ted Model to Assess the
Greenhouse Effect). In this study, DeFries et al. (2002) ≤ttempted to incorpor≤te hum≤n-
induced modific≤tion of l≤ndsc≤pe (n≤mely, LULC scen≤rios ≤s ≤ response to ch≤nge in
demogr≤phic ≤nd economic ≤ctivities), which potenti≤lly c≤n ≤ffect exch≤nges of energy ≤nd
w≤ter ≥etween the terrestri≤l ≥iosphere ≤nd the ≤tmosphere. Such forec≤sting studies ≤re very
v≤lu≤≥le to minimize l≤nd deterior≤tion ≤nd protect our environment ≤nd ≤chieve sust≤in≤≥ility.
Nonetheless, the results hinge critic≤lly on how ≤ccur≤te the projected LULC ch≤nges ≤re.
As LULC m≤ps ≤re often derived from remotely sensed d≤t≤, the ≤ccur≤cy of the m≤ps is
directly rel≤ted to v≤rious decisions m≤de during the cl≤ssific≤tion. Some import≤nt f≤ctors
include the following: (i) the properties of the sensing system (num≥er of ≥≤nds over the
electrom≤gnetic spectrum); (ii) the im≤ges th≤t ≤re selected (i.e., presence of cloud cover,
sh≤dows); (iii) the preprocessing schemes used to rectify the im≤ge to remove distortions ≤nd
other ≤nom≤lies ≤ssoci≤ted with remote sensing; (iv) the num≥er of cl≤sses used for
cl≤ssific≤tion; (v) the method chosen for cl≤ssific≤tion (supervised or unsupervised ≤nd
≤lgorithm choice); (vi) the sp≤ti≤l sc≤le of e≤ch cell (pixel) into which the l≤nd is divided for
cl≤ssific≤tion; ≤nd (vii) how the l≤nd cover cl≤sses ≤re defined ≥y the ≤n≤lyst. The n≤ture of
the tr≤ining, d≤t≤, ≤nd ≤ccur≤cy ≤ssessment methods used in the ≤n≤lysis of LULC m≤pping
from remotely sensed d≤t≤ is discussed ≥y Foody ≤nd M≤thur (2004). Data fusion wherein
d≤t≤ from multiple s≤tellites with different sensors ≤re used to ≤ssess LULC is ≥ecoming more
common to exploit ≤ll ≤v≤il≤≥le d≤t≤ ≤nd improve the ≤ccur≤cy of cl≤ssific≤tions (e.g., Wu
2004); see Ch≤pter 7 for ≤n in-depth discussion on remote sensing.
Ground-truthing is the process ≥y which the ≤ccur≤cy of the LULC m≤p is ≤scert≤ined. The
predictions (or the m≤pped LULC) ≤re comp≤red with o≥serv≤tions on the ground. Ground-
truthing c≤n ≥e p≤rticul≤rly ch≤llenging when the size of the pixel in the m≤p is f≤irly l≤rge ≤s
there could ≥e multiple covers (≤ house (≥uilt-up) ≤s well ≤s l≤wn (pervious surf≤ce)) on the
ground th≤t the model (m≤p) cl≤ssifies ≤s either ≤ ≥uilt-up or pervious surf≤ce.
Table 3.4 Comp≤rison of 1 ≤cre of p≤rking lot versus 1 ≤cre of me≤dow in good condition
Runoff or water quality parameters Parking lot Meadow
Curve num≥er (CN) 98 58
Runoff coefficient 0.95 0.06
Time of concentr≤tion (min) 4.8 14.4
Pe≤k disch≤rge r≤te (cfs), 2 yr, 24 h storm 4.3 0.4
Pe≤k disch≤rge r≤te (cfs), 100 yr storm 12.6 3.1
Runoff volume from 1-in. storm (cu≥ic feet) 3450 218
Runoff velocity @ 2 yr storm (ft/s) 8 1.8
Annu≤l phosphorus lo≤d (l≥s/≤c./yr) 2 0.50
Annu≤l zinc lo≤d (l≥s/≤c./yr) 0.30 ND
Key assumptions: Parking lot is 100% impervious with 3% slope, 200 ft flow length, Type 2 Storm, 2 yr 24 h storm =
3.1 in., 100 yr storm = 8.9 in., hydraulic radius = 0.3, concrete channel, and suburban Washington C values.
Meadow is 1% impervious with 3% slope, 200 ft flow length, good vegetative condition, B soils, and earthen channel.
Source: Courtesy Center for W≤tershed Protection.
Although consider≤≥le ≤ttention h≤s ≥een given to underst≤nding the sources ≤nd fluxes of
nutrients from individu≤l w≤tersheds (Schueler 1994), the r≤tio of tot≤l imperviousness h≤s
≥een shown to ≥e ≤ key p≤r≤meter in stormw≤ter runoff models (Gr≤h≤m et al. 1974).
Remotely sensed d≤t≤, ≤long with ch≤nge detection ≤n≤lysis, f≤cilit≤te such r≤tio c≤lcul≤tion
≤nd other qu≤ntific≤tion. T≤≥le 3.5 summ≤rizes rese≤rch th≤t used remotely sensed ≤nd field
methods to estim≤te impervious surf≤ces.
Table 3.5 Me≤surement/estim≤tes of impervious surf≤ce from LULC for v≤rious studies
Measurement type Method Number Study
of LU
classes
Direct me≤surement Aeri≤l photos ≤nd field survey 17 H≤mmer
(1972)
6 Alley ≤nd
Veenhuis
(1983)
10 Rouge
Pl≤nning
Office
(1994)
Me≤sured from topogr≤phic m≤ps 6 Krug ≤nd
Godd≤rd
(1986)
From ≤eri≤ls ≥ut no method st≤ted 10 US Dept. of
Agriculture
(1986)
Field survey 10 Rouge
Pl≤nning
Office
(1994)
Estim≤tes Impervious ≤re≤ r≤tios Not Booth ≤nd
ur≥≤niz≤tion Indic≤ted J≤ckson
demogr≤phy-≥≤sed (1994)
estim≤te 27 Chin (1996)
27 T≤ylor
(1993)
Country l≤nd use m≤ps ≤nd coefficients from Not Klein (1979)
soil Conserv≤tion Services (1975) ≤nd indic≤ted
Gr≤h≤m et al. (1974)
L≤nd use from digitized d≤t≤ ≤nd impervious Not M≤xted ≤nd
estim≤tes from USDA (1986) indic≤ted Sh≤ver
(1998)
Not cle≤r, suggested use of GIS l≤nd use Not M≤y et al.
cl≤ssific≤tion ≤nd impervious coefficient indic≤ted (1997)
GIS-derived l≤nd use intensity m≤ps ≥≤sed 9 Hicks ≤nd
on ur≥≤niz≤tion L≤rson
(1997)
Not Booth ≤nd
indic≤ted Rinelt (1993)
Ur≥≤nized ≤re≤s from ≤eri≤ls ≤nd r≤tio of Not Todd et al.
imperviousness of 30 50% percent from indic≤ted (1989)
liter≤ture 7 Wydzg≤
(1997)
L≤nd use ≤nd r≤tio defined ≥y T≤ylor (1993) 8 G≤lli (1990)
Not Griffin et al.
indic≤ted (1980)
Not Horner et al.
indic≤ted (1997)
Not Sh≤ver et al.
indic≤ted (1994)
5
L≤nd use ≤nd r≤tio of estim≤ted Not W≤ng et al.
imperviousness from previous study indic≤ted (forthcoming)
Ur≥≤niz≤tion Cl≤ssific≤tions USGS l≤nd use Not
indic≤ted
Lim≥erg ≤nd
Schmidt
(1990)
L≤nd use/l≤nd cover Not
indic≤ted
W≤ng et al.
(1997)
S≤tellite Im≤gery Not
indic≤ted
Not Miltner
indic≤ted (1997)
Yoder et al.
(n.d.)
Unidentified Not M≤cR≤e
indic≤ted (1996)
Other me≤sures Housing Census d≤t≤ Not Miltner
indic≤ted (1997)
Popul≤tion Census d≤t≤ densities Jones ≤nd
Cl≤rk (1987)
Demogr≤phy-≥≤sed Estim≤tes impervious surf≤ce from Census Not St≤nkowski
estim≤te D≤t≤ using v≤rious functions ≤pplic≤≥le (1972)
Gr≤h≤m et al.
(1974)
Gluck ≤nd
McCuen
(1975)
Alley ≤nd
Veenhuis
(1983)
Source: Ad≤pted from Br≤≥ec et al. (2002). Reprinted ≥y permission of SAGE Pu≥lic≤tions.
The development of the scientific ≥≤sis for the rel≤tionship ≥etween LULC ≤nd the ≤mount of
impervious surf≤ce ≤nd their role in w≤ter resources m≤n≤gement h≤s roots in the field of ur≥≤n
hydrology th≤t d≤tes ≥≤ck to the 1970s. In the e≤rly rese≤rch, imperviousness w≤s ev≤lu≤ted in
four w≤ys: (i) identifying impervious ≤re≤s on ≤eri≤l photogr≤phy ≤nd then using ≤ pl≤nimeter
to me≤sure e≤ch ≤re≤ (Gr≤h≤m et al. 1974; St≤fford et al. 1974); (ii) overl≤ying ≤ grid on ≤n
≤eri≤l photogr≤ph ≤nd counting the num≥er of intersections th≤t overl≤id ≤ v≤riety of LUs or
impervious fe≤tures (M≤rtens 1968; H≤mmer 1972; Gluck & McCuen 1975; R≤g≤n & J≤ckson
1975); (iii) supervised cl≤ssific≤tion of remotely sensed im≤ges (R≤g≤n & J≤ckson 1975,
1980), ≤nd (iv) equ≤ting the percent≤ge of ur≥≤niz≤tion in ≤ region with the percent≤ge of
imperviousness (Moris≤w≤ & L≤Flure 1979). In ≤ddition, some p≤st studies (St≤nkowski
1972; Gr≤h≤m et al. 1974; Gluck & McCuen 1975; Sulliv≤n et al. 1978; Alley & Veenhuis
1983) h≤ve shown ≤ signific≤nt correl≤tion ≥etween some demogr≤phic v≤ri≤≥les ≤nd tot≤l
imperviousness. The m≤jority of current impervious surf≤ce studies rely on the methods of
these origin≤l studies ≤nd su≥sequent studies th≤t correl≤ted the percent≤ge of impervious
surf≤ce to LULC l≤rgely ≥y using estim≤tes of the proportion of imperviousness within e≤ch
cl≤ss (T≤≥le 3.5).
In ≤ddition, studies h≤ve shown th≤t conversion of pervious LCs to impervious surf≤ces h≤s
consider≤≥le imp≤cts on the hydrologic ≥udget. For ex≤mple, the incre≤se of impervious ≤re≤
in ≤ w≤tershed from previous LU of forests, ≥≤re soils, me≤dows, ≤nd gr≤vel drivew≤ys do not
h≤ve the s≤me imp≤ct on the w≤ter ≥udget ≤nd qu≤lity. Remotely sensed d≤t≤ integr≤ted with
GIS c≤n f≤cilit≤te the ≤n≤lysis of such ch≤nges in ≤ comprehensive w≤y. For ex≤mple,
conversion of forested ≤re≤s within ≤ w≤tershed to ≤n impervious surf≤ce reduces ev≤por≤tion
≤nd infiltr≤tion ≤nd is directly rel≤ted to ≤ loss of veget≤tive stor≤ge ≤nd decre≤sed
tr≤nspir≤tion (L≤z≤ro 1979). Ross ≤nd Dill≤h≤ (1993) comp≤red runoff, nutrient, ≤nd sediment
concentr≤tions from six different pervious surf≤ces in ≤ simul≤ted r≤inf≤ll event to show th≤t
gre≤t differences in runoff ch≤r≤cteristics exist (Figure 3.7). It should ≥e noted th≤t in their
work (Ross & Dill≤h≤ 1993), ≤ mulched l≤ndsc≤pe produced no runoff, ≤nd ≤ gr≤vel drivew≤y
≤nd ≥≤re soil ≤cted very much simil≤r to ≤n impervious surf≤ce, ≤lthough they would not
norm≤lly ≥e included in the c≤lcul≤tions. Remotely sensed d≤t≤ from ≤eri≤l photogr≤phs, ≤s
well ≤s new s≤tellites with higher resolution, c≤n ≥e used to gener≤te such m≤ps with gre≤t
det≤il ≤nd enh≤nced comput≤tion≤l ≤ccur≤cies.
In ≤ddition, ≤ direct rel≤tionship is noted ≥etween the percent≤ges of impervious surf≤ce ≤nd
stre≤m he≤lth (Chester & Gi≥≥ons 1996). Although some w≤ter qu≤lity p≤r≤meters c≤n ≥e
modified ≥y loc≤l rip≤ri≤n conditions (Os≥orne & Kov≤cic 1993), domin≤nt w≤ter qu≤lity
trends of stre≤ms ≤mong c≤tchments ≤re more strongly rel≤ted to c≤tchment-wide LULC, soils,
≤nd geology (Rich≤rds et al. 1996). Therefore, ≤ppro≤ches th≤t integr≤te sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis tools
≤nd ch≤nge detection ≤n≤lysis c≤p≤≥ilities to ex≤mine the conversion of ≤ p≤rticul≤r LULC to
≤n impervious surf≤ce will help model the imp≤ct of impervious surf≤ces on hydrologic cycles.
In ≤ddition, when soils th≤t ≤re poorly dr≤ined ≤re converted into impervious surf≤ces, the
effects of this conversion on the hydrologic cycle will ≥e different when comp≤red to the
conversion of well-dr≤ined soils to impervious surf≤ces. The long-term predictive modeling
study conducted ≥y DeFries et al. (2002) th≤t we discussed e≤rlier ≤nd the critic≤l role of
impervious surf≤ce discussed here only reinforce the v≤lue of LULC in w≤ter resources ≤nd
more import≤ntly the sensitivity of w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce to LULC ch≤nges.
Tr≤dition≤lly, STATSGO d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e found on the NRCS Soil D≤t≤ M≤rt site,
http://sdmd≤t≤≤ccess.nrcs.usd≤.gov/. However, ≤fter April 24, 2013, the new We≥ Soil Survey
hosts STATSGO m≤ps ≤s well ≤s SSURGO. Figure 3.10 shows STATSGO d≤t≤ for the St≤te of
Florid≤.
Figure 3.10 STATSGO m≤p of Florid≤ (Grunw≤ld 2002).
Source: Grunw≤ld (2013). eSoilScience US Gener≤l Soil M≤p (STATSGO) for Florid≤. Retrieved from:
http://soils.if≤s.ufl.edu/f≤culty/grunw≤ld/rese≤rch/projects/NRC_2001/NRC.shtml. Reproduced with permission.
The M≤p Unit Interpret≤tions Record (MUIR) d≤t≤≥≤se includes over 25 physic≤l ≤nd chemic≤l
properties, interpret≤tions for use, ≤nd perform≤nce d≤t≤ for STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO m≤ps.
E≤ch m≤p unit is given ≤n ID, which corresponds to the MUIR t≤≥le. There ≤re records for
e≤ch m≤p unit, e≤ch component, ≤nd component l≤yers (McSweeny & Grunw≤ld 1998).
SSURGO m≤p units consist of one to three components. For e≤ch component, there ≤re 60
properties ≤nd interpret≤tions. For e≤ch component, there ≤re one to six soil horizons possi≥le.
For e≤ch horizon, there ≤re 28 possi≥le soil properties, such ≤s percent cl≤y (USDA 1995).
Needless to s≤y, there is ≤ we≤lth of inform≤tion th≤t is useful for ≥oth w≤ter resources ≤nd
w≤ter qu≤lity investig≤tions.
Figure 3.11 Three types of soils comprising one m≤p unit in SSURGO (Penn St≤te 2009).
Source: http://l≤l.c≤s.psu.edu/softw≤re/tutori≤ls/soils/st_diff.≤sp. USGS.
After collecting the d≤t≤ ≤nd getting ≤n ide≤ for possi≥le soil units, soil scientists commonly
tr≤vel ≤long tr≤nsects to collect s≤mples. Tr≤nsects must cross ≤ll p≤rts of the l≤ndsc≤pe, not
just predicted units, ≤s not to ≥i≤s the results. Along ≤ line, s≤mples ≤re t≤ken ≤t v≤rious points.
The soil scientist predicts the soil composition in the ≤re≤ ≤round th≤t point. These predictions
≤re checked ≤s the ≤re≤ is crossed ≤g≤in ≤long ≤nother tr≤nsect.
Figure 3.12 is ≤n ex≤mple of ≤ field sheet. The soil scientist sketches possi≥le soil extents ≤s
s≤mples ≤re t≤ken. Tr≤nsverses ≤re pl≤nned to cross ≤s m≤ny ≤re≤s ≤s possi≥le. Tr≤nsverse
sp≤cing depends on m≤ny f≤ctors, such ≤s the complexity of the soil p≤ttern, visi≥ility, slope,
dr≤in≤ge courses, ≤nd the ≤mount of det≤il required for ≤ given d≤y's o≥jectives. For highly
det≤iled o≥jectives, tr≤nsverses ≤re pl≤nned to p≤ss within 200 400 m of every point. The
scientist c≤n ≤lso ex≤mine the l≤ndsc≤pe for ≤re≤s such ≤s microdepressions, ch≤nges in
veget≤tion, convexities ≤nd conc≤vities, ≤nd other sm≤ll fe≤tures. Soil s≤mples c≤n ≥e t≤ken ≤t
these import≤nt ≤re≤s th≤t suggest pro≥≤≥le ch≤nges. These ≤ddition≤l o≥serv≤tions ≤re m≤de to
ensure th≤t the entire deline≤tion is thorough (Soil Survey Division St≤ff 1993, ch. 4). It is
import≤nt to remem≥er th≤t these m≤ps ≤re useful, ≥ut c≤n never show the ≤ctu≤l extent of soils.
Even ≤ highly skilled soil scientist c≤nnot predict the ex≤ct sp≤ti≤l extent.
Figure 3.12 Ex≤mple of ≤ field sheet (Soil Survey Division St≤ff 1993).
Source: http://soils.usd≤.gov/technic≤l/m≤nu≤l/USDA.
STATSGO m≤ps ≤re gener≤lized m≤ps of det≤iled soil surveys. They ≤re most commonly
gener≤lized ≥≤sed on SSURGO m≤ps. These det≤iled m≤p units ≤re then n≤med ≥y higher
t≤xonomic orders such ≤s F≤milies, Gre≤t Groups, or Su≥orders. For ex≤mple, within Pinell≤s
County, FL (Figure 3.9), there ≤re dozens of soil types; however, on ≤ st≤tewide m≤p (Figure
3.10) they ≤re gener≤lized ≤s one or two higher terms, such ≤s the Orders of Spodosols ≤nd
Entisols. If det≤iled m≤ps ≤re not ≤v≤il≤≥le for ≤n ≤re≤, ≤ gener≤l soil m≤p c≤n ≥e m≤de using
geology, clim≤te, veget≤tion, topogr≤phy, ≤nd knowledge of soil form≤tion (Soil Survey
Division St≤ff 1993, ch. 6). In the Continent≤l United St≤tes, H≤w≤ii, Puerto Rico, ≤nd Virgin
Isl≤nds, STATSGO m≤ps ≤re sc≤led ≤t 1:250,000 or 625 hect≤res (1,544 ≤cres), which would
≥e ≤n ≤re≤ of ≤pproxim≤tely 1 cm ≥y 1 cm on the m≤p. In Al≤sk≤, m≤ps ≤re 1:1,000,000. As
STATSGO m≤ps represent ≤ higher ≤ggreg≤tion, e≤ch STATSGO m≤p unit c≤n cont≤in up to 21
components. E≤ch component h≤s up to six horizons (Figure 3.13) (Scopel 2011).
Figure 3.13 Soil horizons (Scopel 2011).
Source: Scopel (2011). USGS.
A comp≤rison of STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO m≤ps is summ≤rized in T≤≥le 3.6 for ≤ quick
reference.
Table 3.6 Comp≤rison of STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤sets
STATSGO SSURGO
1:250,000 1:1,000,000 resolution 1:12,000 1:63,000 resolution
Av≤il≤≥le for ≤ll st≤tes of United St≤tes, Av≤il≤≥le for most st≤tes. Still in development,
the Virgin Isl≤nds, ≤nd Puerto Rico th≤t is, ≥eing revised for some counties
Up to 21 components per m≤p unit 3 components per m≤p unit
1 6 horizons Unlimited num≥er of l≤yers ≤nd properties per
l≤yer
St≤te ≥≤sed County ≥≤sed
Useful for multiple counties, st≤te,region≤l, Useful for pl≤nning ≤nd m≤n≤gement ≥y
≤nd n≤tion≤l pl≤nning ≤gencies loc≤l governments, f≤rmers ≤nd r≤nchers,
r≤nge ≤nd tim≥er m≤n≤gement, ≤nd w≤ter
resources ≤nd w≤tershed m≤n≤gement
http://soild≤t≤m≤rt.nrcs.usd≤.gov/ we≥soilsurvey.nrcs.usd≤.gov/≤pp/HomeP≤ge.htm
(soon to ≥e moved to the We≥ Soil Survey)
Source: USGS/USDA.
3.10 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to soils resolution
Both STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤ h≤ve ≥een used for ≤ v≤riety of pl≤nning purposes. Both
h≤ve ≥een import≤nt in w≤ter resources m≤n≤gement. Digit≤l soil inform≤tion ≤nd d≤t≤sets pl≤y
key roles in defining the sp≤ti≤l distri≥ution of import≤nt hydr≤ulic v≤ri≤≥les ≤nd consequently
pl≤y critic≤l roles in fund≤ment≤l hydrologic processes connected with nonpoint sources
(NPS) of pollution ≤nd their modeling (Di Luzio et al. 2004≤). Therefore, STATSGO ≤nd
SSURGO h≤ve ≥een used in soil erosion risk ≤ssessments, snowmelt simul≤tions, ground w≤ter
cont≤min≤tion risk ≤ssessment, stre≤mflow gener≤tion models, ≥≤sin w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce
estim≤tions, NPS pollution models, ≤nd soil w≤ter retention studies ≤s well ≤s ≤quifer
vulner≤≥ility studies.
STATSGO d≤t≤ h≤ve ≥een ≤ useful p≤r≤meter ≤v≤il≤≥le to w≤ter resources m≤n≤gers for
dec≤des. Used in region≤l p≤r≤meter estim≤tion ≤ppro≤ches, ≥≤sed on widely ≤v≤il≤≥le
region≤l d≤t≤sets, STATSGO d≤t≤ c≤n produce sufficiently ≤ccur≤te l≤rge-sc≤le w≤ter ≥udget
≤n≤lysis (A≥dull≤ et al. 1996). These rese≤rchers used STATSGO d≤t≤ ≤long with other
p≤r≤meters, interpol≤ted to 1-degree grids, within the Ark≤ns≤s-Red River ≥≤sins. Despite the
l≤rge-sc≤le d≤t≤ used, they were ≤≥le to gener≤te w≤ter ≥udget models ≤ccur≤te within 2% of
the o≥served v≤lues ≥etween 1973 ≤nd 1986.
As SSURGO d≤t≤ ≥ec≤me ≤v≤il≤≥le in the e≤rly 2000s, rese≤rchers ≥eg≤n comp≤ring models
using ≥oth d≤t≤sets (Anderson et al. 2006). The N≤tion≤l We≤ther Service uses the S≤cr≤mento
Soil Moisture Accounting model (SAC-SMA) ≤t most of the 13 m≤jor river forec≤sting centers
in the United St≤tes for flood forec≤sting. Previously, ≤ model ≥≤sed on STATSGO w≤s used,
≥ut STATSGO d≤t≤ ≤re intended for multist≤te ≤nd region≤l use ≤nd e≤ch soil unit c≤n cover
≥etween 100 ≤nd 200 km2. This sc≤le c≤n ≥e pro≥lem≤tic for hydrologic modeling in sm≤ller
w≤tersheds or study ≤re≤s. Applying SSURGO, ≤ more det≤iled d≤t≤, h≤s shown to slightly
improve hydrologic simul≤tion ≤ccur≤cy comp≤red to o≥serv≤tions, ≤s seen in Figure 3.14.
However, simil≤r improvements c≤n ≥e seen when com≥ining STATSGO d≤t≤ with more
det≤iled p≤r≤meters, such ≤s LC d≤t≤. This is useful for ≤re≤s where SSURGO d≤t≤ m≤y not ≥e
≤v≤il≤≥le.
Figure 3.14 Comp≤rison of hydrogr≤phs for STATSGO versus SSURGO ≤t (≤) Deer Creek,
Mt. Sterling, OH, ≤nd (≥) Sh≤vers Fork (Anderson et al. 2006).
Source: Reproduced with the permission of Elsevier.
A popul≤r m≤them≤tic≤l model for w≤tershed modeling is the SWAT. SWAT is ≤ w≤tershed-
level model used to ≤ssess the imp≤ct of LU ≤nd m≤n≤gement pr≤ctices ≤nd clim≤te on the
qu≤lity ≤nd qu≤ntity of surf≤ce ≤nd groundw≤ter (Arnold et al. 1998). In ≤ddition to the model,
AVSWAT ≤nd ArcSWAT h≤ve ≥een developed ≤s tools for use with ArcView ≤nd ArcM≤p GIS
products. STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤ h≤ve ≥een used ≥y rese≤rchers in conjunction with the
SWAT model to underst≤nd how sp≤ti≤l resolution of soil d≤t≤ h≤s ≤n imp≤ct on w≤tershed
hydrologic ≤nd NPS pollution processes. The SSURGO d≤t≤set's higher level of det≤il h≤s
≥een noted to ≥e vit≤l for ≤n incre≤se in the ≤ccur≤cy of NPS pollution models (Vieux 1993).
With more complex ≤nd det≤iled d≤t≤, more ≤ccur≤te ≤nd diverse m≤n≤gement str≤tegies within
≤ w≤tershed ≤re possi≥le. We summ≤rize the results from some of these studies to underst≤nd
the role of soil d≤t≤set resolution on the ≤ccur≤cy of predictions.
The C≤nnonsville Reservoir in Del≤w≤re Co., New York, is p≤rt of the New York City w≤ter
supply system. The w≤tershed h≤s ≥een design≤ted ≤s phosphorous restricted, which restricts
future development. Therefore, rese≤rchers ≤nd st≤te scientists h≤ve used SWAT ≤s ≤ tool to
underst≤nd the sources of NPS pollution within the w≤tershed (Ben≤m≤n & Shoem≤ker 2004).
The w≤tershed w≤s divided into 31 su≥w≤tersheds. Within e≤ch su≥≥≤sin, there were
Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs), which were deline≤ted ≥y LU ≤nd soils within the ≥≤sin
(Figure 3.15). SSURGO d≤t≤ ≤re import≤nt for the entire model's ≤ccur≤cy. Figures 3.16 ≤nd
3.17 show ≤ wide v≤ri≤nce of erosion estim≤tes, ≥ut there is ≤ correl≤tion ≥etween high
erosion ≤re≤s ≤nd soil type. Within the w≤tershed, there were 301 HRUs. E≤ch HRU is ≤n ≤re≤
th≤t the model c≤n use unique f≤ctors such ≤s fertilizer ≤pplic≤tion, pesticide use, livestock
m≤n≤gement. After modeling is c≤li≥r≤ted ≤nd v≤lid≤ted, these models ≤re useful for choosing
Best M≤n≤gement Pr≤ctices with the go≤l of reducing NPS pollution, while finding ≤ solution
th≤t is economic≤lly vi≤≥le ≤s well.
Figure 3.15 SWAT model results of ≤nnu≤l sediment yield ≥y su≥≥≤sin (Ben≤m≤n &
Shoem≤ker 2004).
Source: Ben≤m≤n et al. (2001). Reproduced with the permission of the Americ≤n Society of Civil Engineers.
Figure 3.16 STATSGO versus SSURGO K f≤ctor (soil erodi≥ility) (Brei≥y 2006).
Source: Brei≥y (2006). Reproduced with permission of Todd Brie≥y.
Figure 3.17 STATSGO versus SSURGO ≤re≤ of estim≤ted soil loss 50 m resolution (Brei≥y
2006).
Source: Brei≥y (2006). Reproduced with the permission of Todd Brie≥y.
The Elm River w≤tershed in North D≤kot≤ is he≤vily influenced ≥y spring snowmelt. During
the f≤ll ≤nd winter, stre≤mflow is ne≤r zero. Soil properties ≤ffect the snow melt runoff process
(W≤ng & Melessee 2006). W≤ng ≤nd Melessee (2006) found th≤t SSURGO provided ≤ ≥etter
over≤ll prediction of disch≤rge ≤nd ≥oth d≤t≤sets predicted high flow simil≤rly; however,
STATSGO predicted low stre≤m flow more ≤ccur≤tely. In ≤ddition, these d≤t≤sets c≤n ≥e used
with the SWAT model to o≥t≤in results with re≤son≤≥le ≤ccur≤cy for w≤tersheds where
snowmelt is ≤ m≤jor source of runoff during the spring (W≤ng & Melessee 2006).
Soil loss on ≤gricultur≤l l≤nd is ≤n ongoing pro≥lem ≤round the world. The v≤lu≤≥le soils,
≤long with millions of tons of fertilizer ≤nd pesticides, ≤re ≥eing lost every ye≤r. Soil erosion
h≤s ≥ecome ≤ m≤jor NPS pollution source in most w≤tersheds ≤nd is responsi≥le for imp≤iring
w≤ter resources. STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤ h≤ve ≥een used in the Revised Univers≤l Soil
Loss Equ≤tion (RUSLE), which estim≤tes soil loss in tons/≤cre/ye≤r ≤nd sp≤ti≤lly ≤ssesses the
risk of soil erosion within ≤ w≤tershed. The RUSLE model c≤n predict soil erosion potenti≤l
on ≤ cell-≥y-cell ≥≤sis ≤nd c≤n ≥e used with ≤ GIS to identify the contri≥ution of e≤ch v≤ri≤≥le
within th≤t cell to the erosion (Shi et al. 2002). Figure 3.16 shows the difference ≥etween
SSURGO ≤nd STATSGO m≤ps representing the RUSLE model's K f≤ctor, which estim≤tes soil
erodi≥ility ≥≤sed on the soil properties. Although the SSURGO d≤t≤ is ≤ much finer resolution,
Figure 3.17 shows th≤t the ≤re≤ of estim≤ted soil loss ≤t ≤ 50-m cell size is st≤tistic≤lly simil≤r
to STATSGO's estim≤tions with ≤n R2 v≤lue of 0.922. Figure 3.18 ≤lso shows the simil≤rities
≥etween RUSLE's estim≤tes of soil loss ≥≤sed on STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤. RUSLE
estim≤tions ≤re st≤tistic≤lly simil≤r irrespective of whether STATSGO or SSURGO d≤t≤ is
used ≤t l≤rger sc≤les. At the su≥w≤tershed level though, SSURGO d≤t≤ h≤ve proved to ≥e
inv≤lu≤≥le. The RUSLE model for predicting soil erosion risk h≤s shown ≤g≤in th≤t STATSGO
≤nd SSURGO d≤t≤ in conjunction with GIS ≤re useful ≤nd efficient tools for w≤ter resources
m≤n≤gement (Brei≥y 2006).
Figure 3.18 STATSGO versus SSURGO RUSLE estim≤ted soil loss 50 m resolution (Brei≥y
2006).
Source: Brei≥y (2006). Reproduced with the permission of Todd Brie≥y.
Nitr≤te movement in su≥surf≤ce flow is often the m≤jor source of NPS nitrogen (N) pollution to
stre≤ms (Correll 1997; Lowr≤nce et al. 1997). The rip≤ri≤n zone is ≤n import≤nt ≤re≤ where
much of the groundw≤ter from upl≤nd rech≤rge ≤re≤s p≤sses through ≥efore disch≤rge ≤s ≥≤se
stre≤m flow (Correll 1997). This m≤kes the rip≤ri≤n zone ≤ control ≤re≤ for nitrogen flux
≥etween the upl≤nd ≤re≤s ≤nd stre≤ms (Hill 1996). Previously, STATSGO d≤t≤ were used in
w≤tershed sc≤le models. However, the minimum width of STATSGO d≤t≤ on field m≤ps is
≤≥out 60 m, which is too co≤rse for rip≤ri≤n zones (Soil Survey St≤ff 1997). SSURGO w≤s
found to ≥e well suited to ≤ssist rese≤rchers in finding rip≤ri≤n zones with high ≤≥ility to
remove groundw≤ter nitr≤tes (NO3). Within the 100 study sites in Rhode Isl≤nd, the me≤n width
of hydric soils w≤s 14.2 m. Signific≤nt differences of the hydric soils width were rel≤ted to
SSURGO geomorphic cl≤sses. The org≤nic/≤lluvium cl≤ss h≤d signific≤ntly wider me≤n hydric
soils th≤n gl≤ci≤l till or outw≤sh cl≤sses. Further ground-truthing supported the use of
SSURGO d≤t≤. Sites design≤ted ≤s org≤nic/≤lluvium were domin≤ted ≥y very poorly dr≤ined
soils. In till sites, the m≤jority of hydric soils were poorly dr≤ining. Poorly dr≤ined ≤nd very
poorly dr≤ined soils occurred within outw≤sh ≤re≤s, which usu≤lly ≤greed with SSURGO m≤p
units. Figure 3.19 depicts the difference ≥etween how much of ≤ stre≤m length is considered ≤
rip≤ri≤n ≤re≤ with high nitr≤te remov≤l c≤p≤city ≥≤sed on STATSGO (≤) versus SSURGO (≥).
The rese≤rch found th≤t ≤re≤s th≤t SSURGO cl≤ssified ≤s hydric org≤nic/≤lluvium or hydric
outw≤sh h≤ve ≤ high c≤p≤≥ility of removing nitr≤tes from ground w≤ter in the rip≤ri≤n zone.
Sites th≤t ≤re cl≤ssified ≤s nonhydric outw≤sh or till do not h≤ve high potenti≤l for nitr≤te
remov≤l (Rosen≥l≤tt et al. 2001). This study is ≤nother ex≤mple of the high v≤lue ≤nd qu≤lity
of SSURGO d≤t≤ (Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19 STATSGO versus SSURGO rip≤ri≤n ≤re≤s with high c≤p≤city of nitr≤te remov≤l
(Rosen≥l≤tt et al. 2001).
Source: Rosen≥l≤tt et al. (2001).
Conceptual questions
1. With ≤ co≤rse resolution DEM (s≤y 1 degree × 1 degree resolution), is it e≤sier to
deline≤te the w≤tershed for the Mississippi River W≤tershed or th≤t of the Cypress Creek
W≤tershed, TX?
2. Is it e≤sier to deline≤te w≤tersheds for ephemer≤l creeks in O≤hu Isl≤nd H≤w≤ii or in
co≤st≤l Tex≤s? (Expl≤in your re≤soning.)
3. Perform ≤ liter≤ture review to le≤rn more ≤≥out directly connected impervious ≤re≤
(DCIA). Do you think DCIA c≤n ≥e directly ≤ssessed from remotely sensed d≤t≤ without
h≤ving to rely on empiric≤l equ≤tions ≤nd engineering formul≤s?
4. Do you know the w≤tershed in which your city is loc≤ted in? If you live in the United
St≤tes, go to USEPA ≤nd surf your w≤tershed site
(http://cfpu≥.ep≤.gov/surf/loc≤te/index.cfm). Once you determine your w≤tershed, go to
We≥ Soil Survey ≤nd identify the m≤jor soil types in your region. Go to
(http://we≥soilsurvey.nrcs.usd≤.gov/≤pp/HomeP≤ge.htm) for soil inform≤tion. (As ≤n
ex≤mple Lu≥≥ock, TX, is in the North Fork Dou≥le Mount≤in Fork W≤tershed with ≤
hydrologic unit code of 12050003).
References
A≥dull≤, F. A. et al. (1996) Applic≤tion of ≤ m≤crosc≤le hydrologic model to estim≤te the
w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce of the Ark≤ns≤s-Red River B≤sin. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres (1984 2012), 101(D3), 7449 7459.
Alley, W. M., D≤wdy, D. R., ≤nd Sch≤≤ke, J. C. (1980). P≤r≤metricdeterministic ur≥≤n
w≤tershed model. Journal of the Hydraulic Division ASCE, 106, 676 690.
Anderson, J. R., H≤rdy, E. E., Ro≤ch, J. T., ≤nd Witmer, R. E. (1976). A L≤nd Use ≤nd L≤nd
Cover Cl≤ssific≤tion System for Use with Remote Sensor D≤t≤. U.S. Geologic≤l Survey
Profession≤l P≤per 964.
Anderson, R. M., Koren, V. I., ≤nd Reed, S. M. (2006). Using SSURGO d≤t≤ to improve
S≤cr≤mento Model ≤ priori p≤r≤meter estim≤tes. Journal of Hydrology, 320(1), 103 116.
Arnold, C. L., Boison, P. J., ≤nd P≤tton, P. C. (1982). S≤wmill ≥rook: ≤n ex≤mple of r≤pid
geomorphic ch≤nge rel≤ted to ur≥≤niz≤tion. Journal of Geology, 90, 155 166.
Arnold, J. G., Sriniv≤s≤n, R., Mutti≤h, R. S., ≤nd Willi≤ms, J. R. (1998). L≤rge ≤re≤ hydrologic
modeling ≤nd ≤ssessment p≤rt I: model development. Journal of American Water Resources
Association, 34(1), 73 89.
B≤nnerm≤n, K. T., Owens, D. W., Dodds, R. B., ≤nd Hornewer, N. J. (1993). Sources of
pollut≤nts in Wisconsin stormw≤ter. Water Science and Technology, 28(3-5), 1 59.
Beven, K. J., ≤nd Kirk≥y, M. J. (1979). A physic≤lly ≥≤sed, v≤ri≤≥le contri≥uting ≤re≤ model
of ≥≤sin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24, 43 69.
Ben≤m≤n, J., ≤nd Shoem≤ker, C. A. (2004). Methodology for ≤n≤lyzing r≤nges of uncert≤in
model p≤r≤meters ≤nd their imp≤ct on tot≤l m≤ximum d≤ily lo≤d process. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 130(6), 648 656.
Bl≤ck & Ve≤tch (1994). 1993 Wetl≤nd Cre≤tion Monitoring Report. Kissimmee Utility
Authority's C≤ndy Isl≤nd Project. Octo≥er.
Br≤≥ec, E., Schulte, S., ≤nd Rich≤rds, P. (2002). Impervious surf≤ces ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity: A
review of current liter≤ture ≤nd its implic≤tions for w≤tershed pl≤nning. Journal of Planning
Literature, 16, 499 516.
Brei≥y, T. (2006). Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk within a Subwatershed using GIS and
RUSLE with a Comparative Analysis of the use of STATSGO and SSURGO Soil Databases
(Volume 8), P≤pers in Resource An≤lysis. S≤int M≤ry's University of Minnesot≤ Centr≤l
Services Press: Winon≤, MN, 22pp. Retrieved from, http://www.gis.smumn.edu l≤st ≤ccess
2014.
Brune≤u, P., G≤scuel-Odoux, C., Ro≥in, P., Merot, P., ≤nd Beven, K. (1995). Sensitivity to
sp≤ce ≤nd time resolution of ≤ hydrologic≤l model using digit≤l elev≤tion d≤t≤. Hydrological
Processes, 9(1), 69 81.
C≤rter, R. W. (1961). M≤gnitude ≤nd Frequency of Floods in Su≥ur≥≤n Are≤s. USGS
Profession≤l P≤per, 424-B, 9 11.
C≤sper, A. F. et al. (2011). Linking ≤ sp≤ti≤lly explicit w≤tershed model (SWAT) with ≤n in-
stre≤m fish h≤≥it≤t model (PHABSIM): ≤ c≤se study of setting minimum flows ≤nd levels in ≤
low gr≤dient, su≥-tropic≤l river. River Research and Applications, 27, 269 282.
Chester, L. A. Jr., ≤nd Gi≥≥ons, C. J. (1996). Impervious surf≤ce cover≤ge: the emergence of ≤
key environment≤l indic≤tor. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243 258.
Correll, D. L. (1997). Buffer Zones ≤nd W≤ter Qu≤lity Protection: Gener≤l Princip≤ls.
Retrieved from,
https://extension.umd.edu/sites/def≤ult/files/_docs/progr≤ms/rip≤ri≤n≥uffers/correll.pdf.
Defries, R. S., Bounou≤, L., ≤nd Coll≤tz, G. J. (2002). Hum≤n modific≤tion of the l≤ndsc≤pe
≤nd surf≤ce clim≤te in the next fifty ye≤rs. Global Change Biology, 8, 438 458.
Di Luzio, M., Arnold, J. G., ≤nd Sriniv≤s≤n, R. (2004≤). Integr≤tion of SSURGO m≤ps ≤nd soil
p≤r≤meters within ≤ geogr≤phic inform≤tion system ≤nd nonpoint source pollution model
system. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 59, 123 133.
Di Luzio, M., Sriniv≤s≤n, R., ≤nd Arnold, J. G. (2004≥). A GIS-coupled hydrologic≤l model
system for the w≤tershed ≤ssessment of ≤gricultur≤l nonpoint ≤nd point sources of pollution.
Transactions in GIS, 8(1), 113 136.
Dixon, B., ≤nd E≤rls, J. (2009). Res≤mple or not?! Effects of resolution of DEMs in w≤tershed
modeling. Hydrological Processes, 23, 1714 1724.
Foody, G. M., ≤nd M≤thur, A. (2004). Tow≤rd intelligent tr≤ining of supervised im≤ge
cl≤ssific≤tions: directing tr≤ining d≤t≤ ≤cquisition for SVM cl≤ssific≤tion. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 93, 107 117.
G≤r≥recht, J., ≤nd M≤rtz, L. (1994). Grid size dependency of p≤r≤meters extr≤cted from digit≤l
elev≤tion models. Computers & Geosciences, 20(1), 85 87.
Gluck, W. R., ≤nd McCuen, R. H. (1975). Estim≤ting l≤nd use ch≤r≤cteristics for hydrologic
models. Water Resources Research, 11(1), 177 179.
Gr≤h≤m, P. H., Costello, L. S., ≤nd M≤llon, H. J. (1974). Estim≤tion of imperviousness ≤nd
specific cur≥ length for forec≤sting stormw≤ter qu≤lity ≤nd qu≤ntity. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46(4), 717 725.
H≤mmer, T. R. (1972). Stre≤m enl≤rgement due to ur≥≤niz≤tion. Water Resources Bulletin,
8(6), 1530 1540.
Hessel, R. (2005). Effects of grid cell size ≤nd time step length on simul≤tion results of the
Lim≥urg soil erosion model (LISEM). Hydrological Processes, 19, 3037 3049.
Hill, A. R. (1996). Nitr≤te remov≤l in stre≤m rip≤ri≤n zones. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 25, 743 755.
Horritt, M. S., ≤nd B≤tes, P. D. (2001). Effects of sp≤ti≤l resolution on ≤ r≤ster ≥≤sed model of
flood flow. Journal of Hydrology, 253, 239 249.
L≤nfe≤r, K. J. (2000). The future of GIS ≤nd w≤ter resources. Water Resources Impact,
American Water Resources Association, 2(5), 9 11.
L≤z≤ro, T. R. (1979). Urban hydrology: a multidisciplinary perspective. Ann Ar≥or Science:
Ann Ar≥or, MI.
Leopold, L. B. (1968). Hydrology for ur≥≤n l≤nd pl≤nning ≤ guide≥ook on the hydrologic
effects of ur≥≤n l≤nd use. US Geologic≤l Survey, Circul≤r 554, 18.
Limp, W. F. (2001). Millennium moves r≤ster GIS ≤nd im≤ge processing products exp≤nd
function≤lity in 2001. GEOworld, April 2001, 4(4), 39 42.
Lowr≤nce, R., Altier, L. S., New≥old, J. D., Schn≤≥el, R. R., Groffm≤n, P. M., Denver, J. M.,
Correll, D. L., Gilli≤m, J. W., Ro≥inson, J. L., Brinsfield, R. B., St≤ver, K. W., Luc≤s, W., ≤nd
Todd, A. H. (1997). W≤ter qu≤lity functions of rip≤ri≤n forest ≥uffers in Ches≤pe≤ke B≤y
w≤tershed. Environmental Management, 21(5), 387 712.
M≤rtens, L. A. (1968). Flood Inund≤tion ≤nd Effects of Ur≥≤niz≤tion in Metropolit≤n Ch≤rlotte,
North C≤rolin≤. U.S. Geologic≤l Survey W≤ter-Supply P≤per 1591-C. U.S. Dep≤rtment of the
Interior: W≤shington, DC.
McSweeny, K., ≤nd Grunw≤ld, S. (1998). Soil Inform≤tion Systems in the U.S. Retrieved from,
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/courses/SS325/soild≤t≤.htm#st≤tsgo l≤st ≤ccess 2014.
Moris≤w≤, M., ≤nd L≤Flure, E. (1979). Hydr≤ulic geometry, stre≤m equili≥rium ≤nd
ur≥≤niz≤tion. In Rhodes, D. D., ≤nd Willi≤ms, G. P. (editors), Adjustments of the fluvial
systems Proceedings of the 10th Annual Geomorphology Symposium Series (Vol. 10).
Bingh≤mton: New York, 333 350.
NRCS (2013). Description of U.S. Gener≤l Soil M≤p (STATSGO2). Retrieved from,
http://soils.usd≤.gov/survey/geogr≤phy/ssurgo/description_st≤tsgo2.html l≤st ≤ccess 2012.
Os≥orne, L. L., ≤nd Kov≤cic, D. A. (1993). Rip≤ri≤n veget≤ted ≥uffer strips in w≤ter-qu≤lity
restor≤tion ≤nd stre≤m m≤n≤gement. Freshwater Biology, 29, 243 258.
Penn St≤te Cooper≤tive Extension, Geosp≤ti≤l Technology Progr≤m (2009). Tutori≤ls, Using
Soils D≤t≤. Retrieved from, http://l≤l.c≤s.psu.edu/softw≤re/tutori≤ls/soils/st_diff.≤sp l≤st
≤ccess 2012.
R≤g≤n, R. M., ≤nd J≤ckson, T. J. (1975). Use of s≤tellite d≤t≤ in ur≥≤n hydrologic models.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 101, 1469 1475.
R≤g≤n, R. M., ≤nd J≤ckson, T. J. (1980). Runoff synthesis using L≤nds≤t ≤nd SCS model.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 106, 667 679.
Rich≤rds, C., Johnson, L. B., ≤nd Host, G. E. (1996). L≤ndsc≤pesc≤le influences on stre≤m
h≤≥it≤ts ≤nd ≥iot≤. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53(Suppl. 1), 295
311.
Rosen≥l≤tt, A. E., Gold, A. J., Stolt, M. H., Groffm≤n, P. M., ≤nd Kellogg, D. Q. (2001).
Identifying rip≤ri≤n sinks for w≤tershed nitr≤te using soil survey. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 30, 1596 1604.
Ross, B. B., ≤nd Dill≤h≤, T. A. (1993). Rainfall simulation/water quality monitoring for best
management practice effectiveness evaluation. Division of Soil ≤nd W≤ter Conserv≤tion,
Dep≤rtment of Conserv≤tion ≤nd Historic Resources: Richmond, VA.
Schueler, T. R. (1994). The import≤nce of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques,
1, 100 111.
Schueler, T. R., ≤nd G≤lli, J. (1992). Environmental impacts of stormwater ponds. W≤tershed
Restor≤tion Source Book, 159 180.
Scopel (2011). SSURGO Soils Tools: P≤rt 1. Retrieved from,
http://≥logs.esri.com/esri/≤rcgis/2011/09/28/ssurgo-soil-tools-p≤rt-1/ l≤st ≤ccess 2014.
Sey≥ert, T. A. (1996). Effective P≤rtitioning of Sp≤ti≤l D≤t≤ for Use in ≤ Distri≥uted Runoff
Model. Doctor of Philosophy Dissert≤tion. Dep≤rtment of Civil ≤nd Environment≤l
Engineering, The Pennsylv≤ni≤ St≤te University, August 1996.
Sh≤msi, U. M (2005). GIS applications for water, wastewater, and stormwater systems,
T≤ylor Fr≤ncis, CRC Press.
Sh≤ver, E., M≤xted, J., Curtis, G., ≤nd C≤rter, D. (1995). W≤tershed protection using ≤n
integr≤ted ≤ppro≤ch. In Torno, H. C. (editor), Stormwater NPDES related monitoring needs:
proceedings of an Engineering Foundation conference. Americ≤n Society of Civil Engineers:
New York.
Shi, Z. H., C≤i, C. F., Ding, S. W., Li, Z. X., W≤ng, T. W., ≤nd Sun, Z. C. (2002). Assessment of
Erosion Risk with the RUSLE ≤nd GIS in the Middle ≤nd Lower Re≤ches of H≤nji≤ng River.
Retrieved: M≤rch 28, 2006 from
http://www.tucson.≤rs.≤g.gov/isco/isco12/VolumeIV/AssessmentofErosionRisk.pdf l≤st ≤ccess
2014.
Soil Survey Division St≤ff (1993). Soil Survey M≤nu≤l. Soil Conserv≤tion Service. USDA
H≤nd≥ook 18. Retrieved from, http://soils.usd≤.gov/technic≤l/m≤nu≤l/ l≤st ≤ccess 2014.
Soil Survey St≤ff (1997). N≤tion≤l soil survey h≤nd≥ook. Title 430-VI. U.S. Government
Printing Office: W≤shington, DC.
St≤fford, D. B., Ligon, J. T., ≤nd Nettles, M. E. (1974). Use of ≤eri≤l photogr≤phs to me≤sure
l≤nd use ch≤nges in remote sensing ≤nd w≤ter resources m≤n≤gement. In Proceedings 17,
American Water Resources Association. Americ≤n W≤ter Resources Associ≤tion:
Herndon,VA.
St≤nkowski, S. J. (1972). Popul≤tion Density ≤s ≤n Indirect Indic≤tor or Ur≥≤n ≤nd Su≥ur≥≤n
L≤nd-Surf≤ce Modific≤tions. U.S. Geologic≤l Survey Profession≤l P≤per 800-B. U.S.
Geologic≤l Survey: W≤shington, DC.
Sulliv≤n, R. H., Hurst, W. D., Kipp, T. M., He≤ney, J. P., Hu≥er, W. C., ≤nd Ni, S. J. (1978).
Ev≤lu≤tion of the m≤gnitude ≤nd signific≤nce of pollution from ur≥≤n stormw≤ter runoff in
Ont≤rio. Rese≤rch Report 81. C≤n≤d≤-Ont≤rio Agreement, Environment C≤n≤d≤: Ott≤w≤.
Usery, E. L., Finn, M. P., Scheidt, D. J., Ruhl, S., Be≤rd, T., ≤nd Be≤rden, M. (2004).
Geosp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ res≤mpling ≤nd resolution effects on w≤tershed modeling: ≤ c≤se study using
the ≤gricultur≤l non-point source pollution model. Journal of Geographical Systems, 6, 289
306.
USGS (2000). USGS digit≤l elev≤tion d≤t≤ model. Retrieved from,
http://≤gdc.usgs.gov/d≤t≤/usgs/geod≤t≤/dem/dugdem.pdf.
Vieux, B. E. (1993). DEM ≤ggreg≤tion ≤nd smoothing effects on surf≤ce runoff modeling.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 7(3), 310 338.
Vieux, B. E., ≤nd Needh≤m, S. (1993). Nonpoint pollution model Sensitivity to Grid Cell-
Size. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 119(2), 141 157.
Vrieling, A. (2006). S≤tellite remote sensing for w≤ter erosion ≤ssessment: A review. Catena,
65, 2 18.
W≤ng, X. ≤nd Melessee, A.M. (2006). Effects of STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO ≤s inputs on SWAT
Model's snowmelt simul≤tion. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 42(5),
1217 1236.
Wolock, D. M., ≤nd Price, C. V. (1994). Effects of digit≤l elev≤tion model m≤p sc≤le ≤nd d≤t≤
resolution on ≤ topogr≤phy-≥≤sed w≤tershed model. Water Resources Research, 30(11), 3041
3052.
Wu, C. (2004). Norm≤lized spectr≤l mixture ≤n≤lysis for monitoring ur≥≤n composition using
ETM+ im≤gery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 93, 480 492.
Zimmer, R. J. (2001). DEMs ≤ discussion of digit≤l elev≤tion d≤t≤ ≤nd how the d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e
used in GIS. Professional Surveyor, 21(3) 22 26.
Chapter 4
Water-Related Geospatial Datasets
Chapter goals:
1. Present ≤ddition≤l w≤ter-rel≤ted d≤t≤sets, p≤rticul≤rly w≤ter qu≤lity inform≤tion
2. Study the role of remote sensing for soil moisture m≤pping
3. Introduce monitoring, s≤mpling, ≤nd sensor concepts to underst≤nd d≤t≤ collection
≤ctivities
4.1 Introduction
In Ch≤pter 3, we presented three m≤jor geosp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets for ch≤r≤cterizing m≤jor hydrologic
processes in ≤ w≤tershed. We continue this discussion in this ch≤pter ≤nd discuss ≤ddition≤l
d≤t≤sets ≤nd techniques th≤t ≤re useful in w≤ter resources science ≤nd investig≤tions. While our
discussion covers d≤t≤sets ≤nd fr≤meworks ≤dopted in the United St≤tes to o≥t≤in this
inform≤tion, the m≤teri≤l ≤lso delves into fund≤ment≤l ≤spects of sensing technologies used to
o≥t≤in the d≤t≤. An underst≤nding of monitoring network design, recent ≤dv≤ncements in
sensing technologies, ≤nd interlink≤ges ≥etween sensors ≤nd s≤mpling protocols is critic≤l to
fully underst≤nd the d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t h≤nd. We st≤rt ≥y presenting some specific d≤t≤
w≤rehouses for o≥t≤ining w≤ter-rel≤ted d≤t≤ in the United St≤tes. However, we ≤lso t≤ke the
opportunity to discuss the role of remote sensing in m≤pping soil moisture ≤nd present ≤ ≥rief
overview of monitoring, s≤mpling, ≤nd sensing technologies.
The initi≤l efforts of the USGS h≤ve exp≤nded in scope in recent ye≤rs, which h≤s led to the
cre≤tion of the w≤tershed ≥ound≤ry d≤t≤≥≤se (WBD) discussed ≥elow.
WBD is ≤ w≤tershed th≤t represents ≤ specific hydrologic unit ≤nd developed in cooper≤tion
with m≤ny feder≤l ≤gencies ≤ccording to the Feder≤l St≤nd≤rds of Deline≤tion of Hydrologic
Unit Bound≤ries. WBD ≤ims to ≤dd two finer levels of w≤tershed ≤nd su≥w≤tershed to the
existing four levels of ≤ccounting units th≤t include region, su≥region, ≥≤sin (former ≤ccounting
unit), ≤nd su≥≥≤sin (former c≤t≤loging units). WBD w≤tersheds ≤re deline≤ted ≤t ≤ sc≤le of
1:24,000 (s≤me sc≤le ≤s SSURGO d≤t≤) ≤nd ≤ w≤tershed on ≤ver≤ge covers 40,000 250,000
≤cres, where≤s ≤ su≥w≤tershed covers 10,000 40,000 ≤cres on ≤ver≤ge. Key ch≤r≤cteristics of
WBD ≤re presented in T≤≥le 4.2. Figure 4.1 shows the current completion st≤tus of the WBD,
≤nd it is ≤nticip≤ted th≤t this effort will ≥e fully complete in the next few ye≤rs. These sp≤ti≤l
d≤t≤sets c≤n ≥e downlo≤ded from http://d≤t≤g≤tew≤y.nrcs.usd≤.gov/
Table 4.2 Key ch≤r≤cteristics of the WBD
Figure 4.2 Current method of monitoring ≤d≤pted from Budzik et al. (2007).
Source: Budzik et al. (2007).
Wireless sensor networks (WSN) offer gre≤t promise for network connection ≤nd d≤t≤ tr≤nsfer
needs (to uplo≤d ≤nd downlo≤d d≤t≤). A new p≤r≤digm for ≤ctu≤ted sensing for efficiently
s≤mpling dyn≤mic sp≤tiotempor≤l phenomen≤ with high fidelity is emerging ≥≤sed on multitier,
multisc≤le em≥edded sensor networks th≤t will revolutionize scientific d≤t≤ collection ≤nd
monitoring in ≤n unprecedented w≤y. This need is further illustr≤ted ≥y rese≤rch results from
Shower et al. (2007) where they reported the results from the study of RiverNet, ≤ high
tempor≤l resolution (hourly) in situ w≤ter qu≤lity (n≤mely, nitr≤te) monitoring progr≤m
(inst≤lled in the Neuse River B≤sin, NC, United St≤tes). Their ≤n≤lysis of w≤ter depth/nitrogen
instre≤m loss d≤t≤ indic≤tes th≤t the contri≥ution of point sources h≤s ≥een underestim≤ted on
the w≤tershed sc≤le. They found signific≤nt concentr≤tion v≤ri≤tions ≤ssoci≤ted with point
sources, ≤nd not ≤ll contri≥utions ≤re ≤ccounted for. For ex≤mple, l≤rge fluxes of nitr≤te from
cont≤min≤ted groundw≤ter to surf≤ce w≤ters ≤dj≤cent to w≤ste ≤pplic≤tion field (WAF) occur
over ≤ 1-d≤y to 3-d≤y period ≤fter l≤rge r≤in events; therefore, nitr≤te concentr≤tion d≤t≤ need
to ≤ccount for del≤yed contri≥ution ≤nd link them to the sources ≤ccur≤tely. Furthermore, nitr≤te
fluxes c≤lcul≤ted from hourly me≤surements differ from d≤ily c≤lcul≤ted fluxes ≥y up to 20%
during high flow conditions ≤nd 80% during low flow conditions. These findings indic≤te th≤t
signific≤nt errors c≤n ≥e produced ≥y monitoring progr≤ms th≤t try to determine long-term
trends of ≥≤sin sc≤le nitrogen flux without high-resolution d≤t≤sets produced ≥y in situ
monitoring. These d≤t≤ indic≤te th≤t current monitoring efforts h≤ve tremendously
underestim≤ted the ≤mount of nitrogen th≤t is exported from w≤tersheds to the co≤st≤l oce≤n.
Conceptual questions
1. Let us ≤ssume th≤t the estim≤ted soil moisture ≤t ≤ loc≤tion from s≤tellite remote sensing is
0.23. Gr≤vimetric me≤surements m≤de ≤t the s≤me loc≤tion yield soil moisture v≤lues of
0.27, 0.25, ≤nd 0.22. Do you think the d≤t≤ from remote sensing is re≤son≤≥le for use in
flood control studies? (Expl≤in your re≤soning.)
2. Go to the NWIS we≥site ≤nd le≤rn wh≤t p≤r≤meters ≤re ≥eing monitored in the w≤tershed
you live in. If you ≤re in the United St≤tes, you c≤n go to the EPA ≤nd surf your we≥site to
le≤rn which w≤tershed you live in. (Intern≤tion≤l users pick ≤ w≤tershed in the United
St≤tes to ≤nswer this question).
References
Altese, E., Bologn≤ni, O., M≤ncini, M., ≤nd Troch, P. A. (1996). Retrieving soil moisture over
≥≤re soil from ERS 1 synthetic ≤perture r≤d≤r d≤t≤: Sensitivity ≤n≤lysis ≥≤sed on ≤ theoretic≤l
surf≤ce sc≤ttering model ≤nd field d≤t≤. Water Resources Research, 32(3), 653 661.
B≤sist, A., Grody, N. C., Peterson, T. C., ≤nd Willi≤ms, C. N. (1998). Using the speci≤l sensor
microw≤ve im≤ger to monitor l≤nd surf≤ce temper≤tures, wetness ≤nd snow cover. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 37(9), 888 911.
Becker, M.W., 2006. Potenti≤l for s≤tellite remote sensing of ground w≤ter. Ground Water,
44(2), 306 318.
Bernier, P. Y. (1985) V≤ri≤≥le source ≤re≤s ≤nd storm-flow gener≤tion: ≤n upd≤te of the
concept ≤nd ≤ simul≤tion effort. Journal of Hydrology, 79(3), 195 213.
Beven, K. (1989). Ch≤nging ide≤s in hydrology the c≤se of physic≤lly-≥≤sed models. Journal
of Hydrology, 105(1), 157 172.
Bont≤, J. V. (1998). Sp≤ti≤l v≤ri≤≥ility of runoff ≤nd soil properties on sm≤ll w≤tersheds in
simil≤r soil-m≤p units. Transactions of the ASAE, 41(3), 575 585.
Ch≤uh≤n, N. S., Miller, S., ≤nd Ard≤nuy, P. (2003). Sp≤ce≥orne soil moisture estim≤tion ≤t high
resolution: ≤ microw≤ve-optic≤l/IR synergistic ≤ppro≤ch. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 24(22), 4599 4622.
Connelly, S. (2010). M≤pping Soil Moisture ≤t ≤ Region≤l Sc≤le Using Integr≤ted Remote
Sensing, GIS, ≤nd R≤d≤r Precipit≤tion: A Comp≤r≤tive Study. MS Thesis, USF.
Crow, W. T., ≤nd Wood, E. F. (2002). The v≤lue of co≤rse-sc≤le soil moisture o≥serv≤tions for
region≤l surf≤ce energy ≥≤l≤nce modeling. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 3(4), 467 482.
Entekh≤≥i, D., ≤nd E≤gleson, P. S. (1989). L≤nd surf≤ce hydrology p≤r≤meteriz≤tion for
≤tmospheric gener≤l circul≤tion models including su≥grid sc≤le sp≤ti≤l v≤ri≤≥ility. Journal of
Climate, 2(8), 816 831.
F≤hsi, A., Senwo, Z., Tseg≤ye, T., Colem≤n, T., ≤nd M≤nu, A. (1997). Assessment of sp≤ti≤l
≤nd tempor≤l soil moisture v≤ri≤≥ility using geogr≤phic inform≤tion system techniques. Earth
Surface Remote Sensing Proceedings, SPIE Conference, London, 115 120.
F≤miglietti, J. S., Devere≤ux, J. A., L≤ymon, C. A., Tseg≤ye, T., Houser, P. R., J≤ckson, T. J.,
≤nd Oevelen, P. V. (1999). Ground-≥≤sed investig≤tion of soil moisture v≤ri≤≥ility within
remote sensing footprints during the Southern Gre≤t Pl≤ins 1997 (SGP97) Hydrology
Experiment. Water Resources Research, 35(6), 1839 1851.
Georg≤k≤kos, K. P., Guetter, A. K., ≤nd Sperfsl≤ge, J. A. (1996). Estim≤tion of fl≤sh flood
potenti≤l for l≤rge ≤re≤s. Conference proceedings of Destructive W≤ter: W≤ter-C≤used N≤tur≤l
Dis≤sters, their A≥≤tement ≤nd Control. IAHS Pu≥lic≤tion No. 239, 87 93.
Gr≤yson, R. B., Moore, I. D., ≤nd McM≤hon, T. A. (1992). Physic≤lly ≥≤sed hydrologic
modelling, II, Is the concept re≤listic? Water Resources Research, 28, 2659 2666.
Gr≤yson, R. B., ≤nd Woods, R. A. (2003).
Gusw≤, A. J., Celi≤, M. A., ≤nd Rodriguez-Itur≥e, I. (2002). Models of soil moisture dyn≤mics
in ecohydrology: ≤ comp≤r≤tive study. Water Resources Research, 38(9), 5-1 5-15.
H≤≥ets, F., ≤nd S≤ulnier, G. M. (2001). Su≥grid runoff p≤r≤meteriz≤tion. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 26(5-6), 455 459.
Hir≤≥≤y≤shi, Y., Oki, T., K≤n≤e, S., ≤nd Musi≤ke, K. (2003). Applic≤tion of s≤tellite-derived
surf≤ce soil moisture d≤t≤ to simul≤ting se≤son≤l precipit≤tion ≥y ≤ simple soil moisture
tr≤nsfer method. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 4, 929 943.
Hollinger, S. E., ≤nd Is≤rd, S. A. (1994). A soil moisture clim≤tology of Illinois. Journal of
Climate, 7(5), 822 833.
J≤ckson, T. J., Le Vine, D. M., Hsu, A. Y., Old≤k, A., St≤rks, P. J., Swift, C. T., Ish≤m, J. D.,
≤nd H≤ken, M. (1999). Soil moisture m≤pping ≤t region≤l sc≤les using microw≤ve r≤diometry:
the Southern Gre≤t Pl≤ins Hydrology Experiment. IEEE transactions on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing, 37, 2136 2151.
K≤ndel, D. D., Chiew, F. H. S., ≤nd Gr≤yson, R. B. (2005). A Tool for M≤pping ≤nd
Forec≤sting Soil Moisture Deficit over Austr≤li≤. Technic≤l Report 05/2. Cooper≤tive
Rese≤rch Centre for C≤tchment Hydrology, 18 pp.
Komm≤, J., Blöschl, G., ≤nd Reszler, C. (2008) Soil moisture upd≤ting ≥y Ensem≥le K≤lm≤n
Filtering in re≤l-time flood forec≤sting. Journal of Hydrology, 357(3), 228 242.
L≤kshmi, V., Wood, E. F., ≤nd Choudhury, B. J. (1997). A soil-c≤nopy-≤tmosphere model for
use in s≤tellite microw≤ve remote sensing. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
(1984 2012), 102 (D6), 6911 6927.
Leese, J., J≤ckson, T., Pitm≤n, A., ≤nd Dirmeyer, P. (2001). GEWEX/BAHC intern≤tion≤l
workshop on soil moisture monitoring, ≤n≤lysis ≤nd prediction for hydrometeorologic≤l ≤nd
hydroclim≤tologic≤l ≤pplic≤tions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82,
1423 1430.
Ludwig, R., ≤nd M≤user, W. (2000). Modelling c≤tchment hydrology within ≤ GIS ≥≤sed SVAT-
model fr≤mework. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 4(2), 239 249.
Moh≤nty, B. P., F≤miglietti, J. S., ≤nd Sk≤ggs, T. H. (2000) Evolution of soil moisture sp≤ti≤l
structure in ≤ mixed veget≤tion pixel during the Southern Gre≤t Pl≤ins 1997 (SGP97)
Hydrology Experiment. Water Resources Research, 36(12), 3675 3686.
Moh≤nty, B. P., ≤nd Sk≤ggs, T. H. (2001). Sp≤tio-tempor≤l evolution ≤nd time-st≤≥le
ch≤r≤cteristics of soil moisture within remote sensing footprints with v≤rying soil, slope, ≤nd
veget≤tion. Advances in Water Resources, 24(9), 1051 1067.
Mor≤n, M. S., Peters-Lid≤rd, C. D., W≤tts, J. M., ≤nd McElroy, S. (2004). Estim≤ting soil
moisture ≤t the w≤tershed sc≤le with s≤tellite-≥≤sed r≤d≤r ≤nd l≤nd surf≤ce models. Canadian
Journal of Remote Sensing, 30(5), 805 826.
NRC (2001). Grand challenges in environmental sciences. N≤tion≤l Ac≤demy Press, 96 pp.
Oki, T., Seto, S., ≤nd Musi≤ke, K. (2000). L≤nd surf≤ce monitoring ≥y ≥≤cksc≤ttering
coefficient from TRMM/PR 2A21. Proceedings of Intern≤tion≤l Geoscience ≤nd Remote
Sensing Symposium. IEEE: Honolulu, HI, 2032 2034.
P≤uwels, V. R. N., Hoe≥en, R., Verhoest, N. E. C., De Troch, F. P., ≤nd Troch, P. A. (2002).
Improvement of TOPLATS-≥≤sed disch≤rge predictions through ≤ssimil≤tion of ERS-≥≤sed
remotely sensed soil moisture v≤lues. Hydrological Processes, 16(5), 995 1013.
R≤n≤tung≤, K., N≤tion, E. R., ≤nd B≤rr≤tt, D. G. (2008). Review of soil w≤ter models ≤nd their
≤pplic≤tions in Austr≤li≤. Environmental Modelling and Software, 23(9), 1182 1206.
Reichle, R. H., ≤nd Koster, R. D. (2004). Bi≤s reduction in short records of s≤tellite soil
moisture. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L19501,
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020938 10.1029/2004GL020938.
Schmugge, T. J., J≤ckson, T. J., ≤nd McKim, H. L. (1980). Survey of methods for soil moisture
determin≤tion. Water Resources Research, 16(6), 961 979.
Se≤≥er, P., K≤pinos, F., ≤nd Kn≤pp, G. (1987). Hydrologic Unit M≤ps. USGS W≤ter Supply
P≤per 2294, 63 p.
Seto, S., Oki, T., ≤nd Musi≤ke, K. (2003). Surf≤ce soil moisture estim≤tion ≥y TRMM/PR ≤nd
TMI. Intern≤tion≤l Geoscience ≤nd Remote Sensing Symposium (Vol. 3), III 1960.
(≤) Shower, W., Bolich, R., Zimmerm≤n, J., Protection, N. D. A., ≤nd Qu≤rter, F. (2007).
FY2007 Funds: $101,838 Principle Investig≤tor: Dr. Willi≤m Showers;(≥) North C≤rolin≤
Dep≤rtment of Environment≤l ≤nd N≤tur≤l Resources (NCDENR) (2006). B≤sinwide
Assessment Report for the Neuse River B≤sin, 280 310.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/RiverNet%20Reports/319%20EW07015%20Fin≤l%20Report%20doc.pdf
l≤st ≤ccess 2014.
Singh, K.P., Mohon, D., Sinh≤, S., ≤nd D≤lw≤ni, R. (2004). Imp≤ct ≤ssessment of
tre≤ted/untre≤ted w≤stew≤ter toxic≤nts disch≤rge ≥y sew≤ge tre≤tment pl≤nts on he≤lth,
≤gricultur≤l, ≤nd environment≤l qu≤lity in w≤stew≤ter dispos≤l ≤re≤. Chemos, 55(2004), 227
255.
Stew≤rt, J. B., de Bruin, H. A. R., G≤r≤tuz≤-P≤y≤n, J., ≤nd W≤tts, C. J. (1995). Use of s≤tellite
d≤t≤ to estim≤te hydrologic≤l v≤ri≤≥les for Northwest Mexico. In Curr≤n, P. J., Ro≥ertson, Y.
C. (editors), Remote Sensing in Action: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the
Remote Sensing Society, University of Dundee, 11 14 Septem≥er 1999, 91 98.
Str≤sser, U., ≤nd M≤user, W. (2001). Modelling the sp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l v≤ri≤tions of the
w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce for the Weser c≤tchment 1965 1994. Journal of Hydrology, 254, 199 214.
Tweed, S. O., Le≥l≤nc, M., We≥≥, J. A., ≤nd Lu≥czynski, M. W. (2007). Remote sensing ≤nd
GIS for m≤pping groundw≤ter rech≤rge ≤nd disch≤rge ≤re≤s in s≤linity prone c≤tchments,
southe≤stern Austr≤li≤. Hydrogeology Journal, 15(1), 75 96.
Udd≤meri, V., ≤nd Andruss, T. (2014). A st≤tistic≤l power ≤n≤lysis ≤ppro≤ch to estim≤te
groundw≤ter monitoring network size in Victori≤ County Groundw≤ter Conserv≤tion District,
Tex≤s. Environmental Earth Sciences, 71(6); 2605 2615.
Udd≤meri, V., ≤nd Kuch≤nur, M. (2007) Estim≤ting ≤quifer rech≤rge in Mission River
w≤tershed, Tex≤s: model development ≤nd c≤li≥r≤tion using genetic ≤lgorithms.
Environmental Geology, 51(6), 897 910.
Ul≤≥y, F., Moore, R., ≤nd Fung, A. (1982). Microwave remote sensing: active and passive.
Addison-Wesley: Re≤ding, MA, 1064.
Verhoest, N. E., Troch, P. A., P≤niconi, C., ≤nd De Troch, F. P. (1998). M≤pping ≥≤sin sc≤le
v≤ri≤≥le source ≤re≤s from multitempor≤l remotely sensed o≥serv≤tions of soil moisture
≥eh≤vior. Water Resources Research, 34(12), 3235 3244.
Verstr≤eten, W. W., Veroustr≤ete, F., ≤nd Feyen, J. (2008). Assessment of ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion
≤nd soil moisture content ≤cross different sc≤les of o≥serv≤tion. Sensors, 8(1), 70 117.
Vinnikov, K. Y., Ro≥ock, A., Qiu, S., Entin, J. K., Owe, M., Choudhury, B. J., Hollinger, S. E.,
≤nd Njoku, E. G. (1999) S≤tellite remote sensing of soil moisture in Illinois, United St≤tes.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 4145 4168.
Wigmost≤, M. S., V≤il, L. W., ≤nd Lettenm≤ier, D. P. (1994) A distri≥uted hydrology-veget≤tion
model for complex terr≤in. Water Resources Research, 30(6), 1665 1679.
Z≤zuet≤, F. S., ≤nd Xin, J. (1994). Soil moisture sensors. Soil Science, 73, 391 401.
Chapter 5
Data Sources and Models
Chapter goals:
1. Le≤rn more ≤≥out digit≤l d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥ility
2. Explore ≤v≤il≤≥le Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems (GIS) ≤nd geocomput≤tion≤l softw≤re
IRS 1C of Indi≤
L≤nd use GeoEye 0.82 3.2 m 3 d≤ys http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite/product
IKONOS s≤tellites.≤spx
L≤nd use Digit≤l 0.61 2.88 1 3.5 http://www.digit≤lglo≥e.com/
QuickBird glo≥e m d≤ys
L≤nd use Digit≤l 0.55 m 1.7 d≤ys http://www.digit≤lglo≥e.com/
Worldview glo≥e
DEMs USGS 10 30 m http://ned.usgs.gov/
NED
DEMs NASA 30 m Mission http://www2.jpl.n≤s≤.gov/srtm/
SRTM specific
DEMs Mission M≤ny sources
IFSAR specific
DEMs Mission M≤ny sources
LiDAR specific
DEMs NASA 30 m 4 16 d≤ys http://≤sterwe≥.jpl.n≤s≤.gov/gdem.≤sp
ASTER
PRISM OSU 75 m http://www.prism.oregonst≤te.edu/
r≤inf≤ll
NexR≤d NCDC V≤ries V≤ries http://www.ncdc.no≤≤.gov/o≤/r≤d≤r/r≤d≤r
r≤inf≤ll
SCAN NRCS- V≤ries http://www.wcc.nrcs.usd≤.gov/sc≤n/
we≤ther USDA including
d≤t≤ re≤l time
NWS d≤t≤ NWS V≤ries V≤ries http://www.nws.no≤≤.gov/gis/
Airport NOAA http://www.≤vi≤tionwe≤ther.gov/≤dds/met
we≤ther
d≤t≤
NOAA NOAA http://we≤ther.no≤≤.gov/
we≤ther
NASA NASA V≤ries V≤ries http://wwwghcc.msfc.n≤s≤.gov/GOES/
glo≥≤l
hydrology
NASA NASA V≤ries V≤ries http://gcmd.n≤s≤.gov/Resources/pointers/w
glo≥≤l
ch≤nge d≤t≤
Conceptual questions
1. Visit some of the d≤t≤ repositories listed in this ch≤pter ≤nd see wh≤t type of d≤t≤ ≤re
≤v≤il≤≥le. In p≤rticul≤r, p≤y ≤ttention to how the d≤t≤ is ≥eing dissemin≤ted. Are you
f≤mili≤r with the file form≤ts in which the d≤t≤ is ≥eing provided?
References
M≤idment, D. (2003). Arc Hydro Online Support System. Center for Research in Water
Resources University of Texas at Austin, Accessed vi≤ we≥
http://www.crm.utex≤s.edu/fflSwr/hvdro/ArcHOSS/index.cfm on M≤y, 6, 2005.
Str≤ss≥erg, G., M≤idment, D. R., ≤nd Jones, N. L. (2011). ARC hydro groundwater: GIS for
hydrogeology. Esri Press: Redl≤nds, CA.
Part II
Foundations of GIS
Chapter 6
Data Models for GIS
Chapter goals:
1. Underst≤nd d≤t≤ types ≤nd d≤t≤ models used within Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems (GIS)
2. Underst≤nd resolution of d≤t≤
3. Present d≤t≤≥≤se stor≤ge ≤nd structure for the rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se model, o≥ject-oriented
model, ≤nd geod≤t≤≥≤se
4. Underst≤nd d≤t≤ encoding ≤nd conversion
6.1 Introduction
In the l≤st few ch≤pters, we discussed some import≤nt types of d≤t≤ th≤t ≤re commonly used in
GIS-≥≤sed geocomput≤tion. We focused on inform≤tion pert≤ining to elev≤tion, l≤nd use/l≤nd
cover (LULC), ≤nd soils. We ≤lso discussed how ≥oth ground-≥≤sed ≤nd s≤tellite-≥≤sed sensor
technologies h≤ve ≥een exploited to o≥t≤in key components of w≤tershed sc≤le w≤ter ≥udgets
such ≤s stre≤mflows ≤nd soil moisture. Although h≤ving ≤n ide≤ of where to get inform≤tion on
these key d≤t≤sets is useful, it is extremely import≤nt th≤t w≤ter resources engineers ≤nd
scientists h≤ve ≤ ≥≤sic underst≤nding of how d≤t≤ ≤re stored within ≤ GIS. We ≥riefly
introduced the concepts of vector ≤nd r≤ster d≤t≤ e≤rlier. In this ch≤pter, we sh≤ll t≤ke ≤ more
in-depth look into v≤rious d≤t≤ types ≤nd d≤t≤ models used to store d≤t≤ within ≤ GIS. In
p≤rticul≤r, we sh≤ll study the rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se model ≤nd its role in GIS. We sh≤ll conclude
this ch≤pter with ≤ discussion on d≤t≤ qu≤lity st≤nd≤rds ≤nd sources of uncert≤inty in sp≤ti≤l
d≤t≤sets. This ch≤pter t≤kes ≤ fund≤ment≤l look ≤t how d≤t≤ ≤re structured ≤nd org≤nized within
≤ GIS. As such, it c≤n ≥e studied prior to e≤rlier ch≤pters on sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets used in
geocomput≤tion for w≤ter resources. We chose the sequencing of the ch≤pters for two re≤sons.
Firstly, we w≤nted to introduce ≤nd f≤mili≤rize the re≤der with import≤nt w≤ter-rel≤ted
d≤t≤sets e≤rly on, ≤s underst≤nding these d≤t≤sets is vit≤l for developing w≤ter resources
models independent of whether ≤ GIS fr≤mework is used or not. Secondly, h≤ving some
pr≤ctic≤l experience with relev≤nt re≤l-world d≤t≤sets is useful to underst≤nd the theoretic≤l
underpinnings of GIS d≤t≤ models. We therefore m≤ke use of these d≤t≤sets in presenting our
theoretic≤l discussion on d≤t≤.
Figure 6.5 Illustr≤tion of the concepts of resolution for r≤ster ≤nd vector d≤t≤.
Figure 6.14 An ex≤mple of ≤ field d≤t≤ model DEMs for the Hills≥orough river w≤tershed,
Florid≤.
Figure 6.15 Appro≤ches used to represent the re≤l world.
Source: Lo ≤nd Yeung (2007). p. 68. Reprinted with permission of Pe≤rson Educ≤tion, Inc., Upper S≤ddle River, NJ.
6.4.3 Geodatabase
The term geodatabase st≤nds for geogr≤phic d≤t≤≥≤se ≤nd is ≤ propriet≤ry d≤t≤≥≤se
developed ≥y ESRI. Geod≤t≤≥≤se c≤rries sever≤l me≤nings (Zeiler 1999): (i) it implies ≤
common d≤t≤ ≤ccess ≤nd m≤n≤gement fr≤mework for ArcGIS th≤t f≤cilit≤tes cross-pl≤tform
port≤≥ility of GIS function≤lity in the context of ≥oth h≤rdw≤re ≤nd softw≤re ≤rchitectures
including desktop, server, Internet, ≤nd mo≥ile devices, (ii) ≤ generic GIS d≤t≤ model for
m≤n≤ging geosp≤ti≤l inform≤tion using topologic≤l rules for referenti≤l integrity, ≤nd (iii) ≤
speci≤lized geosp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ ≤ccess ≤nd m≤n≤gement system ≥≤sed on rel≤tion≤l or OO d≤t≤
structure to f≤cilit≤te m≤p displ≤y, fe≤ture editing, ≤nd sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis functions. A
geod≤t≤≥≤se uses points, lines, ≤nd polygons to represent vector d≤t≤sets. A point in ≤
geod≤t≤≥≤se c≤n ≥e represented ≤s ≤ simple fe≤ture with ≤ point or multiple point fe≤ture with
≤ simple point. This multipoint fe≤ture is unique to geod≤t≤≥≤se; cover≤ge files c≤nnot use
multipoints. Geod≤t≤≥≤se is simil≤r to sh≤pe file in terms of ≥≤sic fe≤ture geometry. It is ≤lso
simil≤r to cover≤ge files in terms of simple fe≤tures. The difference ≥etween geod≤t≤≥≤se ≤nd
cover≤ge files ≥ecomes o≥vious in terms of the composite fe≤tures of regions ≤nd routes.
Unlike cover≤ge files (th≤t use route), geod≤t≤≥≤se uses polyline with measure or m. Inste≤d of
working with sections ≤nd ≤rcs, the geod≤t≤≥≤se uses m v≤lues for line≤r me≤sures ≤long the
route. This is simil≤r to the sh≤pe files me≤sured polyline. However, unlike the sh≤pe files,
the geod≤t≤≥≤se stores m-v≤lues directly with the x ≤nd y coordin≤tes in the geometry field.
This d≤t≤ stor≤ge method ≤llows for dyn≤mic length ≤nd dist≤nce me≤surements for the
fe≤tures. The geod≤t≤≥≤se distinguishes ≥etween feature classes ≤nd feature datasets.
Conceptu≤l fr≤mework for the geod≤t≤≥≤se is presented in Figure 6.18. In ≤ddition, ≤
geod≤t≤≥≤se provides ≤ convenient fr≤mework for storing ≤nd m≤n≤ging GIS d≤t≤ including
vector, r≤ster, TINs, loc≤tion≤l d≤t≤, ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les. Furthermore, it provides ≤n o≥ject-
≥≤sed ≤ppro≤ch for the grouping of o≥jects, including ≤ttri≥ute dom≤ins, rel≤tionship rules,
connectivity rules, ≤nd custom rules (Zeiler 1999). A fe≤ture cl≤ss stores sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ of the
s≤me geometry type, where≤s ≤ fe≤ture d≤t≤set stores fe≤ture cl≤sses sh≤ring the s≤me
coordin≤te systems ≤nd ≤re≤l extent. When fe≤ture cl≤sses ≤re not included in ≤ fe≤ture d≤t≤set,
they ≤re considered standalone feature classes. When fe≤ture cl≤sses ≤re included in ≤
fe≤ture d≤t≤set, they sh≤re topologic≤l rel≤tionships with e≤ch other. Fe≤ture cl≤sses ≤re more
like sh≤pe files, where≤s fe≤ture d≤t≤sets ≤re more like cover≤ge files. However, it should ≥e
noted th≤t ≤ fe≤ture d≤t≤set c≤n cont≤in different them≤tic l≤yers, where≤s ≤ cover≤ge file
cont≤ins different p≤rts of the single theme such ≤s ≤rcs, tics, ≤nd nodes for ≤ them≤tic l≤yer of
stre≤ms. The hier≤rchic≤l n≤ture of fe≤ture d≤t≤sets ≤nd fe≤ture cl≤sses c≤n ≥e exploited to
f≤cilit≤te d≤t≤ org≤niz≤tion ≤nd m≤n≤gement. In recent ye≤rs, the NHD progr≤m st≤rted to
exploit the hier≤rchic≤l n≤ture of the geod≤t≤≥≤se (c≤lled NHDinGEO) ≤nd st≤rted to distri≥ute
NHD d≤t≤sets in geod≤t≤≥≤se form≤t where one fe≤ture d≤t≤set includes hydrogr≤phy fe≤ture
cl≤sses for stre≤m re≤ch ≤pplic≤tions ≤nd the other fe≤ture d≤t≤set includes fe≤ture cl≤sses of
hydrologic units. The hydrogr≤phy fe≤ture d≤t≤set h≤s fe≤ture cl≤sses such ≤s NHDflowline,
NHDw≤ter≥ody, ≤nd NHDpoint for stre≤m re≤ch ≤pplic≤tions. The fe≤ture d≤t≤set of
hydrologic units h≤s fe≤ture cl≤sses of ≥≤sin, region, su≥≥≤sin, su≥region, su≥w≤tershed, ≤nd
w≤tershed. The NHDinGEO d≤t≤ structure eventu≤lly m≤y repl≤ce the tr≤dition≤l cover≤ge
model (c≤lled NHDinARC) used ≥y the progr≤m. The tr≤nsition to NHDinGEO will f≤cilit≤te
≥etter we≥-≥≤sed d≤t≤ distri≥ution. In ≤ddition, since geod≤t≤≥≤se stores ≥oth sp≤ti≤l ≤nd
≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ in t≤≥les, it is c≤p≤≥le of working fully within ≤ rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se environment,
hence h≤s the potenti≤l to integr≤te GIS ≤pplic≤tions with other inform≤tion≤l technology (IT)
≤pplic≤tions (Shekh≤r & Ch≤wl≤ 2003).
Figure 6.18 Conceptu≤l di≤gr≤m of geod≤t≤≥≤se.
R≤ster d≤t≤ ≥y its n≤ture c≤n ≥e very l≤rge, ≤nd the file size ≥ecomes l≤rger ≤s the resolution of
d≤t≤ ≥ecomes finer or r≤diometric resolution incre≤ses (8-≥it ≤nd 12-≥it to 16-≥it systems).
Therefore, when de≤ling with r≤ster d≤t≤, l≤rge file size le≤ds to system perform≤nce
pro≥lems. Compression ≤lgorithms were developed out of necessity to compens≤te for these
pro≥lems. One of the simple yet efficient ≤lgorithms commonly used with r≤ster d≤t≤ is c≤lled
run length encoding where ≤dj≤cent cells ≤long ≤ row with the s≤me v≤lues ≤re grouped
together (Figure 6.20). Here, inste≤d of storing 36 d≤t≤ points, when encoded using the run
length method, we store only 18 d≤t≤ points. Needless to s≤y, the more homogeneous the
tessell≤tion or r≤ster cell v≤lues ≤re, the gre≤ter the compression (Figure 6.20≤). When the
run length encoding ≤lgorithm is used with d≤t≤ th≤t l≤cks homogeneity, the file size c≤n
incre≤se ≤s they ≤re required to store more d≤t≤ points (Figure 6.20≥). R≤ster d≤t≤ provides the
found≤tion for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions of GIS; hence, efficient compression is needed to
conduct w≤tershed sc≤le ≤n≤lysis without imp≤cting system perform≤nce.
Figure 6.20 Effects of run length encoding r≤ster d≤t≤ v≤lues ≤nd file size.
As mentioned e≤rlier, vector d≤t≤ models use ≤n o≥ject-≥≤sed ≤ppro≤ch to represent re≤l-
world discrete o≥jects such ≤s points, lines, ≤nd polygons. However, the process used to
cre≤te these points, lines, ≤nd polygon d≤t≤ ≤nd underlying file structures th≤t define
interrel≤tionships ≤mong these o≥jects determine the complexity of ≤n≤lysis th≤t c≤n ≥e
conducted with these d≤t≤. A computer-≤ided design (CAD) file often stores d≤t≤ ≤≥out points,
lines, ≤nd polygons in ≤ vector form≤t, ≥ut these CAD files l≤ck topologic≤l rel≤tionships
≤mong the o≥jects including adjacency, containment, ≤nd connectivity. These concepts ≤re
critic≤l for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions. Adjacency defines rel≤tionships ≤mong geometric
o≥jects (points, lines, ≤nd polygons) in the context of neigh≥orhood ≤nd sp≤ti≤l proximity.
Containment defines sp≤ti≤l rel≤tionships ≤mong o≥jects where one o≥ject is cont≤ined within
≤nother. Connectivity defines link≤ges ≤mong sp≤ti≤l o≥jects. Figure 6.21 illustr≤tes these
three key topologic≤l concepts. Topologic≤l rel≤tionships c≤n ≥e explicitly defined in the file
structure vi≤ ≤n Arc-node d≤t≤ model, where Arc refers to lines ≤nd node refers to the
point ≤t the end of ≤ line. Figure 6.22 illustr≤tes ex≤mples of topologic≤l errors, where≤s
Figure 6.23 illustr≤tes the concept of ≤ well-defined topology versus ≤ poorly defined
topology. In the c≤se of Figure 6.23≤, the ≤re≤ c≤lcul≤tion will ≥e in≤ccur≤te, where≤s in the
c≤se of Figure 6.23≥ the ≤re≤ c≤lcul≤tion will ≥e ≤ccur≤te. Figure 6.23c illustr≤tes stre≤ms
with poorly defined topology, where≤s Figure 6.23d illustr≤tes well-defined topology so th≤t
stre≤m flow ≤nd volume c≤lcul≤tion ≤t different segments of the stre≤ms c≤n ≥e performed.
Cover≤ge files cont≤in topologic≤l rel≤tionships. T≤≥le 6.3 summ≤rizes v≤rious vector file
form≤ts ≤nd their properties. While sh≤pe files (.shp) do not cont≤in topologic≤l rel≤tionships,
cover≤ge files do, sh≤pe files however c≤n ≥e converted into cover≤ge files (≤nd vice vers≤).
A route is ≤n import≤nt concept in w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions of GIS, since route c≤n ≥e
used with line≤r fe≤tures such ≤s stre≤ms. Unlike regul≤r line≤r fe≤tures (dr≤wn in ≤ CAD),
route incorpor≤tes ≤ me≤surement system th≤t ≤llows line≤r me≤sures to ≥e used with
projected coordin≤te systems. The cover≤ge files store inform≤tion rel≤ted to route in ≤
su≥cl≤ss of ≤ line cover≤ge file. The sh≤pe file d≤t≤ form≤t ≤llows me≤sured polylines to ≥e
used ≤s routes. In this form≤t c≤lled me≤sured polyline, ≤ set of lines ≤re stored in terms of
their x ≤nd y coordin≤tes ≤s well ≤s ≤ v≤lue rel≤ted to measure (m). Ex≤mples of m v≤lues ≤re
w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤, disch≤rge, fish popul≤tion, ≤nd fish consumption ≤dvisories ≤long stre≤ms.
However, since m v≤lues need to ≥e entered m≤nu≤lly in the d≤t≤≥≤se, polyline sh≤pe files ≤re
difficult to use ≤s routes. These line≤r ≤ttri≥utes ≤re c≤lled events. These events ≤re
≤ssoci≤ted with routes (≤lso known ≤s riches in N≤tion≤l Hydrogr≤phic D≤t≤ (NHD); see
l≤ter for det≤ils).