Hydrography Updates for USFS Southwestern Region in AZ and NM

Video Transcript
Download Video
Right-click and save to download

Detailed Description

National Hydrography Advisory Call

Joel Osuna-Williams on Hydrography Updates for USFS Southwestern Region in AZ and NM.

The U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region (Region 3) conducted an NHD Assessment in 2015 on its need for and benefits of updated hydrography for the lands it manages. In 2016-19, they partnered with the Center for Geospatial Science & Technology (CGST) at California State University, Northridge to complete a comprehensive update of the NHD within ten National Forests within the Southwestern Region. CGST employed a data generation process to share preliminary work with USFS scientists and then incorporate their feedback to ensure the NHD met USFS needs. This collaborative effort supported USFS-specific goals while serving as a keystone project which offered educational and professional development opportunities to students.

Details

Date Taken:

Length: 00:55:06

Location Taken: US

Video Credits

Joel Osuna Williams

Transcript

Thanks Al, can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you just fine. Thank you and thank you all for taking the time to be here with us today. Also, once again, thank you Al and Drew for coordinating with me over the last couple of months and getting me on the calendar to present today. My name is Joel Osuna Williams and I'm a project manager at the Center for Geospatial Science and Technology, out of California State University, Northridge. And today I'm going to talk a little bit about a collaborative project that we completed not too long ago with the US Forest Service, Southwestern Region. That's USFs Region 3 to bring comprehensive updates to the national hydrography data set, we worked with them to update the NHD within their forests. Most of their forests in their region and will be talking about that in some of the details that went into that work today. So before we get started, I wanted to briefly provide some background information about my center and what we do and how we work with other agencies and institutions. We've been around for over 15 years and like I mentioned, we operate out of CSU Northridge in Southern California, where a nonprofit organization and we provide professional GIS services and other related services through the different collaborations that we establish. We work with agencies and groups at the federal, state, and local level. In addition to working with nonprofits, community organizations, and private firms as well. We have an established core team of GIS professionals and since we're embedded in the University, the team also includes faculty of different backgrounds and areas of expertise and study that often either help directly on a project or available to consult and provide some support. One of our Keystone objectives is to provide students and recent graduates technical and professional experience opportunities through the work and the projects that we bring in. That's one of our Keystone objective since we are embedded in academia within the University. We also partner with other centers and groups other universities, specifically other CSUS in the California System. One great example is our ongoing partnership with the geographical Information Center. We're partnered with to do lots and lots of ongoing in NHD work in California. I will talk a little bit about some of that just a minute, but there are other centers across. Other universities are set up very similar to us, again focusing on giving students learning and professional technical growth and work experience. So it's always really great to use that synergy and partner with other universities. So this setup really benefits everyone involved be at the University growing institutional knowledge through the work that we bring in students. Being able to gain applied real world work experience from the work that they're helping, helping out with on the different projects, and also our partners and our external partners, receiving professor professional services that end up supporting the University and its students. So in the end, partnerships like the like the One I'm going to talk about today end up really being a win win for everyone involved. So I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about our centers activities within the NHD world and how our activities or prior activities kind of helped pave the way to our eventual collaboration with US Forest Service. So back in the day, this is several years ago our two USGS liaisons Drew Decker and Carol Ostergren. We're really trying to pave the way to get the ball rolling with when it comes to stewardship in California, bringing NHD updates and maintaining the NHD in the state. They were able to acquire some funding and we were able to form a Co op agreement with them to do some pilot exploration work within the state of California. At that time there was no steward. There was no official organized effort, you know, at the Stewart or sub steward level to bring updates to the NHD you know there were pockets of work being done here and there, but it was by no means organized, it was. It was very sporadic here and there and again lacked a lot of the. The organization, so in this pilot effort, what we ended up doing is we set up an agreement with USGS and we ended up updating 6 watersheds in the state of California plus one partial watershed, and the main objective was obviously to bring an NHD comprehensive in NHD updates, which means we didn't really piece meal the work. We didn't just look at, for example, just streams. We looked at streams and ponds and reservoirs, and. Washes and canals, you name it. We try to assess at all and provide comprehensive updates. Bring the NHD up to current standards at the time. So that was one of the big driving factors is a lot of key portions of the state really needed to be updated? So that was one of the big takeaways of that pilot project. But in addition to that, we also wanted to really hit the exploration and the needs assessment really hard. Just because, again there was no coordinated stewardship effort in this date at that time. So in doing the work we also we also collected information data about what resources were needed to put staff through training and then eventually onto the production an NHD. Update work what were time and cost requirements for bringing comprehensive updates to the different areas that we updated just so that we can take what we learned and document that and then potentially apply that to future work? The whole goal of this project, like many pilot projects, is to kind of set a pathway to bigger and broader efforts so that ended up being really successful. We ended up growing that project and in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. And then our partners up at CSU Chico about the geographical Information Center. We were able to get the ball rolling and establish a new agreement in which we brought additional comprehensive updates to key watersheds where Department of Fish and Wildlife was carrying out a lot of their critical work, they do a lot of work in fisheries and fish habitat studies, so they identified key areas in California that needed to have an updated in NHD, and so that didn't that wasn't able to cover all the states, so it wasn't a statewide update, but it was a huge step up. That small pilot project, so we were able to do that successfully, and in doing so we also started to develop and really refine our California specific business rules. These are mapping and interpretation rules for updating the NHD between GIC and our center. We had potentially a couple dozen of dozen editors working on the NHD bringing updates, so we wanted to make sure we in for a certain level of consistency and we really took a look at California. As a whole, and what the needs are for the hydrography within the state. So we ended up developing this living breathing document that we call the California mapping business rules. And that project with Department of Fish and Wildlife was really the precursor to official California stewardship, which is currently ongoing and is being directed by California Department of water resources. Jean Schaefer Kramer is leading that, and we are also working with her again. We've kind of been piggybacking off along with this effort, helping to lead the way and Usher the way through this through this work. So we're currently working with her and you could see the current status map. I think that was as of the end of June of this year. We're really close to completing and realizing statewide update effort, so we're really heavily involved in California bringing updates to the NHD and have been for many, many years. So you're probably wondering what this the California work have anything to do with the work that we did. For USFS in Arizona and New Mexico back when we were just in the first couple of years of bringing NHD updates through that initial pilot project, we also again with the help of our USGS liaisons, Drew Decker and Carol Ostergren, we were able to get in contact with the desert landscape conservation cooperative. That's the DLCC. And we were able to establish a cost share agreement where everybody provided some funding and set up a new project where we were going to go in and bring comprehensive updates to key areas where the DLCC see was conducting. Conducting research on their studies, and they primarily do work in climate change, habitat assessments, things like that, and they were primarily working with in southeastern Arizona, so keep that in mind. I'm going to circle back to this because this Arizona project really paved the way and allowed us to get in contact with the USFS and get the ball rolling with USFS. So I'm going to circle back to that in a few minutes and talk about what areas in Arizona we updated and how they were so closely. Related to the US forests in Arizona, New Mexico. So a little bit of background on the USFS Region 3. Again, the southwestern region, their area, or their region covers the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and then they have a couple national grasslands that are within their jurisdiction. Those are located in northern Texas, an eastern Oklahoma. So USFS carried out several years ago a needs assessment that aimed at identifying the uses of NHD, how their own personnel use an NHD, and then in addition to that, they wanted to identify the needs for an updated in NHD. What specific components of the NHD needed to be updated? What components were more important to update than others? For for their own uses on their work. So like I mentioned before, or I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but they they are mandated as a federal agency to use the NHD for most of their work and research that requires hydrographic data weather for reference or for use. As you know, as an actual data source for research and conducting research, they are federally mandated to use the NHD and examples of this include, you know, uses for aquatic surveys on those very important and popular fire retardant Maps that everybody. Talks about when it comes to USFS and fire management, so it's kind of a given then, that if their federally mandated to use the NHD, it's critical that the NHD be updated and be as accurate as possible in order to ensure effective work to be conducted, effective and accurate work to be conducted. So in there there are needs assessment work. They they conducted this on a forest by forest basis and you could see a summary table there on the right side of the slide there and they they identified the different an NHD needs or the different NHD issues. Across all the different forests within their region, and. Essentially what they what they tried to do is they try to weigh what what components of the NHD were more important than others across the entire region. So the three issues that kind of bubbled up to the surface as being the most important were stream seasonality Attribution, so that's making sure that the F code F type Attribution was as accurate as can be, especially with streams. So again, that's the perennial intermittent and ephemeral seasonality Attribution. Having that be accurate was very critical to their work. In addition to that, a complete hydrographic representation completeness standard was number 2 and then tide with number 2 item number three. There was having names, their local and regional names be somehow associated and present alongside. The NHD was also something that was deemed to be fairly important, and so the USFS determined that if they were going to conduct the some degree of improvement work to the NHD. They were only going to be able to carry out a portion of that work. They weren't going to be able to knock off everything from this list like the 10 most important components that you see up there, so they determined that they were only going to given the resources ahead available at the time they were only going to be able to tackle the seasonality, Attribution, and the naming component. And that's again assuming that they would use the resources they had available themselves. They determined that correcting erroneous, hydrography and making making it complete and applying standards for consistency across the board for all their forests within their region, which is going to be too costly for them to carry out by themselves with the resources they had available. So I'd like for all of you to keep this in mind. Keep this chart in mind. Again, the fact that they were potentially going to tackle two issues, and I'm going to circle back to this towards the end of the presentation when I provide a summary of what we were able to complete. For them, because we were able to take the resources that they had available and really, really take it beyond what their original scope was or what they were intending to do themselves. So we will circle back to this in a few minutes. So hitting the rewind button once here and going back to that Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative Project. This is again that project I mentioned where we updated some watersheds for the DLCC. See in Arizona. We updated 5 watersheds in southwestern I'm sorry southeastern Arizona. You could see them there in the blue and one watershed that falls along the California. Arizona border has the Colorado River running through it there. We you'll notice here the the big glaring thing that pops out here is in South South eastern Arizona. These blue watersheds are immediately adjacent to US Forest Service lands, so there's Forests that are scattered all over here in this area and are immediately neighbors to the areas the watersheds that we updated and for the DLCC project. We did not update the NHD within USFS lines, even though some of these watersheds. Do overlap US forest jurisdictions. We understood the importance of having USFS involved in giving them a say in how they are in. NHD gets updated so because the scope was pretty limited for this project. We did not include any of those green areas that you see up there on the map, so we only updated the areas and blue neighboring areas, but the area is the land cover types, the composition, the hydrography characteristics within these areas that we updated our very, very similar. To the adjacent areas that slip into the US Forest Service lands. So a lot of the business rules, for example the mapping and interpretation rules that we developed in these different watersheds that we updated our applicable to the USfF lines, because, again, the composition the make up the hydrographic makeup of these areas are so similar, and if you think about it in a broader perspective, you don't want the NHD just because it crosses a jurisdictional boundary to necessarily be mapped at a different scale, or. In a very different way, interpreted in a different way, because then you'll have this patchwork quilt that will be just very different with a lot of inconsistencies across the board, so ideally the business rules that we set up in these areas that we updated for the DLCC should have been applied to the USFS some at some point down the road, and again, this is all a preface to the work that we ended up doing for for the USFS. So Speaking of which, after we completed that project for the Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative, we were able to do a couple of presentations. To summarize, you know the work completed and some of the nuances of the work. Some of the specifics of the work and. To you know, we essentially demonstrated that comprehensive updates in the arid Southwest can be done to the NHD in a cost effective manner, and we started to develop some of the standards and tackling some of the specifics. Given the arid region that we updated there. So Luckily for us, we were able to have USFS some USFS folks on some of those presentations, and they were interested in learning a little bit more from us in terms of what we did and the timing worked out perfectly, because, again, they were they had just completed their needs assessment and they were trying to make decisions on how to move forward an updating the NHD within their forests. And then they hear about us. So again, the timing was really, really good. There was a lot of potential synergy, a lot of efficiencies there we had. We already had a trained an NHD. Production team of editors and again we had business rules in place, so it's almost like we were ready to go and really set up to just move from this DLCC project into into the USFS agreement that we eventually set up so we had some back and forth with them and eventually set up a mutual interest agreement with them, with the idea that we would take what we did for the DLCC project. Use that as kind of the basis the foundation, and on top of that build up some specifics that would tackle some of the forests needs right. So some examples of this are just building up some of the some of the business rules to tackle some of their needs. They also wanted to get by in from there, from their hydrologists and their GIS analysts. Really the end users, the folks that we're going to use the NHD after this update work was to be completed. They really wanted to get by in and have them be confident in the data that we were going to produce for them. The data that we're going to update for them. So they they really pushed for some kind of data review by therefore specialists, and that's something that we ended up programming into the Workflow and I'll talk about that in a minute or so. And then one really unique part about this is that they were able to provide just a wealth of local data that they had on hand in addition to resource photography. We primarily use the NAIP aerial imagery to bring updates to the NHD just because it is it is usually a data source that is fairly update, fairly updated and also provides coverage for most of the areas that were updating. But the resource photography that they were providing was higher resolution. And then also in some in some cases was of much more use. In the NAIP, aerial photos that were using so you can kind of see here a lot of synergy and this collaboration really grew out of a lot of the work that we were already doing, taking advantage of all those efficiencies that were already that we're already building up. C is another reference map of the region. Just to give you a better sense of the different forests and kind of the spatial layout of the different forests, again covering Arizona, New Mexico and then parts of Oklahoma and Texas. For the project we ended up updating all the forests that are called out. Minus the Gila National Forest. If I remember correctly, the Gila National Forest had recently received updates from their local GIS analysts there right before the project got started, so that Forest was excluded. However, all the other forests and the national grasslands that fall under the jurisdiction of region three were were comprehensively updated for the project. So a little bit about the scope and some of the work specifics. Earlier on we were trying to decide what resolution they would like the updates to occur at and what what accuracy scale we should aim for for for the NHD updates across all the different forests within the region and EU S4 Service did did obviously indicate that something of a local resolution would be wonderful. However, the local resolution work would be was deemed to be too costly given the resources that were available, and they were really pushing to get an update carried out for all forests and not just selecting a couple forests and updating those so they really wanted to get an update done across all four is so really they acknowledge the fact that this could be done in a phased approach. We also talked about Lidar availability and from what I remember there was very limited light are available at the time. So that was that was not necessarily a feasible option at the time, so we decided to go with was matching the native scale of the high resolution and NHD. So our accuracy scale for the project for all the forests was set to  1:24K. And of course we assess the data and edited the data at much finer scales so that we could achieve that accuracy at 1:24K. But again at the end of the day, the goal of the overall project was to achieve. Accuracy at that 1:24K scale. And of course, because we are working with an NHD production, as many of you hopefully you're familiar with, we ended up using kind of the Standard workflow for updating the NHD using the stewardship system. The hydro maintenance portal for checkouts using the NHD update tools for editing and quality control, so on and so forth. Pretty standard there, and I had mentioned our business rules for mapping and interpretation, especially interpretation of aerotique features of ephemeral ephemeral streams and washes and this. Desert and arid landscape, and the goal there was to aim for consistency or as much consistency as possible, not only within any given forests, but across the different forests, and then also taking the work that we did for the DLCC in consideration, so that again we don't end up with that patchwork quilt right. We have consistency across the board. Now about the the USFS specific requirements. So I had mentioned that they provided us with a bunch of reference data. Some of that was hydrographic reference data which we use as a secondary source to kind of help with the decision-making when bringing updates to the NHD. And in addition to that, they were also able to provide us with this really cool data set that they had on hand. If I remember correctly, they had produced it themselves. This was a data set of riparian vegetation that really mapped riparian corridors and this helped to further develop our seasonality, determination, business rules. So trying to determine if a channel if a stream is a ephemeral on the dryer side or somewhere in the middle, something that's intermittent, or if it's of the Wettest category, something that is. Perennial They with you know with the cooperation of their hydrologists, we ended up refining our business rules for helping to make the seasonality determination a little bit more logically consistent. And it was a huge step up from what we normally do just looking at different characteristics. No vegetation type and texture, soil types, landscape characteristics that we use primarily off of the aerial photos to help us determine seasonality. They introduced this Rmap. This riparian vegetation data set. That allowed us to create a rule set that basically stated things like if a stream like the one that you see here on the image. If a stream is within a riparian corridor. And that stream in the NHD is inherently classified as a ephemeral Again the driest category. It should be upgraded to intermittent. In other words, it's much more likely for a stream to be intermittent if it has a riparian vegetation on its banks for pretty good extent there rather than it be being on the dryer side, so that again helped us to refine those rules and make the data a little bit more reflecting of what they, what they know and in terms of their local knowledge and their expertise. There again, the quote unquote boots on the ground so they know what their water systems look like. And that helped to translate some of the some of the decision making that we did on the work. I had mentioned that naming was was another important component, so we did end up rolling in a naming component to this work or enter this work. During the time we were editing, the USGS had a provisional naming tool which was had a couple different goals. That meant one of the goals was to provide an efficient way to associate local and regional names to an NHD features and it also had another objective to fast track potentially fast track. The approval process for name so that local names could be approved by GNIS and they could. They could be like an official DNS name and ID generated and then later on they could be associated with the NHD. That tool was in was released in beta release or in a beta form and we were one of the one of the few groups that were able to pilot test that tool and we were able to associate many of the local names they had, just tons and tons of names and their local data that they use for reference and for reporting purposes for cartographic purposes. And you know, there was a huge importance to have to have those names associated with the updated in NHD that we were producing for them. We ended up leveraging that beta version of the provisional name tool as provided by USGS. Unfortunately, about midway through the project the tool was decommissioned, so we had to come up with a workaround that essentially simulated. What that tool accomplished. And really, what we wanted to do is just provide a deliverable that USFS could utilize that allowed them to somehow tie these local names and associate them to the different features in the NHD in the updated in NHD. So what we did in this workaround is we developed a workflow in a mechanism that essentially created. And populated and add on table that had a permanent identifier field that was pulled from the NHD feature that was to receive a name and then associated a what we're calling a provisional name. So these were the local names coming from their data set and essentially we produce and compiled this add on table and that table then was given to them as a deliverable and then they could use that using the the permanent identifier as a primary key. Perform a tabular join. And that essentially brings those local names and associates them to the live version. The production version of the NHD, and again, that's just for the purposes of their internal use. Again for their reference for their cartographic use, so on and so forth, there was interest in potentially discussing getting those names potentially reviewed and approved as official GNIS names. However, due to the resources the limited resources available and given all the other work that was going on at the time, that was kind of given a lesser priority. The bigger priority was to give them some kind of immediate deliverable that they could. The very least use internally at the conclusion of the project, so that was kind of what where the scope kind of landed for that effort, and I'll I'll provide a summary of how many names were assigned in just a minute. And then the local forest review, which I actually will talk about on this slide with the Workflow overview. So if any of you are in NHD editors, you're probably very familiar with the general and NHD production workflow process, so we check out an NHD data from the hydro maintenance portal and then we carry out the bulk of the work. This is where initial QC is carried out. The NHD editing is carried out. This is where we stuck in the naming and then are different internal QC steps against things. Checking for things like business rule compliance and other unique USFS rule compliance checks. After all, the all the editing is done and all the QC is done. Normally we run final QC using the NHD tools and then we get the data check back in to the national datasets which then makes it available for download and public use through the various means that the NHD is available through. So the unique part about this workflow, so again, what you're seeing here is just kind of the Standard workflow for an NHD work, but in addition to this, one of the unique aspects like I mentioned before is we had a lot of reference data provided by the Forest Service that we were able to use for the editing purposes, and the QC checks and then in addition to that I had mentioned that it was super important for the hydrologist at the different forests and the GIS analyst at the regional forests to have an opportunity to review the data. Before the data was, you know, was signed off and turned in and and I'll complete it. So we developed a mechanism for them to review the data. So essentially we would finish up the editing. We'd finish up most of the QC, and what we would do is package up the data. Provide a copy of the production data to them before checking it in and also provided them with a mini workflow where they would be able to mark up the data and produce comments. Essentially for us, get their feedback at their local knowledge. Embedded in this in this feedback layer that we produced and have them submit that local feedback to us so that we can then roll that back into our QC steps. Take a look at what their comments were. Implement additional changes on top of what we already did. Kind of refining our work, integrating their local local feedback, their local knowledge, and then after that moving on to final QC and then getting the data checked in and this again goes back to the confidence building, making sure that they. End users of the data we're going to be confident in the product that was being created for them giving them a say in an ability to review the work before the work was all said and done. So some summary results and outcomes. We did a lot of work in feature densification that is adding new features into the NHD that were not already represented in the NHD. So here you see a before example an this is a quick after example here, so adding a bunch of streams. This is a huge component. There was tons and tons of streams, especially ephemeral streams, and we're talking about arid, arid semi mountainous in mountainous areas here. So there was just tons and tons of streams that needed to be added to the NHD and represented in the energy that never were there to begin with. So we added a lot of those into the NHD, adding Springs, adding what they call tanks, which are small ponds and reservoirs for irrigation and other human uses. There was tons of tiny, tiny little pawns that we ended up adding into there and again using their reference data to help locate those and then cross checking those against the latest aerial photos for accuracy. Of course there were features already in the NHD. Many of those who are outdated in terms of their geography, so there was reshaping realignment extensions that needed to occur, and then also Attribution updates as well. You'll see here that there's different color codes for the different seasonality types of the different streams that you see here. Yellow is a ephemeral the driest category. The light blue are intermittent, and then the darker, thicker blue lines are the perennial rivers. So there was a lot of seasonality, classification and Attribution that was incorrect. And improving the Attribution, improving the names and the seasonality using their local feedback resulted in a much more improved and more updated in NHD. Again, that reflected their local knowledge, specially specially coming coming up with the seasonality determination. We got just a wealth of knowledge coming from the local forest reviewer is letting us know hey, this is actually not intermittent. I've been there, it's ephemeral and getting that knowledge and transferring it into the NHD. Here's a quick table summary of the work that was completed, so we updated a total of 10 forests. Across the entire region across three different phases, so the work was done. I think in a little over two years, and it was divided up into three different phases. Every forest obviously being slightly different size and you can see there the main highlight of this table on the far right column is the number of comments that we got from that local forest review mechanism that we programmed into the Workflow and that was hugely successful. You could see here we got in some cases thousands of comments from their review and again we were able to get on phone calls, get on conference calls, have back a back and forth with them, have a dialogue with them, let them know hey, this is what you guys should be prioritizing. This is what we need the most help with. The most input on and they were able to do this in a very structured and controlled way that was really very beneficial and hugely insightful. And again collecting that local knowledge. In some cases we received. Like I said, thousands of comments. A lot of these comments where seasonality comments again, just letting us know this needs to be changed from a ephemeral to intermittent or intermittent downgraded to a ephemeral things like that. But in addition to that you know they caught other things that that weren't necessarily obvious to us. Very specialized features that were or complexes that were important to them that needed to be reflected in the NHD. So there was just an abundance of feedback and review that was done across all the different forests. I'm going to show a quick set of diagrams here of graphs just showing off the different levels of densification. So what you're seeing here is the densification of ephemeral flowlines, calculated in length in miles across the different forests. So you see the the lighter color bars are the before counts, and then the darker bars are the after counts and you can see in some cases we doubled the amount of a ephemeral. Mileage in some forest like the Cibola, a National Forest. Ended up, I think, tripling in size in terms of the amount of stream mileage for the ephemeral classification, so there was just a ton, just a ton of mileage that was added, especially in the ephemeral classification. Due to the nature of the landscape. Here's the same scenario, but this is for intermittent flow lines. Again, flow lines that are of the intermittent seasonality classification there, and in some cases the count actually went down, and that doesn't necessarily indicate a deletion such as the case with the see below national force it could could have also indicated a change or downgrade from the intermittent classification over to the dry or classification of the ephemeral classification. But in some cases to use just see an explosion in the intermittent flow lines like in the Santa Fe National Forest. And again, this is with the guidance of their hydrologists and their local knowledge. Some of these for us. You should also be aware our higher elevations, so the likelihood of wetter complexes and water hydrography is more prevalent in those higher elevation for us as well, which kind of played a factor in the rules and the feedback that we got. And then the third scenario here, the Wettest classification. This is the perennial classification. This is, I think, the one that receives the most downgrades. Just because I feel from what I remember, a lot of perennial streams or downgraded down to either intermittent or the ephemeral classification, so there's not a lot of change, and most of the changes here were decrease in total length in miles, and again not due to deletion, but due to a conversion or downgrade to a lesser category, a category that's less wet. This is a summary of the spring integration that we did. We added tons of Springs you can see here across the different forests. Down here are total number of Springs that were added to the NHD was over 1200 here, leading to a total of 6700 or so Springs across all the different forests. So we ended up adding over 1000 Springs using a couple different reference datasets. We use the Spring Stewardship Institute. Dataset primarily, and then we also had some Springs present in the local forest data that we looked at an integrated in there, so a huge jump in the number of Springs and spring representation across the different forests. This is a summary table for the naming that was done. The names that were associated to the NHD through the The Workflow in the mechanism that described earlier. As a total here, we ended up adding almost 4000 local names to the NHD and this is across the entire region. That's just a ton of names that were associated and rolled into a deliverable that USS is now using. Again, they could just enable that tabular join and bring those names. Then and I should also note we did do the naming across the Polygon flow lines and point feature classes as well, so we had like a lot of spring names. We had stream names and then in the Polygon. Features lakes and those tanks that I mentioned. Those smaller ponds just a lot of names that were within the local reference datasets that were analysis that are now associated with in NHD. So I mentioned before that we're going to circle back to this table, so here's this table again. And if you all remember if USFS they were going to plan on using their own resources and they were going to do the work themselves, they had planned to do item one, the improvement of the stream type Attribution and item 3. We were able to actually complete way more than that. We were able to tackle items one through 4, so the string type Attribution, the completeness standard, again enforcing business rules for consistency and making sure that the data was updated comprehensively. We tackled the naming component we were able to bring in the point integration or the Springs into the data. Again, consistency Standard and the flow line geometry and then kind of. As a bonus, we did do. We tackled the acequias and diversions these are. Smaller canals, irrigation canals and itches. We rolled to tackle that to some degree just because they were present in the reference data. So the big takeaway here is we were able given the experience that we had built up and some of the efficiencies that we had already had built into the system with our knowledge and NHD were able to really take the resources that they had available and just tackle so much more work than they were originally going to be able to do just by themselves. So again, another big huge. Example of this kind of win win set up here. Terms of benefits. Just in summary again, one of the bigger items here is being able to have that local knowledge captured and built-in rolled into the NHD. Rules for consistency. So again, the business rules. The decision-making rules were built up, and not only that, but are transferable. They are currently being used to some extent in the area areas of the California updates that were currently conducting with California Department of water resources, so they don't just apply in Arizona, New Mexico, they apply in other regions as well. So that's a huge benefit. There's a public benefit. Obviously. The updated version of the NHD is now available to public users through the national map. Another medium mediums there, and then of course, going back to the original Forest Service applications. You know, the fire retardants, avoidance Maps, hydrographic inventories, so on and so forth. So NHD has been updated and now it really helps to support all their research and their work. On the CD St and this project was again it was a little over two years and it was able to help bring on and train up 25 staff and research assistants which were composed of students undergraduate students, graduate students and recent graduates as well. So we had multiple training sessions. You know we had him on board for the different many conference calls that we had. You know, got many brains to help brainstorm and develop ideas and concepts as we were. You know getting the project up and running the acquired skill sets and knowledge and hydrography concepts. GIS remote sensing, I mean, it offer just a wealth of experience there for all hours. Are students and allowed us to develop further develop our our team and transferable experience? I mentioned there California NHD stewardship work that's going on a lot of our editors that worked on this project are now working on the California work. You know, they've taken the expertise in the experience again from this USFS project. And are applying it in the California work that we're now doing so a really big opportunity to leverage experience and really build a lot of efficiencies here and keeping momentum going? That's a big takeaway here. And of course, with this project we were able to present the work at various conferences we presented at ESRI last year. We also had a couple posters at esri covering the work so a lot of really exciting opportunities to share information about how we did what we did and how we did it. So I think that covers everything I wanted to go over today. On that note, I'll be happy to take any questions if there are any. I also do want to note we have a technical memorandum available online and have the URL posted here if the if anyone's interested in obtaining a copy of this power point, I would be more than happy to circulate it and it has that URL and that technical memorandum document covers a lot of what I went through today and provides a little bit more detail as well. If you're interested in learning. Are there any questions? Joel you'll post that in the chat? Yeah I can. I can go ahead and do that. Yeah great thanks so much Joel. This is really interesting. Very thorough presentation. So folks, if you have questions, you could type it into the chat or you can unmute yourself and just ask the question. Whichever way you prefer is fine. Oh, I'll start off with a question Joel. So you talk quite a bit about the provisional names and using local local names that weren't official GNIS names. Did you also have a lot of features that maybe had an official GNIS name but weren't correct or weren't applied in NHD. To some extent, yes. So we we did not look for approved or official names that were not already in the NHD. However, there were many GNIS or officially approved names that were already in the NHD, however were in there in an incorrect way. So we came across many cases where name was assigned to a stream, but there was like a gap in continuity, or it was clearly going up the wrong branch of a stream or River. And in those cases where it was obvious, it was certainly part of our scope to fix, those are erroneous. Those are erroneous issues, but again, our scope did not provide time and resources to go looking for names that were approved that are supposed to be in the in NHD. But were not in the NHD was just limited to those names that were already in the NHD, but may may have been assigned incorrectly or in some erroneous way. I see so some of those Names that you have in that separate file that you had. This provisional names that those might actually be official GNIS names, but you didn't go that extra step to see if they were exactly the inclination, though, is that the majority of those are not approved names. We did find cases where many cases actually were. Some names were in the data set. In the reference data sets, but we're already in the NHD to begin with and just based off some of the preliminary assessment work that we're doing. We're scoping out the work we found that a lot of the names and as indicated also by forest staff, had not gone through an approval process, and in fact, that's something that we recommended that they consider in the future once they do have resources available just because it's so important to get those you know, kind of at the official level. And with an ID and then associated and rolled into the NHD. Yeah, right. I was gonna ask about. Is I presume it would be the for service, it would go forward with proposals to the board of Geographic Names for those those names. We haven't talked about it to any extent, but I'm sure that that is something that they would be interested in taking the lead in. If not, then potentially soliciting some help with that. Just because there is a lot of a lot of work to do there. Great so looking at some of the comments in the chat, Jean Schaefer Kramer says that they in California, they're finding GNIS names missing from the NHD and have a couple of staff assigned to fix this on an ongoing basis. And they are also gathering names to submit to the board of Geographic Names (BGN). Other. Comment and compliment from from J Stevens on the presentation. Any other questions folks have? Uh, I'll throw one more at you, Joel. How much? Uh. Did you find connectivity issues in the NHD and how much of it were you fixing? You know what I mean by that is. Where you have particularly in arid areas like this, you have a lot of streams that stop. Uh, and don't connect to the rest of the drainage network, did you? See a lot of that, did you fix? That or what kind of criteria did you use to determine whether it should be fixed or not? Yeah we did. We saw a lot in arid areas you just indicated. Specially dryer systems tend to, you know, they have a defined channel and then suddenly they just fizzle out and they just disappear and don't have an obvious connection downstream. It can get very tricky and actually some of the business rules that we that we developed help to tackle some of that and we are aware of how important it is to have connectivity between upstream features and have them connected through the network downstream where. Or they may you know, you know whatever system downstream they may flow into through the use of either a streamRiver feature or connector, or if it's going through some kind of wash or another type of polygonal feature in artificial path. So one of the things that we try to do here is be very aware of features that are really seasonal features that are so dry that are likely to change shape sometimes even disappear from season to season and so. Part of the thresholds that we developed aimed to kind of filter out and not include mapping of features that are of that nature. Just because they're going to likely pose more issues and the moment we map them, even though we may be using the latest NAIP maybe a year or two old by the time that we're using it, it's likely already. Those features are likely already outdated, so we wanted to be really realistic and really focus on the features that are going to be not necessarily more permanent but more stable. If you will, in the in the natural environment and then the features that are going to be that are going to be the most impactful for the work, something that's going to fizzle out and just dry up from one season to the other may not be all that worthwhile to map alongside other features that are more solid ephemeral, flowlines solid, intermittent flow lines, and then some of the other complexes that we saw with like washes and braided streams and stuff like that. So we did take some of that into consideration, and whenever a feature was not connected downstream but there was an obvious connection, we did work really diligently to make sure. Or that connectivity where where it was obvious was connected downstream downstream again through the use of either continuing or extending the stream River, or using connectors, or the artificial path. OK, in the business rules that you mentioned are those in that technical memo that you have there link for, they're not. They're actually a separate document, and we have a California version that's available and we're actually working on an updated release that should be out in the next month or so, and we can provide that if anybody is interested in taking a look at those. OK, yeah, I definitely would be interested in seeing that. Yeah, I can provide. I can provide a copy of that and I think it would be better since we're we're adding new rules to the document and refining some right now. Be probably better to hold off until the next release. Again, we have a public version of the of the last version, but since we're so close to releasing a new one, I think it would be better to hold off on that. But regardless, I can provide a link to further information in a download for that. OK, that be great Jean already has. Just email her. Yeah, Jean Schaefer  Kramer? Put that in comments or? Such that you can email her for the California one, right? Yeah yeah again a lot of our a lot of the rules that we created for this project were transferred directly into the California, if not all of them. I believe just because we have, we have a dedicated session for making updates and interpretation within arid regions, and California certainly has a lot of that. Yeah, there are a couple other questions there in the in the chat, but we are really right at our time limit so. I want to thank you again Joel. Maybe if you get a chance to, I'll leave the meeting chat. Go on here for a minute if you have a chance to answer those questions that are in the chat, that would be great. Otherwise folks, if you have more questions, you can email them either to me and I'll forward them on to Joel or or just go ahead and email them directly to Joel. Thanks again, Joel. This was a fantastic presentation and it's really great example of stewardship model that seems to be working really well. So appreciate your time and effort on this and really appreciate you're presenting to us today. And Joel, could you please drop your email address in the chat really quickly right there at the bottom? Sure, I'll do. That would be great, thanks. OK well thanks again everybody. We will have another one of these calls next month. Let me double check the date it should be. October 20th, 20th October 20th I think is the. No, I'm sorry 27th should be the next one and watch for calendar invitation for that. We'll see you next.