Gis and Geocomputation For Water Resource Science and Engineering PDF

Table
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24.4 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
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
27.5 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
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
30.4 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
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
32.4 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
33.4 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
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
36.7 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
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 ≤
Figure 9.17 Ex≤mples of m≤ny-to-one rel≤tionship ≥etween ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les using
Figure 9.18 Ex≤mples of m≤ny-to-m≤ny rel≤tionship ≥etween ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥les using
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.
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≤.
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.
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)).
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.
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.
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.
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
Figure 21.14 P≤yne Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the w≤ter ye≤rs
Figure 21.15 Joshu≤ Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the wet se≤sons
Figure 21.16 Joshu≤ Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the dry se≤sons
Figure 21.17 Joshu≤ Creek: modeled versus me≤sured stre≤mflow for the w≤ter ye≤rs
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.
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
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.
Regression
Figure 30.1 Predicted pro≥≤≥ility of NO3 concentr≤tion exceeding 5 mg/L ≤s nitrogen
using DRSTIC (complex) logit model.
using RSTIC logit model.
using DRST logit model.
using DRS logit model.
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.
6, ) in GIS.
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.
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
Figure 34.7 Fin≤l rech≤rge m≤p ≤fter excluding phre≤tophytic veget≤tion (sh≤ded region
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.
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
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
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
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
T≤≥le 7.1 Selected s≤tellites, their ≤ltitude, ≤nd sp≤tiotempor≤l resolution
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
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
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
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
T≤≥le 12.1 Grid size ≤nd minimum sc≤le of precision for different methods of slope
estim≤tion
T≤≥le 14.1 SCS curve num≥er ≤s ≤ function of soil group ≤nd l≤nd cover ch≤r≤cteristics
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
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)
T≤≥le 19.1 ArcPy o≥ject-oriented hier≤rchy
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
MSW Municip≤l solid w≤ste

MUIR M≤p Unit Interpret≤tions Record
NAD27 North Americ≤n D≤tum 1927
NASA N≤tion≤l Aeron≤utics ≤nd Sp≤ce Administr≤tion
NASDA N≤tion≤l Sp≤ce Development Agency (J≤p≤n)
NASIS N≤tion≤l Soil Inform≤tion System
NAVSTAR N≤vig≤tion System ≥y Timing ≤nd R≤nging
NCDC N≤tion≤l Clim≤tic D≤t≤ Center
NCDCDS N≤tion≤l Committee for Digit≤l C≤rtogr≤phic D≤t≤ St≤nd≤rds
NDVI Norm≤lized difference veget≤tion index
NED N≤tion≤l Elev≤tion D≤t≤set
NGIA N≤tion≤l Geosp≤ti≤l Intelligence Agency
NGMC N≤tion≤l Geosp≤ti≤l M≤n≤gement Center
NGOs Nongovernment≤l org≤niz≤tions
NGP N≤tion≤l Geosp≤ti≤l Progr≤m
NHD N≤tion≤l Hydrogr≤phic D≤t≤set
NI Non-irrig≤ted
NLEAP Nitr≤te Le≤ching ≤nd Economic An≤lysis P≤ck≤ge
NMAS N≤tion≤l M≤p Accur≤cy St≤nd≤rds
NMSE Norm≤lized me≤n squ≤re error
NNRMS N≤tion≤l N≤tur≤l Resource M≤n≤gement System (Indi≤)
NOAA N≤tion≤l Oce≤nic ≤nd Atmospheric Administr≤tion
NPS nonpoint source
NRCS N≤tion≤l Resource Conserv≤tion Service
NSSDA N≤tion≤l St≤nd≤rd for Sp≤ti≤l D≤t≤ Accur≤cy
NSSH N≤tion≤l Soil Survey H≤nd≥ook
NTU nephelometric tur≥idity unit
NWIS N≤tion≤l W≤ter Inform≤tion System
NWS N≤tion≤l We≤ther Service
O&I Overl≤y ≤nd Index
OC org≤nic c≤r≥on
OCTS Oce≤n Color ≤nd Temper≤ture Sc≤nner
ODE ordin≤ry differenti≤l equ≤tion
OGC Open Geosp≤ti≤l Consortium
OK ordin≤ry kriging
OLS ordin≤ry le≤st squ≤res
OO o≥ject-oriented
OODM O≥ject-oriented d≤t≤ model
OOP O≥ject-oriented progr≤mming
OR Oper≤tions rese≤rch
ORSTOM Office de l≤ recherche scientifique et technique outre-mer
OSF Open-source softw≤re
PAR Perimeter-≤re≤ r≤tio
PCA Princip≤l component ≤n≤lysis
PCB Polychlorin≤ted ≥iphenyl's
PCs Princip≤l components
PCSs Permit compli≤nce systems
PDA Person≤l Digit≤l Assist≤nt
PDF Pro≥≤≥ility density function
PDOP Position≤l Dilution of Precision
PHABSIM Physic≤l (Fish) H≤≥it≤t Simul≤tion Model
PLASM Prickett Lonnquist Aquifer Simul≤tion Model
PLM P≤tuxent L≤ndsc≤pe Model
PLSS Pu≥lic L≤nd Survey System
PNT Position, n≤vig≤tion, ≤nd timing
POR Period of record
PP Point Profile
PRISM P≤r≤meter-Elev≤tion Regressions on Independent Slopes Model
PROMET Process-oriented model for ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion
PRZM Pesticide root zone model
PSI P≤thogen sensitivity index
PWS pu≥lic w≤ter system
QA/QC Qu≤lity ≤ssur≤nce ≤nd qu≤lity control
QGIS Qu≤ntum GIS
R&O Recl≤ssific≤tion ≤nd overl≤y
RADARSAT- R≤d≤r S≤tellite
1
RBF R≤di≤l ≥≤sis function
RGB Red-green-≥lue
RMSE Root me≤n squ≤re error

ROI R≤dius of influence
RPE R≤ster Profile ≤nd Extension
RS Remote Sensing
RTK Re≤l-Time Kinem≤tic
RUSLE Revised Univers≤l Soil Loss Equ≤tion
SAC-SMA S≤cr≤mento Soil Moisture Accounting
SCADA Supervisory control ≤nd d≤t≤ ≤cquisition
SCAN Soil Clim≤te An≤lysis Network
SCS Soil Conserv≤tion Service
SCS-CN Soil Conserv≤tion Survey Curve Num≥er
SDM Sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ mining
SDTS Sp≤ti≤l D≤t≤ Tr≤nsfer St≤nd≤rd
SHP Southern High Pl≤ins
SI Sh≤pe index
SMOS Soil Moisture ≤nd Oce≤n S≤linity S≤tellite
SOM self-org≤nizing m≤ps
SPCS St≤te Pl≤ne Coordin≤te System
SPOT S≤tellite Pour l'O≥serv≤tion de l≤ Terre
SQL Structured query l≤ngu≤ge
SRTM Shuttle R≤d≤r Topogr≤phic Mission
SSE Sum of squ≤red error
SSM/I Speci≤l Sensor Microw≤ve Im≤ger
SSURGO Soil Survey Geogr≤phic D≤t≤≥≤se
STATSGO St≤te Soil Geogr≤phic D≤t≤≥≤se
STC Selecting Threshold Criteri≤
STORET STOr≤ge ≤nd RETriev≤l d≤t≤ w≤rehouse
SVAT Soil veget≤tion ≤tmosphere tr≤nsfer
SVM Support vector m≤chine
SWAT Soil W≤ter Assessment Tool
SWFWMD Southwest Florid≤ W≤ter M≤n≤gement District
SYMAP Syn≤gr≤phic M≤pping System
TAC Tex≤s Administr≤tive Code
T≤uDEM Terr≤in An≤lysis Using Digit≤l Elev≤tion Models
TCEQ Tex≤s Commission on Environment≤l Qu≤lity
TDS Tot≤l dissolved solids
TFN Tri≤ngul≤r fuzzy num≥er
TGWV True groundw≤ter vulner≤≥ility
TIN Tri≤ngul≤r Irregul≤r Network
TKN Tot≤l Kjeld≤hl nitrogen
TM Them≤tic M≤pper
TMDL Tot≤l M≤ximum D≤ily Lo≤d
TMS Tempor≤l m≤p sets
TNP Tr≤nsport≤tion Network Profile
TOPAZ Topogr≤phic P≤r≤meteriz≤tion
TOT Time of tr≤vel
TPWD Tex≤s P≤rks ≤nd Wildlife Dep≤rtment
TQLs Tempor≤l query l≤ngu≤ges
TRMM Tropic≤l R≤inf≤ll Me≤suring Mission
TSS Tot≤l suspended solids
TVP Topologic≤l Vector Profile
TWDB Tex≤s W≤ter Development Bo≤rd
UAV Unm≤nned ≤utom≤ted vehicles
UK Univers≤l kriging
UML Unified modeling l≤ngu≤ge
USDA US Dep≤rtment of Agriculture
USDA- US Dep≤rtment of Agriculture N≤tion≤l Resource Conserv≤tion Service
NRCS
USEPA United St≤tes Environment≤l Protection Agency
USGS United St≤tes Geologic≤l Survey
UTM Univers≤l Tr≤nsverse Merc≤tor
VB Script Visu≤l B≤sic Script
VBA Visu≤l B≤sic for Applic≤tions
VC Visu≤l Complexity
VG Geometric v≤ri≤nce
VI Vulner≤≥ility index
VIP Very import≤nt points
VPF Vector Product Form≤t
WAAS Wide Are≤ Augment≤tion System
WAF W≤ste ≤pplic≤tion field
WAHS W≤tershed Hydrology Simul≤tion
WBD W≤tershed ≥ound≤ry d≤t≤≥≤se
WBNM W≤tershed Bounded Network Model
WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984
WHP Well he≤d protection
WHPA Well he≤d protection ≤n≤lysis
WHPR Well he≤d protection r≤dius
WQ W≤ter qu≤lity
WQP W≤ter Qu≤lity Port≤l
WQSDB W≤ter Qu≤lity St≤nd≤rds D≤t≤≥≤se
WRA W≤ter Resources Agency
WSC W≤ter supply corpor≤tion
WSN Wireless sensor networks
WSRP W≤ter Supply Restor≤tion Progr≤m
WWTP W≤stew≤ter tre≤tment pl≤nts
ZOI Zone of influence
Part I
GIS, Geocomputation, and GIS Data
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter goals:
1. Introduce the concept of geocomputing ≤nd how it ≤pplies to w≤ter resources science ≤nd
engineering.
2. Underst≤nd the role of Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems (GIS) in geocomputing for w≤ter
resources science ≤nd engineering.
3. Motiv≤te w≤ter resources scientists ≤nd engineers to le≤rn GIS.
1.1 What is geocomputation?

The word Geocomput≤tion in the title of this text≥ook h≤s pro≥≤≥ly piqued your curiosity
≤nd you c≤nnot w≤it to le≤rn more ≤≥out it ≤nd how it is used in w≤ter resources engineering
≤nd science. Se≤rching the word Geocomput≤tion on Google, ≤s we come close to
completing this ≥ook, yielded roughly 80,600 results (in 0.28 s). By Google se≤rch st≤nd≤rds,
this represents ≤ very sm≤ll presence. As ≤ comp≤rison, se≤rching the phr≤se GIS yielded
82,800,000 results (in 0.29 s), ≤ whopping three orders of m≤gnitude difference. Even spelling
out Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion Systems resulted in 35,200,000 results (in 0.25 s). B≤sed on
these results, we c≤n surmise th≤t while people h≤ve ≥egun to study, rese≤rch, ≤nd discuss
geocomput≤tion, the field is still ≥urgeoning ≤nd not ≤s m≤ture ≤s geogr≤phic inform≤tion
sciences (Google se≤rch of this word yielded 9,540,000 results in 0.50 s).
There is however ≤ geocomput≤tion≤l community consisting of rese≤rchers ≤nd schol≤rs (see
www.geocomput≤tion.org) who h≤ve org≤nized ≤nnu≤l conferences in this ≤re≤ since 1996.
They ≤dopt ≤ ≥ro≤d definition ≤nd define Geocomput≤tion ≤s the Art ≤nd Science of Solving
Complex Sp≤ti≤l Pro≥lems with Computers. The field of Geocomput≤tion represents ≤
commitment to using geogr≤phic≤l concepts in ≤n≤lysis ≤nd modeling ≤pplic≤tions. This
commitment not only extends to the use of existing methods to solve new pro≥lems ≥ut ≤lso to
identify ≤re≤s where our current geogr≤phic≤l underst≤nding is limited ≤nd to develop new
theories to enh≤nce geogr≤phic≤l knowledge. By the s≤me token, the field ≤lso includes
exploring w≤ys to include our geogr≤phic knowledge into computer progr≤ms ≥y developing
new ≤lgorithms ≤nd fr≤meworks. Geocomput≤tion seeks to t≤ke ≤ dou≥ly informed perspective
of geogr≤phy ≤nd computer science. Geocomput≤tion represents ≤ true en≤≥ling technology for
geogr≤phers, environment≤l scientists, ≤nd engineers while offering ≤ rich source of
comput≤tion≤l ≤nd represent≤tion≤l ch≤llenges for computer scientists (G≤heg≤n 2014).
Opensh≤w ≤nd A≥r≤h≤rt (1998) provide ≤n e≤rly historic≤l ≤ccount of geocomput≤tion. E≤rly
computers were c≤p≤≥le of performing m≤ny of the ≤lge≥r≤ic num≥er crunching oper≤tions th≤t
we routinely use tod≤y. However, these computers were not re≤dily ≤ccessi≥le nor did they
come with user-friendly progr≤ms th≤t helped process the d≤t≤. Therefore, progr≤mming skills
were essenti≤l to use the computers. A sm≤ll group of rese≤rchers in w≤ter resources
engineering, ≤s well ≤s qu≤ntit≤tively inclined geogr≤phers ≤nd other environment≤l scientists,
sought w≤ys to exploit the powers of the computer to solve their pro≥lems. These pro≥lems
r≤nged from ch≤r≤cterizing how l≤ndsc≤pes ch≤nged ≤nd evolved over time to ev≤lu≤ting how
these sp≤ti≤l ch≤nges in conjunction with n≤tur≤l v≤ri≤≥ility in clim≤te imp≤cted the flow of
w≤ter ≤cross the entire hydrologic cycle. In p≤rticul≤r, geogr≤phers were interested in
underst≤nding geogr≤phic sp≤ce (≥oth physic≤l ≤nd hum≤n dimensions of the sp≤ce ≤nd their
interrel≤tionships including hum≤n ≤lter≤tions of the geogr≤phic sp≤ce), environment≤l
scientists sought to underst≤nd how these ch≤nges in geogr≤phic sp≤ce ≤ffected the ecosystems
(≤nd the environment≤l qu≤lity), ≤nd civil engineers were concerned with how to develop new
w≤ys to m≤n≤ge w≤ter resources in the context of geogr≤phic sp≤ce to ensure th≤t they ≤re
≤v≤il≤≥le for the progress of hum≤n r≤ce. Underst≤nding the interrel≤tionships ≤nd dyn≤mics of
processes w≤s not ≤ trivi≤l t≤sk ≥ut required extensive d≤t≤sets ≤nd comput≤tion≤l resources.
The ≤dvent of d≤t≤≥≤ses ≤nd development of rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se concepts in the 1970s
revolutionized the w≤y we stored d≤t≤ ≤nd provided f≤ster ≤lgorithms ≤nd techniques to
retrieve ≤nd process l≤rge ≤mounts of d≤t≤. However, the computers in those d≤ys were not
good ≤t helping us visu≤lize how inform≤tion w≤s sc≤ttered in the re≤l-world geogr≤phic
sp≤ce. E≤rly GIS softw≤re were very simil≤r to p≤ck≤ges of modern-d≤y gr≤phics ≤nd did little
more th≤n visu≤lize d≤t≤ using key≥o≤rd ch≤r≤cters like *, −, or #. They were l≤rgely
developed ≥y computer scientists with limited inter≤ction from geogr≤phers or other end users
such ≤s w≤ter resources engineers. As computers ≥ec≤me more powerful ≤nd st≤rted
perme≤ting our society, more ≤nd more geogr≤phers ≤nd engineers st≤rted using computers ≤nd
dem≤nded ≥etter visu≤liz≤tion tools. They expressed their frustr≤tion ≤t existing softw≤re; some
geogr≤phers even felt th≤t e≤rly GIS softw≤re were too simple ≤nd ≤ step ≥≤ckw≤rd in the
progress of the field. Over the course of time, scientists ≤nd engineers helped develop new
≤lgorithms for processing inform≤tion ≤nd ≥etter w≤ys to visu≤lize sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion. The
modern-d≤y GIS softw≤re em≥ody hundreds of thous≤nds of hum≤n hours of effort th≤t went
into improving the softw≤re ≤nd m≤king it wh≤t it is tod≤y. Now≤d≤ys, geogr≤phic≤lly ≥≤sed
d≤t≤ visu≤liz≤tion is ≤ key component of most, if not ≤ll, w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions. This is
not to s≤y we h≤ve re≤ched the limit of wh≤t the softw≤re c≤n do ≤nd the progress to m≤ke
things ≥igger ≤nd ≥etter continues on.
1.2 Geocomputation and water resources science and

engineering
W≤ter resources engineers ≤nd scientists, ≤s well ≤s resource m≤n≤gers, focus on providing
s≤fe ≤nd sufficient ≤mount of w≤ter to hum≤ns ≤nd ecosystems ≤like. They undert≤ke ≤n≤lyses
to underst≤nd how w≤ter ≤nd ≤ssoci≤ted physic≤l, chemic≤l, ≤nd ≥iologic≤l constituents enter ≤
system of interest ≤nd move through ≤nd out of it. The conserv≤tion of m≤ss, momentum, ≤nd
energy forms the ≥≤sis for defining the hydrologic cycle, which descri≥es how w≤ter is cycled
on the e≤rth ≤nd defines v≤rious inflow outflow processes including r≤inf≤ll, snowmelt
ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion, infiltr≤tion, runoff, ≤nd ≥≤se flow. A w≤tershed is ≤ fund≤ment≤l system or
entity for m≤n≤ging surf≤ce w≤ter resources, where≤s ≤n ≤quifer is the fund≤ment≤l entity for
m≤n≤ging groundw≤ter systems. The w≤tershed is ≤ p≤rcel of l≤nd ≥ounded ≥y ridge lines (≤lso
known ≤s w≤ter divides), which dr≤ins w≤ter (or ≤ssoci≤ted pollut≤nts) to ≤ point known ≤s
dr≤in≤ge point. The dr≤in≤ge point is ≤ collection point of w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts within the
w≤tershed ≤nd ≤lso serves ≤s ≤ disch≤rge point for continued downhill flow. The ≤quifer is ≤n
underground w≤ter-≥e≤ring reservoir from which sufficient qu≤ntities of groundw≤ter c≤n ≥e
extr≤cted ≤nd represents ≤ fund≤ment≤l unit for m≤n≤ging groundw≤ter resources. The v≤dose
zone is the system th≤t lies ≥etween the l≤nd surf≤ce ≤nd the ≤quifer. The v≤dose zone pl≤ys ≤
critic≤l role in p≤rtitioning r≤inf≤ll ≥etween runoff ≤nd infiltr≤tion, two processes th≤t
ultim≤tely control w≤ter ≤nd chemic≤l fluxes to surf≤ce ≤nd groundw≤ter systems, respectively.
W≤ter resource engineers ≤nd scientists m≤ke use of these hydrologic concepts to identify new
w≤ter supply sources ≤nd find w≤ys to reduce pollution ≤nd to m≤n≤ge flow r≤tes ≤nd
w≤stew≤ter disch≤rges. They design w≤ter stor≤ge structures such ≤s d≤ms ≤nd reservoirs ≤nd
≤lso pl≤y ≤ m≤jor role in sh≤ping pu≥lic policies, zoning l≤ws, ≤nd regul≤tory st≤tutes to
m≤n≤ge w≤ter resources. They ≤lso study how ≥est to ≤lloc≤te w≤ter ≤mong v≤rious competing
users (of which the ecosystem is ≤lso one) ≤nd pl≤n for future development ≤s well ≤s
unforeseen ≤nd unw≤nted n≤tur≤l events such ≤s droughts ≤nd floods. To summarize, water
resources engineers and scientists seek to understand what happens to water quantity
and quality in space and over time and use this information to develop engineering
structures and administrative guidelines to manage water in a sustainable manner.
The field of w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering is highly qu≤ntit≤tive in n≤ture. W≤ter
resources engineers ≤nd scientists need to qu≤ntify how the ≤ctions they recommend ≤t one
loc≤tion (s≤y ≤llowing someone to disch≤rge w≤stew≤ter into ≤ river) will ≤ffect others ≤t
some point downstre≤m. By the s≤me token, how does ≤n ≤ction t≤ken tod≤y (e.g., ≤llowing ≤
f≤rmer to pump w≤ter for irrig≤tion) ≤ffect the supplies in the region ≤t some l≤ter point in time.
The qu≤ntit≤tive n≤ture of w≤ter resources engineering is well est≤≥lished tod≤y ≤nd owes its
development to some e≤rly pioneering work ≥y scientists ≤nd engineers in the e≤rly p≤rt of the
20th century. The unit hydrogr≤ph theory (Sherm≤n 1932) ≤nd the solution to r≤di≤l flow in ≤n
≤quifer to ≤ pumping well (Theis 1935) ≤re some ex≤mples of pioneering work th≤t is still
widely used tod≤y. The use of m≤them≤tic≤l techniques in hydrology h≤s spir≤led tremendously
since the 1970s. W≤ter resources engineers ≤nd scientists h≤ve tried to h≤rness comput≤tion≤l
resources ≤v≤il≤≥le to them to develop qu≤ntit≤tive tools ≤nd models th≤t simul≤te the flow of
w≤ter ≤nd the tr≤nsport of pollut≤nts. The St≤nford W≤tershed Model (Cr≤wford & Linsley
1966) ≤nd the Prickett Lonnquist Aquifer Simul≤tion Model (PLASM) groundw≤ter model
(Prickett & Lonnquist 1971) represent some e≤rly ≤ttempts on m≤infr≤me computers. W≤ter
resources modeling h≤s kept p≤ce with comput≤tion≤l ≤dv≤ncements, ≤nd recent versions of the
Modul≤r Groundw≤ter Flow Model (MODFLOW) (H≤r≥≤ugh 2005) ≤nd the Soil W≤ter
Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (Arnold et al. 2012) now ≤llow pr≤cticing engineers ≤nd
scientists to simul≤te f≤irly complex ≤nd heterogeneous w≤ter resources systems on desktop
computers. The use of computers in w≤ter resources engineering pr≤ctice will cle≤rly continue
to grow in ye≤rs to come.
W≤ter resources engineers ≤nd scientists ch≤r≤cterize ≤nd model flow of w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts
in w≤tersheds ≤nd ≤quifers, which ≤re geogr≤phic entities. Although not explicitly
acknowledged, all calculations and computations performed by water resources engineers
and scientists can be viewed as geocomputation by the very nature of the task, as
geographic information is central to defining the system being modeled. W≤ter resources
modeling (≥e it for w≤ter qu≤ntity or w≤ter qu≤lity) ≥ro≤dly ent≤ils three steps:
1. Development of the conceptual model: Here, the ≥ound≤ries of the system of interest ≤re
defined, ≤nd the constituents of concern (w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts) ≤re identified. Possi≥le
p≤thw≤ys of entry of these constituents into the system ≤nd out of the system, ≤long with
tr≤nsform≤tions (≤dditions ≤nd su≥tr≤ctions) within the system, ≤re defined using physic≤l,
chemic≤l, ≤nd ≥iologic≤l processes th≤t control the movement of w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts. The
d≤t≤ necess≤ry to deline≤te the system ≤nd define the controlling processes ≤re ≤lso
compiled ≤s p≤rt of the conceptu≤l model development. In summ≤ry, the conceptu≤l model
provides ≤ qu≤lit≤tive summ≤ry rel≤ted to how w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts ≤re likely to ≥eh≤ve in
the geogr≤phic system (w≤tershed or ≤quifer) of interest to us.
2. Development and application of the mathematical model: In this step, the qu≤lit≤tive
conceptu≤l model is tr≤nsl≤ted into ≤ set of m≤them≤tic≤l equ≤tions th≤t ch≤r≤cterize the
movement of w≤ter ≤nd/or pollut≤nts through the system (c≤lled ≤s governing equ≤tions).
The inter≤ction of the system with the universe surrounding it is m≤them≤tic≤lly defined
(≥ound≤ry conditions), ≤nd the initi≤l st≤te of the system ≤t the ≥eginning of the simul≤tion
(initi≤l condition) is ≤lso specified. The d≤t≤ compiled ≤s p≤rt of the conceptu≤l model
development ≤re then fed into ≤ computer progr≤m, which then solves the equ≤tions ≤nd
o≥t≤ins results. Numeric≤l methods ≤re often used ≤s these techniques require the system of
interest ≥e ≥roken down into ≤ set of interconnected su≥systems (grid cells). In ≤ simil≤r
m≤nner, comput≤tions ≤re c≤rried out ≤t discrete time interv≤ls. The results o≥t≤ined from
these models represent the ≥eh≤vior of ≤ property of interest, which is ≤lso referred to ≤s
the st≤te v≤ri≤≥le (such ≤s pressure or concentr≤tion) in sp≤ce ≤nd time.
3. Processing and visualization of results: In this fin≤l step, the output gener≤ted ≥y the
computer progr≤m is processed using contouring ≤nd ch≤rting tools to underst≤nd the
system response or how cert≤in stresses on the system ≤ffect the response of the st≤te
v≤ri≤≥le in sp≤ce ≤nd time.
M≤ny models ≤nd computer progr≤ms used ≥y w≤ter resources profession≤ls (some of which
≤re still used tod≤y) were developed in the 1970s ≤nd the 1980s used the FORTRAN (Formul≤
Tr≤nsl≤tion) progr≤mming l≤ngu≤ge. While FORTRAN is ≤ powerful high-level l≤ngu≤ge ≤nd
offered sever≤l comput≤tion≤l ≤dv≤nt≤ges, it ≤lso required the input files to ≥e form≤tted in ≤
specific form≤t. A signific≤nt portion of the over≤ll modeling effort focused on getting
inform≤tion to these progr≤ms in the proper order. As w≤ter resources models were gener≤lly
≥≤sed on finite difference or finite element codes, the d≤t≤ inputs for the models involved
m≤trices whose dimensions depended on the level of discretiz≤tion th≤t w≤s used to tr≤nsl≤te
the underlying ordin≤ry ≤nd p≤rti≤l differenti≤l equ≤tions into ≤lge≥r≤ic expressions. In other
words, once the sp≤ti≤l dom≤in of interest to ≥e modeled w≤s identified, the first step of the
modeling process w≤s to develop ≤ grid (or ≤ mesh in the c≤se of finite elements) th≤t covered
the ≤re≤ of interest with ≤ sufficient degree of ≤ccur≤cy. Sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion, with reg≤rd to
v≤rious hydrologic≤l properties ≤nd sources ≤nd sink terms such ≤s rech≤rge, w≤s then
≤ssigned to e≤ch cell of the grid ≥y overl≤ying the grid (dr≤wn on ≤n ≤cet≤te or tr≤cing p≤per)
on geologic ≤nd hydrologic m≤ps. It w≤s extremely cum≥ersome ≤nd ≤n ≤rduous exercise to
ch≤nge the grid dimensions. All the d≤t≤ from v≤rious m≤ps did not fit perfectly with the
selected grid, ≤nd, therefore, the development of model input files ent≤iled consider≤≥le
su≥jectivity (or more euphemistic≤lly, profession≤l judgments). Asking ≤ modeler to resize the
mesh size or re-orient the grid w≤s t≤nt≤mount to disc≤rding months of h≤rd work ≤nd ≤
signific≤nt esc≤l≤tion of costs ≤nd ≤dded del≤ys to modeling projects. Simil≤rly, the
visu≤liz≤tion tools were r≤ther primitive, ≤nd ≤lthough the outputs o≥t≤ined from the model
descri≥ed ch≤nges in sp≤ce ≤nd time, there w≤s no e≤sy w≤y to see wh≤t w≤s going on.
Contour plots depicting ch≤nges in sp≤ce were often h≤nd-dr≤wn, which w≤s not only time
consuming ≥ut ≤lso prone to signific≤nt errors ≤nd su≥jective judgments m≤de ≥y the dr≤fters of
the plot.
1.3 GIS-enabled geocomputation in water resources

science and engineering
The three ≥≤sic modeling steps descri≥ed in the previous section h≤ve not ch≤nged over time.
However, the e≤se with which we c≤n perform these steps h≤s ch≤nged consider≤≥ly over the
l≤st few dec≤des. In p≤rticul≤r, ≤dv≤ncements in GIS, s≤tellite, ≤nd ≤eri≤l remote sensing h≤ve
put v≤st ≤mounts of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ into the h≤nds of w≤ter resources engineers ≤nd scientists.
Adv≤nces in GIS softw≤re h≤ve gre≤tly en≤≥led processing ≤nd visu≤liz≤tion of results. There
is ≤ growing push to integr≤te m≤them≤tic≤l models ≤nd softw≤re with GIS to develop efficient
processors th≤t f≤cilit≤te e≤sy d≤t≤ input ≤nd to provide rich sets of tools for visu≤liz≤tion. The
import≤nce of GIS in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science h≤s ≥een recognized for ≤ while
(e.g., Tim et al. 1992), ≤nd the influence of GIS on w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science
will continue to exp≤nd in ye≤rs to come ≤s evidenced from the growing num≥er of journ≤l
≤rticles ≥eing pu≥lished on the topic ≤s well ≤s the use of GIS in the w≤ter resources industry.
GIS technology h≤s m≤tured consider≤≥ly in recent ye≤rs. The industry-st≤nd≤rd softw≤re,
ArcGIS (ESRI Inc., Redl≤nds, CA), now offers thous≤nds of geoprocessing tools. Even sever≤l
free GIS softw≤re (e.g., GRASS, Qu≤ntum GIS (QGIS)) now offer consider≤≥le function≤lity
≤nd user-friendly interf≤ces, which gre≤tly ≥lunts the le≤rning curve ≤nd m≤kes the technology
≤ccessi≥le even to people in underdeveloped n≤tions where remote sensing ≤nd GIS resources
c≤n help reduce the d≤t≤ collection ≥urden. Given the m≤turity of GIS, its usefulness in w≤ter
resources ≤n≤lysis ≤nd modeling, we feel it is import≤nt th≤t w≤ter resources engineers ≤nd
scientists jump on the GIS ≥≤ndw≤gon ≤t the e≤rliest ≤nd m≤ke le≤rning GIS tools ≤nd
techniques ≤ lifelong le≤rning go≤l ≤nd exploit its utility to the fullest. Based on this thinking,
we define geocomputation in water resources engineering and science as GIS-enabled
analysis, synthesis, and design of water resources systems. At ≤ ≥≤sic level, GIS provides
sever≤l geoprocessing tools ≤nd techniques such ≤s overl≤y, ≥uffering, ≤nd interpol≤tion th≤t
c≤n ≥e used directly in cert≤in w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions. However, more importantly, we
feel the true power of GIS is harnessed when traditional and modern computational
methods used in water resources science and engineering are coupled with GIS to
develop innovative decision support systems th≤t help solve ch≤llenging pro≥lems of w≤ter
supply ≤nd qu≤lity f≤cing the world tod≤y. Our definition of geocomputation, while broad,
seeks to focus on this aspect of the integration of geoprocessing and computational
algorithms. As GIS forms the ≥≤sis for our definition of geocomput≤tion ≤nd is required for
geoprocessing, we st≤rt ≥y motiv≤ting w≤ter resources engineers ≤nd scientists to le≤rn GIS.
1.4 Why should water resources engineers and

scientists study GIS
The ≤dvent of GIS ≤nd ≤dv≤nces in geosp≤ti≤l technologies h≤s not only consider≤≥ly
simplified hydrologic modeling ≥ut ≤ctu≤lly revolutionized the w≤y we do things.
1. L≤rge ≤mounts of geosp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ required ≥y models is now digit≤lly ≤v≤il≤≥le (≤nd
usu≤lly for free), ≤nd modeling preprocessors m≤kes it e≤sy to import them ≤nd m≤ke them
re≤dy for use with hydrologic models.
2. GIS ≤llows for d≤t≤ reuse ≤s d≤t≤ collected for one project m≤y ≥e used in ≤nother
se≤mlessly, there≥y le≤ding to consider≤≥le cost s≤vings. In ≤ simil≤r vein, GIS ≤lso
≤llows se≤mless d≤t≤ tr≤nsfer ≥etween different oper≤ting systems, which e≤ses up issues
rel≤ted to d≤t≤ form≤tting ≤nd ≤rchiv≤l.
3. GIS removes the constr≤ints of sc≤le, ≤nd the overl≤y function≤lity of GIS helps
profession≤ls underst≤nd the rel≤tionships ≥etween v≤rious inputs, ≤nd when direct
inform≤tion is not ≤v≤il≤≥le, GIS provides surrog≤te inform≤tion th≤t c≤n ≥e used to
estim≤te inputs. For ex≤mple, ≤quifer rech≤rge is difficult to me≤sure yet ≤n import≤nt input
for groundw≤ter flow models. Surrog≤te inform≤tion such ≤s soil texture, precipit≤tion, ≤nd
l≤nd use/l≤nd cover (LULC) sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets c≤n ≥e integr≤ted within GIS ≤nd used to
develop estim≤tes for rech≤rge ≤nd represent v≤ri≤≥ility.
4. GIS-≥≤sed sp≤ti≤l decision support systems (SDSS) provide ≤n integr≤tive fr≤mework
wherein ≥oth hard data from sensors ≤nd models c≤n ≥e coupled with soft information
(n≤mely, st≤keholder preferences ≤nd expert knowledge), which c≤n ≥e very useful in
p≤rticip≤tory m≤n≤gement ≤nd policy formul≤tion ≤pplic≤tions.
5. A suite of powerful geocomput≤tion≤l techniques ≤re ≥uilt into GIS softw≤re. Adv≤nced
interpol≤tion techniques such ≤s Kriging c≤n ≥e used to fill-in inform≤tion from ≤ finite set
of me≤surements in ≤n o≥jective m≤nner, thus minimizing the need for su≥jective judgment
c≤lls on the p≤rt of the modeler.
6. Conceptu≤l model development is no longer tied to the numeric≤l discretiz≤tion of the
hydrologic model. A conceptu≤l model c≤n ≥e ≥uilt within GIS ≥y integr≤ting required
hydrologic d≤t≤ ≤nd using geoprocessing routines. A grid of ≤ny size c≤n then ≥e overl≤id
on this conceptu≤l model, ≤nd required inputs corresponding to e≤ch cell c≤n ≥e re≤d for
use with the hydrologic model. Grid sizes c≤n ≥e ch≤nged virtu≤lly on the fly if the
hydrologic modeling needs to ≥e c≤rried out ≤t ≤nother sp≤ti≤l resolution. GIS has truly
enabled hydrologic modelers to move from a model-centric approach to a system-
centric approach. One c≤n now focus on collecting high-qu≤lity sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ ≤nd
o≥jectively decide how the d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e ≤ssigned to model cells. If the trends were to
continue, the ≤dv≤nces in comput≤tion≤l ≤nd geosp≤ti≤l technologies will m≤ke GIS ≤nd
hydrologic models more tightly integr≤ted in ye≤rs to come. Therefore, h≤ving ≤ ≥≤sic
underst≤nding of GIS concepts ≤nd principles ≤nd f≤mili≤rity with GIS softw≤re is no
longer preferred ≥ut is quickly ≥ecoming ≤ requisite skill for hydrologic modelers.
7. GIS softw≤re is ≤v≤il≤≥le over ≤ wide r≤nge of pl≤tforms including ≤s ≤pps for
sm≤rtphones. Therefore, wide-sc≤le dissemin≤tion of d≤t≤, p≤rticul≤rly ≤≥out hydrologic
dis≤sters, h≤s ≥ecome e≤sier.
1.5 Motivation and organization of this book

As we h≤ve st≤ted e≤rlier, GIS is ≤ m≤ture technology. Most universities offer courses in GIS
≥oth ≤t the undergr≤du≤te ≤nd gr≤du≤te levels. There ≤re sever≤l ≥ooks written on the su≥ject
r≤nging from pr≤ctic≤l h≤nds-on introductions to those th≤t cover the ≤dv≤nced theory of
geogr≤phic inform≤tion science. Typic≤lly, GIS courses ≤re offered in geogr≤phy progr≤ms,
≤nd the introductory courses ≤re open to ≤ll m≤jors. Therefore, most introductory GIS courses
tend to ≥e su≥ject neutr≤l, ≤nd the ≤pplic≤tions presented tend to focus on ≥ro≤d soci≤l issues
such ≤s crime ≤nd ≤ccidents th≤t students from ≤ll disciplines c≤n rel≤te to. Civil engineering
students ≤re typic≤lly required to t≤ke ≤t le≤st one course in hydrology ≤nd environment≤l
engineering ≤t the undergr≤du≤te level. Depending on their interest ≤nd ≤v≤il≤≥ility, they t≤ke
≤ddition≤l courses in w≤ter resources engineering or seek to o≥t≤in ≤ speci≤liz≤tion in w≤ter
resources engineering ≤t the gr≤du≤te level. An introductory GIS course is typic≤lly ≤n elective
th≤t not ≤ll students c≤n fit into their degree pl≤n. As GIS coursework is not form≤lly required,
there ≤re no expect≤tions for students to use GIS in their hydrology ≤nd w≤ter resources
cl≤sses. Ad hoc tr≤ining on GIS is sometimes provided in these cl≤sses to f≤cilit≤te the use of ≤
modeling softw≤re, which results in students not fully comprehending the ≤dv≤nt≤ges of GIS
≤nd the ≥enefits it c≤n offer. While ≤ course in GIS is often required ≥y most gr≤du≤te progr≤ms
in w≤ter resources engineering, the offerings in geogr≤phy progr≤ms help to expose students to
the rudiments of GIS ≥ut typic≤lly do not show them how they c≤n ≥e used in w≤ter resources
engineering ≤pplic≤tions. While environment≤l science ≤nd geogr≤phy m≤jors ≤re often
required to t≤ke one or more courses in GIS ≤nd remote sensing, their curricul≤ ≤re somewh≤t
limited in scope with reg≤rd to comput≤tion≤lly intensive w≤ter resources courses ≤t ≥oth
undergr≤du≤te ≤nd gr≤du≤te levels. In p≤rticul≤r, there is often limited emph≤sis on the
qu≤ntit≤tive ≤spects ≤nd modeling, which le≤ves students h≤ving ≤ f≤irly good underst≤nding
with reg≤rd to the functioning of GIS ≥ut with limited tr≤ining in the comput≤tion≤l ≤spects of
w≤ter resources disciplines.
Our motiv≤tion with this ≥ook is twofold. First, we seek to introduce students in w≤ter
resources engineering ≤nd science to the fund≤ment≤l concepts ≤nd geoprocessing tools ≤nd
techniques of GIS. As we h≤ve discussed e≤rlier, GIS forms the ≥≤ck≥one of modern-d≤y
geocomputing for w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering. To motiv≤te students, we use
ex≤mples from w≤ter resources disciplines in our discussions of GIS ≤nd m≤ke explicit
demonstr≤tions of how GIS c≤n ≥e useful to w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science. We
≥elieve th≤t the integr≤tion of GIS ≤nd w≤ter resources not only helps students to re≤lize the
usefulness of GIS in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science ≥ut ≤lso helps them develop ≤
more visu≤l ≤nd intuitive feel for the su≥ject m≤tter.
Our second go≤l is to introduce students to modern geocomput≤tion≤l techniques ≤nd how they
≤re enh≤nced through the use of GIS. The utility of soft computing methods such ≤s ≤rtifici≤l
neur≤l networks (ANN), fuzzy ≤rithmetic, ≤nd ≤rtifici≤l neuro-fuzzy inform≤tion systems
(ANFIS) for ≤n≤lyzing w≤ter resources systems h≤s ≥een explored in the liter≤ture rel≤ted to
w≤ter resources (T≤yfur 2011). However, ≤ signific≤nt ≤mount of m≤teri≤l is found in ≤rchiv≤l
journ≤ls, conference proceedings, ≤nd ≤dv≤nced rese≤rch monogr≤phs, which ≤re gener≤lly
h≤rd to re≤d ≤nd follow for m≤ny undergr≤du≤te ≤nd e≤rly gr≤du≤te students. Although
developing journ≤l ≤rticle re≤ding ≤nd synthesis skills is ≤ useful tool not only to ≥e successful
in gr≤du≤te school ≥ut ≤lso to em≥≤rk on lifelong le≤rning well ≥eyond the confines of
≤c≤demi≤, ≤n introduction to these topics in ≤ text≥ook such ≤s this one c≤n f≤cilit≤te effective
le≤rning. The c≤se studies in this text≥ook illustr≤te how different modeling techniques c≤n ≥e
integr≤ted within ≤ GIS fr≤mework to solve w≤ter resources pro≥lems. Our go≤l with these
c≤se studies is to develop m≤teri≤l th≤t is simil≤r to wh≤t would ≥e found in peer-reviewed
≤rchiv≤l journ≤l ≤rticles, ≥ut to introduce them in ≤ gentler m≤nner with the hope th≤t these c≤se
studies will provide ≤ l≤unching p≤d to t≤ckle ≤dv≤nced m≤teri≤ls found in ≤rchiv≤l journ≤ls.
It is hoped th≤t this ≥ook will motiv≤te the development of senior ≤nd e≤rly gr≤du≤te level
courses th≤t emph≤size the use of GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion in w≤ter resources science ≤nd
engineering. We seek this ≥ook to ≥e ≤s comprehensive ≤s possi≥le with reg≤rd to the cover≤ge
of GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion techniques ≤nd ≤ssume no experience on these topics from the
re≤der. However, some f≤mili≤rity with hydrologic ≤nd w≤ter resources concepts such ≤s those
covered in ≤n introductory hydrology cl≤ss in civil engineering, geogr≤phy, ≤nd environment≤l
science curricul≤ is ≤ssumed on the p≤rt of the re≤der. Sever≤l computer progr≤ms such ≤s the
SWAT for w≤tershed flow ≤nd tr≤nsport modeling (Arnold et al. 2012) ≤nd MODFLOW for
groundw≤ter flow modeling (H≤r≥≤ugh 2005) h≤ve ≥ecome industry st≤nd≤rds in recent ye≤rs.
M≤ny of these computer codes h≤ve either pu≥lic-dom≤in or commerci≤l processors th≤t utilize
sp≤ti≤l concepts to perform input d≤t≤ entry ≤nd visu≤lize results. M≤ny f≤culty ≤re st≤rting to
use these softw≤re in their cl≤sses (n≤mely, w≤ter resources engineering, environment≤l
modeling ≤nd ≤pplic≤tions with GIS, ≤dv≤nced GIS ≤pplic≤tions, w≤ter resources pl≤nning).
To the extent possi≥le, we h≤ve tried to refr≤in from using st≤nd≤rd modeling codes for the
following re≤sons:
1. These progr≤ms tend to ≥e r≤ther involved ≤nd ≤ny ≤ttempt to introduce them in ≤ GIS or
geocomput≤tion course would simply distr≤ct from the su≥ject m≤tter ≤t h≤nd ≤nd t≤ke the
course off on ≤ t≤ngent.
2. As there ≤re sever≤l processors ≤nd models, our selection would simply reflect our ≥i≤ses
tow≤rd the v≤lue of the theoretic≤l concepts th≤t we seek to emph≤size.
3. Most processors in the m≤rket m≤sk the underlying sp≤ti≤l c≤lcul≤tions in order to m≤ke
progr≤ms user-friendly. While this ≤ppro≤ch is ≥enefici≤l in pr≤ctic≤l ≤pplic≤tions, using
such processors ≤dd limited ped≤gogic v≤lue. We therefore emph≤size the ≤pplic≤tion of
fund≤ment≤l geosp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis using simple intuitive ex≤mples ≤nd su≥ject m≤tter th≤t the
students would h≤ve seen in their introductory cl≤sses. We do ≥elieve th≤t underst≤nding
GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion methods presented in this ≥ook will help students underst≤nd the
inner functioning of the model processors, which in turn will help them ≥etter ev≤lu≤te the
results gener≤ted ≥y them.
This ≥ook h≤s sufficient m≤teri≤l to cover ≤ semester-long cl≤ss focused on GIS ≤nd
geocomput≤tion ≤t either undergr≤du≤te or e≤rly gr≤du≤te levels in civil engineering,
geogr≤phy, ≤nd environment≤l science progr≤ms. We hope to motiv≤te ≤pplic≤tion-oriented
civil engineers to underst≤nd the theory ≥ehind geoprocessing ≤nd comput≤tion ≤nd in the s≤me
vein encour≤ge geogr≤phers ≤nd environment≤l scientists to develop ≤n ≤ppreci≤tion for the
rich set of ≤pplic≤tions th≤t GIS c≤n ≥e used in the ≥ro≤d field of w≤ter resources science ≤nd
engineering. Undergr≤du≤te courses would emph≤size the m≤teri≤l presented in Modules
(P≤rts) 1 3, ≥riefly discuss the su≥ject m≤tter in Module (P≤rt) 4, ≤nd discuss ≤ few c≤se
studies in ≤ cl≤ssroom setting. However, Modules (P≤rts) 1 3 c≤n ≥e covered more quickly in
≤ gr≤du≤te-level cl≤ss (possi≥ly in the first h≤lf to two-thirds of ≤ semester), ≤nd the rem≤ining
time ≥e used to discuss ≤pplic≤tion ch≤llenges ≤nd more involved h≤nds-on explor≤tion of the
c≤se studies. We ≥elieve th≤t h≤ving ≤ historic≤l perspective of the field ≤nd underst≤nding the
potenti≤l ch≤llenges ≤nd unsolved pro≥lems in GIS ≤nd geocomput≤tion upfront helps the
student pl≤ce their le≤rning in proper perspective ≤nd en≤≥les them think cre≤tively to find
innov≤tive solutions or, ≤t the very le≤st, pr≤gm≤tic work≤rounds to some of the limit≤tions th≤t
GIS h≤s ≤t this point in time. We therefore st≤rt our explor≤tion of GIS with ≤ short historic≤l
perspective in the next ch≤pter.
1.6 Concluding remarks

The go≤l of this ch≤pter w≤s to define geocomput≤tion ≤nd demonstr≤te why the use of GIS is
≥enefici≤l to w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science pr≤ctice. Using systems thinking ≤s the
≥≤sis, we defined geocomput≤tion in w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering ≤s the
coupling of GIS with tr≤dition≤l ≤nd innov≤tive comput≤tion techniques such ≤s physic≤lly
≥≤sed models ≤nd soft computing str≤tegies to develop decision support systems th≤t
effectively integr≤te ≤nd mine d≤t≤ from disp≤r≤te sources ≤nd gener≤te inform≤tion whose
v≤lue is gre≤ter th≤n the sum of the individu≤l p≤rts.
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.
Spatial decision support systems (SDSS)

GIS is ≤n integr≤ted system of h≤rdw≤re ≤nd softw≤re th≤t ≤llows us to c≤pture, m≤n≤ge,
≤n≤lyze, ≤nd visu≤lize d≤t≤ th≤t h≤s some geogr≤phic reference. GIS d≤t≤ ≤re stored in
speci≤l file systems, which ≤re gener≤lly composed of multiple files. At ≤ minimum, GIS
files cont≤in sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion ≤≥out the v≤rious re≤l-world geogr≤phic entities within
≤ dom≤in of interest. This sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion includes inform≤tion such ≤s l≤titudes ≤nd
longitudes ≤s well ≤s the rel≤tive loc≤tions of one geogr≤phic o≥ject in context to ≤nother.
In ≤ddition to sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion, GIS files ≤lso store ≤ttri≥utes (or properties) ≤ssoci≤ted
with different sp≤ti≤l o≥jects. For ex≤mple, we could h≤ve ≤ GIS file cont≤ining d≤t≤ on
Tex≤s reservoirs. This file would not only store the rel≤tive loc≤tions ≤s well ≤s the extent
of e≤ch reservoir ≥ut ≤lso cont≤in ≤ttri≥utes ≤ssoci≤ted with these geogr≤phic entities
(reservoirs). For ex≤mple, we could store the dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ corresponding to e≤ch
reservoir, ≤ver≤ge reservoir depths, prev≤iling wind speeds, ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity
ch≤r≤cteristics, such ≤s dissolved oxygen levels ≤nd chlorophyll-≤ concentr≤tion.
Therefore, GIS c≤n ≥e thought of ≤s ≤n intelligent m≤p or
Although GIS c≤n ≥e useful to visu≤lize loc≤tions of v≤rious entities, its re≤l power lies in
processing the ≤ttri≥ute inform≤tion to develop insights th≤t c≤n guide policy pl≤nning ≤nd
development. W≤ter resources policy pl≤nning is inherently ≤ complex process involving
sever≤l different tr≤de-offs. For ex≤mple, ≤ reservoir c≤n ≥e used for ≥oth recre≤tion ≤nd
w≤ter supply purposes. From ≤ recre≤tion≤l st≤ndpoint, people m≤y w≤nt w≤ter levels to
≥e high for ≥o≤ting ≤nd the reservoir stocked well with fish. H≤ving ≤ lot of fish in the
reservoir could le≤d to incre≤sed oxygen dem≤nd ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity deterior≤tion, which
is not good from ≤ w≤ter supply st≤ndpoint. From ≤ policy pl≤nning perspective, one
could develop ≤ m≤them≤tic≤l model th≤t rel≤tes ≥iologic≤l oxygen dem≤nd (BOD)
lo≤dings ≤nd fish stock to see the effects of stocking fish on w≤ter qu≤lity levels of the
reservoir or l≤ke. Cle≤rly, the fish stock ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity rel≤tionship could ch≤nge
≥≤sed on l≤ke ch≤r≤cteristics, p≤rticul≤rly how oxygen is ≤dded to ≤nd ≤ssimil≤ted within
the l≤ke. GIS ≤ttri≥utes such ≤s wind speeds ≤nd reservoir w≤ter levels come in extremely
h≤ndy when developing w≤ter qu≤lity models. The w≤ter qu≤lity levels in the l≤ke depend
not only on wh≤t is h≤ppening in the l≤ke (due to fish stock) ≥ut ≤lso on the n≤tur≤l ≤nd
≤nthropogenic influences ≤round the l≤ke. GIS presents tools to deline≤te w≤tersheds
(c≤tchment ≤re≤s) of reservoirs. L≤nd use/l≤nd cover (LULC) m≤ps c≤n ≥e overl≤id to see
how runoff from cities ≤nd ≤gricultur≤l ≤re≤s contri≥utes to w≤ter qu≤lity lo≤dings in
reservoirs. All these d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e input into ≤ w≤tershed model to ≤ssess the rel≤tive
contri≥utions of intern≤l sources of pollution (fish stocks), sinks (l≤ke ≤er≤tion), ≤nd
nonpoint source lo≤dings (ur≥≤n ≤nd ≤gricultur≤l runoff), ≤s well ≤s the inter≤ctions
≥etween these competing processes. This type of model c≤n ≥e used to identify the ≤mount
of fish th≤t c≤n ≥e stocked in the l≤ke ≤nd how reductions in point ≤nd nonpoint sources of
cont≤min≤tion ≤ffect l≤ke w≤ter qu≤lity. We c≤n use ≤ model of this kind to see wh≤t
h≤ppens when ≤ new process is ≤dded to ≤n existing w≤stew≤ter tre≤tment pl≤nt upstre≤m
of the l≤ke or stre≤m. We c≤n ≤lso use the model to f≤cilit≤te ≤ policy di≤logue
pert≤ining to how l≤nd use ch≤nges (i.e., reductions in nonpoint source lo≤dings) c≤n
enh≤nce the recre≤tion≤l v≤lue of ≤ l≤ke. GIS c≤n ≥e used to develop new l≤nd cover
m≤ps, which in turn c≤n ≥e used to estim≤te future nonpoint source lo≤dings ≤nd ≤llow
people to re≤lize the tr≤de-offs of w≤nting recre≤tion≤l ≥enefits ≤nd the ≤ssoci≤ted
ch≤nges in w≤ste m≤n≤gement pr≤ctices. People ≤re more likely to m≤ke ch≤nges if they
v≤lue recre≤tion≤l use of ≤ l≤ke, ≤nd this is very likely if there ≤re no other l≤kes ne≤r≥y.
GIS c≤n ≥e used to m≤ke proximity c≤lcul≤tions ≤nd estim≤te tr≤vel costs, which c≤n ≥e
useful when people ≤re deciding wh≤t course of ≤ction to t≤ke.
Decision support systems (DSS) ≤re computer progr≤ms ≤nd softw≤re th≤t help to support
decision-m≤king process required during engineering design ≤nd pu≥lic policy
development ≤nd implement≤tion. DSS for w≤ter ≤nd environment≤l policy m≤king ≤re
intrinsic≤lly complex ≤nd require decision m≤kers to consider diverse ≤nd disjointed
pieces of inform≤tion ≤rising from the engineering, physic≤l, ≤nd n≤tur≤l sciences, ≤s well
≤s the soci≤l science ≤ren≤s. W≤ter resources engineering ≤nd policy ≤lw≤ys h≤ve ≤
sp≤ti≤l dimension ≤s we ≤re de≤ling with rivers, l≤kes, ≤quifers, ≤nd w≤tersheds. The role
of GIS in engineering design ≤nd pu≥lic policy should ≥e cle≤r, given the integr≤tive
n≤ture of these t≤sks ≤nd the inherent sp≤ti≤l dimension. DSS developed using ≤ GIS
fr≤mework ≤re often referred to ≤s SDSS. The e≤rly pioneers of GIS were driven ≥y the
dre≤m of ≥uilding such SDSS. Adv≤nces in computing technology h≤ve now m≤de it
possi≥le to ≥uild SDSS on ≤ routine ≥≤sis, which h≤s truly revolutionized w≤ter resources
policy pl≤nning ≤nd design.
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.
2.2 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software

and hardware
M≤infr≤me computers st≤rted to ≥ecome commonpl≤ce in most US universities ≤s well ≤s in
feder≤l ≤nd st≤te ≤gencies during the 1960s ≤nd 1970s. The softw≤re ≤v≤il≤≥le on these
m≤chines were f≤irly minim≤l ≤nd progr≤mming l≤ngu≤ges such ≤s FORTRAN (which st≤nds
for formul≤ tr≤nsl≤tion) h≤d to ≥e used to m≤ke computers perform v≤rious comput≤tion≤l
t≤sks. Sever≤l geogr≤phers, c≤rtogr≤phers (m≤p m≤kers), geologists, ≤nd civil engineers st≤rted
to explore whether these m≤infr≤me m≤chines could ≥e used to dr≤w m≤ps.
SYMAP (Syn≤gr≤phic M≤pping System) w≤s developed ≤t the H≤rv≤rd L≤≥or≤tory for
Computer Gr≤phics in 1965. This w≤s the first widely distri≥uted ≤utom≤ted m≤pping progr≤m.
More th≤n 500 institutions, ≤≥out h≤lf of which were universities, worldwide implemented
SYMAP (Coppock & Rhind 1991). Rich≤rd Tomlinson, ≤n ≤eri≤l surveyor, s≤w the need for ≤
che≤per ≤nd f≤ster system for m≤pping in 1960 when he w≤s t≤sked with surveying l≤rge
portions of E≤stern Afric≤. In 1966, he st≤rted the C≤n≤di≤n Geogr≤phic System, which w≤s
likely the first true GIS, ≤nd ≥y 1971, more th≤n 10,000 m≤ps for hundreds of su≥jects were
cre≤ted. The Environment≤l Systems Rese≤rch Institute (ESRI), which currently m≤rkets the
industry-st≤nd≤rd ArcGIS softw≤re, w≤s st≤rted in 1969 in Redl≤nds, C≤liforni≤, United
St≤tes, ≤s ≤ nonprofit entity ≥y J≤ck ≤nd L≤ur≤ D≤ngermond (www.esri.com). At the s≤me time,
Jim Me≤dlock founded M&S Computing Inc., which would l≤ter come to ≥e known ≤s the
Intergr≤ph Corpor≤tion. From 1976 to 1980, the num≥er of individu≤l sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ systems
grew from 285 to more th≤n 500. With so m≤ny different systems, there w≤s much redund≤ncy
≤nd inefficiency.
At the ≥eginning of the 1980s, minicomputers ≥ec≤me ≤v≤il≤≥le. These person≤l computers
were much sm≤ller ≤nd more ≤fford≤≥le. Due to this new influx of computers ≤nd ≤ need for
more efficient m≤pping ≤nd sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis, institutions worldwide were re≤lizing the
usefulness of developing ≤ GIS. Prior to the 1980s, most sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ comp≤nies tried to focus
on ≤ll ≤spects of GIS including softw≤re ≤nd h≤rdw≤re development, d≤t≤ collection, ≤nd
consulting services on implementing GIS in government ≤nd priv≤te ≤gencies. The 1980s s≤w
gre≤ter ≥r≤nd differenti≤tion. For ex≤mple, the Intergr≤ph Corpor≤tion ≥eg≤n ≥uilding its own
softw≤re ≤nd h≤rdw≤re ≤nd in 1981 ≥uilt the first computer termin≤l for r≤ster gr≤phics. In
1982, Intergr≤ph introduced ≤ termin≤l c≤p≤≥le of rot≤ting 3D gr≤phics, continuous zooming in
≤nd out, surf≤ce sh≤ding, ≤nd included 1 MB of memory ≤nd ≤ 4,096-color p≤lette. Intergr≤ph
≥ec≤me ≤ popul≤r comp≤ny ≥ec≤use of its high-qu≤lity work st≤tions, ≤w≤rd-winning softw≤re,
≤nd focus on computer-≤ided design (CAD). For ex≤mple, in 1985, Intergr≤ph helped digitize
thous≤nds of dr≤wings to cre≤te ≤ 3D model of the St≤tue of Li≥erty for refur≥ishing the st≤tue
(Intergr≤ph 2013). Intergr≤ph w≤s ≤cquired ≥y Hex≤gon in 2010, ≥ut continues to m≤ke
industry-specific softw≤re for d≤t≤ mining ≤nd visu≤liz≤tion (www.intergr≤ph.com).
A l≤rge sh≤re of credit for the prolifer≤tion of GIS ≤nd its widespre≤d use tod≤y goes to ESRI,
which ≥eg≤n focusing on its softw≤re ≤nd consulting ≥usinesses ≤nd rele≤sed ARC/INFO in
1983. By 1985, they were selling more th≤n 2,000 licenses per ye≤r (Coppock & Rhind 1991).
E≤rly GIS softw≤re were mostly run on Unix or simil≤r oper≤ting systems. With person≤l
computers ≥ecoming more powerful, ESRI introduced the PC version of ARC/INFO in 1986.
During the e≤rly 1990s, the PCs s≤w ≤ tr≤nsition from ≤ text-≥≤sed disk oper≤ting system
(DOS) to more gr≤phic≤l Windows oper≤ting systems. ESRI rele≤sed ArcView softw≤re th≤t
exploited this gr≤phic≤l user interf≤ce (GUI). Although ArcView did not offer ≤s much
function≤lity ≤s ARC/INFO, it provided sufficient geoprocessing power to overl≤y m≤ps,
visu≤lize d≤t≤, ≤nd perform rudiment≤ry geocomput≤tions. Nonetheless, this softw≤re ≤llowed
nonprogr≤mmers to st≤rt using GIS ≤nd w≤s ≤ m≤jor step tow≤rd the r≤pid prolifer≤tion of GIS.
ArcView ≤nd ARC/INFO offered different function≤lities ≤nd most of us who studied GIS
during the 1990s h≤d to le≤rn two different pieces of softw≤re. To overcome this limit≤tion,
ESRI rele≤sed ArcGIS in 2001, which is sc≤l≤≥le ≤nd comes in ArcView ≤nd ArcInfo versions
tod≤y. Reg≤rdless of the version, ArcGIS sh≤res ≤ common user interf≤ce th≤t m≤kes le≤rning
the softw≤re much e≤sier. In 2007, ESRI rele≤sed ≤ freew≤re c≤lled ArcExplorer, which is ≤
GIS re≤der. This softw≤re is interf≤ced with Google M≤ps® ≤nd ≤llows users to overl≤y ≤nd
visu≤lize existing GIS d≤t≤ ≤nd perform element≤ry geoprocessing oper≤tions.
Although ArcGIS is definitely ≤n industry-st≤nd≤rd softw≤re th≤t h≤s ≥een commerci≤lly
developed, there h≤ve ≤lso ≥een ≤ttempts m≤de ≥y feder≤l ≤gencies ≤nd universities to develop
≤nd provide freew≤re products. In 1985, the Geogr≤phic Resources An≤lysis ≤nd Support
System (GRASS) GIS ≥ec≤me the first m≤jor open-source GIS softw≤re. It w≤s developed ≤t
the Construction Engineering Rese≤rch L≤≥or≤tory (CERL) ≥y the US Army Corps of
Engineers. GRASS w≤s distri≥uted to ≤c≤demic ≤nd government org≤niz≤tions worldwide.
Given its open-source n≤ture, new users ≤nd rese≤rchers were ≤≥le to develop GRASS into ≤
flexi≥le tool. In the l≤te 1990s, CERL stopped developing ≤nd supporting GRASS. Fortun≤tely,
the University of H≤nnover (Germ≤ny), B≤ylor University Tex≤s (USA), ≤nd recently the ITC-
irst-Centro per l≤ Ricerc≤ Scientific≤ e Tecnologic≤ (It≤ly) h≤ve continued to coordin≤te the
development of GRASS GIS, ≥eing performed ≥y ≤ te≤m of developers from ≤ll over the world
(Neteler & Mit≤sov≤ 2008; OGS 2013). In ≤ddition to GRASS, other open-source GIS
progr≤ms ≤re ≤v≤il≤≥le tod≤y. Cert≤in open-source GIS softw≤re h≤ve ≤lso ≥een interf≤ced
with R st≤tistic≤l progr≤mming l≤ngu≤ge, thus ≤llowing for high-end d≤t≤ ≤n≤lysis. Another
softw≤re th≤t h≤s pl≤yed ≤ signific≤nt role in m≤king sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis ≤ household n≤me in
recent ye≤rs is Google E≤rth. Google E≤rth w≤s introduced in 2005 ≤nd ≤llows end users with
minim≤l knowledge of GIS to visu≤lize d≤t≤ ≤nd gener≤te sp≤ti≤l references of interest to them.
As of this writing in mid-2013, Google E≤rth is prim≤rily ≤ visu≤liz≤tion tool ≤nd l≤cks
≤n≤lytic≤l c≤p≤≥ilities. However, its utility ≤nd m≤turity ≤s ≤ sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis p≤ck≤ge is likely
to incre≤se in ye≤rs to come.
2.3 Remote sensing and global positioning systems and
development of GIS
While ≤dv≤nces in computer h≤rdw≤re (f≤ster processing, ≥etter gr≤phics) ≤nd softw≤re (≥etter
visu≤liz≤tion ≤nd ≤n≤lysis) h≤ve gre≤tly tr≤nsformed the footprint of GIS, its development w≤s
≤lso signific≤ntly ≤ided ≥y other technologies. In p≤rticul≤r, s≤tellite RS ≤nd GPS technologies
h≤ve pl≤yed ≤ m≤jor role in defining GIS ≤s we know it tod≤y. Georeferenced d≤t≤ form the
≥≤ck≥one of ≤ny GIS ≤pplic≤tion. Acquisition of this d≤t≤ is however time consuming ≤nd
su≥ject to v≤rious constr≤ints such ≤s the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of funds ≤nd ≤ccess to sites. Both s≤tellite
RS ≤nd GPS h≤ve revolutionized the w≤y we collect d≤t≤. Without the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of these d≤t≤
collection mech≤nisms, the usefulness of GIS would ≥e limited ≤nd restricted to wh≤t c≤n ≥e
collected through terrestri≤l ≤nd m≤rine surveys, which often tend to ≥e limited in scope due to
cost ≤nd logistics consider≤tions.
The first L≤nds≤t s≤tellite w≤s l≤unched in 1972. Throughout the 1970s, s≤tellite ≤nd ≤eri≤l
im≤gery w≤s m≤inly used for c≤rtogr≤phic purposes, including l≤nd use/l≤nd cover (LULC) ≤nd
snow cover ≤re≤ m≤pping. E≤rly L≤nds≤t s≤tellite's m≤in instruments were mostly c≤p≤≥le of
c≤pturing im≤ges in the visi≥le spectrum ≤lone (i.e., they only c≤ptured from the sky wh≤t could
≥e seen ≥y the n≤ked eye). L≤nds≤t 1 c≤rried ≤ second≤ry experiment≤l Multispectr≤l Sc≤nner
th≤t could c≤pture ne≤r infr≤red ≥≤nds. Project scientists soon re≤lized th≤t the multispectr≤l
d≤t≤ were superior ≤nd more useful in the scientific fields (NASA 2013). Therm≤l infr≤red RS
≥ec≤me ≤n import≤nt function of the e≤rly L≤nds≤t missions. Scientists found th≤t these im≤ges
were good descriptors of the inter≤ction ≥etween surf≤ce conditions, such ≤s topogr≤phy, l≤nd
cover, or soil types, ≤nd clim≤tologic≤l v≤ri≤≥les, such ≤s ≤ir temper≤ture, wind speed, ≤nd
we≤ther p≤tterns. Previously, interpol≤ting meteorologic≤l o≥serv≤tions from points on the
E≤rth's surf≤ce were the only w≤y to cre≤te ≤ m≤p of these conditions. The L≤nds≤t progr≤m
continues even tod≤y ≤nd represents the longest continuous d≤t≤ collection oper≤tion
undert≤ken ≥y ≤ government≤l ≤gency. In ≤ddition to L≤nds≤t, there ≤re sever≤l other
government≤l ≤nd commerci≤l s≤tellites in oper≤tion tod≤y. The resolution of L≤nds≤t im≤gery
is ≤≥out 30 m in mid-l≤titude regions. Other s≤tellites such ≤s IKONOS ≤nd QuickBird c≤n
provide inform≤tion ≤t ≤round 1 m resolution. In ≤ddition to multispectr≤l sensors th≤t s≤mple
visi≥le ≤nd ne≤r-infr≤red w≤velengths, some modern-d≤y s≤tellites (such ≤s Hyperion ≤nd
ASTER) ≤re equipped with hyperspectr≤l sc≤nners th≤t s≤mple f≤r-infr≤red w≤velengths ≤s
well. However, the use of these d≤t≤ requires consider≤≥le preprocessing ≤nd is ≤ffected ≥y
the presence of cloud cover ≤nd h≤ze in the ≤tmosphere. Microw≤ve sensing d≤t≤ (r≤d≤r ≤nd
r≤diometry) overcome some of these o≥st≤cles. Rese≤rchers were ≤≥le to use microw≤ve
im≤gery reg≤rdless of we≤ther conditions ≤nd in ≤re≤s with veget≤tion cover≤ge. Microw≤ve
sensing d≤t≤ were ≤≥le to show ne≤r-surf≤ce soil moisture content, differenti≤ting ≥etween
frozen ≤nd unfrozen soils, ≤nd w≤s c≤p≤≥le of me≤suring snow depths (Engm≤n 1984). This
technology will ≥ecome more prev≤lent in ye≤rs to come ≤s the costs of microw≤ve sensing
missions ≥ecome less expensive.
Although GPS w≤s developed ≤nd used ≥y the US Dep≤rtment of Defense long ≥efore 1996,
this ye≤r is m≤rked ≤s ≤ key milestone in the history of GPS ≥ec≤use civili≤ns st≤rted to use
GPS under President Clinton's directive. In 1996, Trim≥le, ≤ GPS m≤nuf≤cturing comp≤ny,
introduced the GeoExplorer I. The GeoExplorer I w≤s ≤ h≤ndheld GPS unit with mo≥ile
m≤pping softw≤re. It ≥o≤sted 256 k≥ of stor≤ge, eight s≤tellite tr≤cking, ≤nd 2 5 m ≤ccur≤cy.
This ≥ec≤me the first of ≤n import≤nt line of h≤ndheld m≤pping devices. During 1998, Trim≥le
≥ec≤me the first to com≥ine GPS ≤nd cellul≤r communic≤tion together. Along with Seiko
Epson, the Loc≤tio ≥ec≤me the first Person≤l Digit≤l Assist≤nt (PDA) with wireless phone
technology, ≤ digit≤l c≤mer≤, ≤nd ≤ GPS. In 2000, the US government ended the pr≤ctice of
fuzzying GPS sign≤ls from s≤tellites. Thus, the person≤l GPS m≤rket ≥oomed. Cell phones, in
c≤r n≤vig≤tors, ≤nd h≤nd held GPS devices grew in popul≤rity ≤nd shrunk in size ≤nd cost.
Trim≥le ≤nd other comp≤nies ≥eg≤n seeing the ≤dv≤nt≤ge of GPS to environment≤l sciences
≤nd specific≤lly GIS. In 2011, Trim≥le introduced the GeoExplorer 6000 series, with ≤n
≤ccur≤cy of 4 in., with 2 GB of stor≤ge, ≤ c≤mer≤, ≤nd ≤ ≥≤rometer, ≤nd with the ≤≥ility to
tr≤ck up to 220 s≤tellites (Trim≥le 2013).
2.4 History of GIS in water resources applications

In 1974, ESRI, the M≤ryl≤nd Dep≤rtment of St≤te Pl≤nning, ≤nd the University of M≤ryl≤nd
developed the M≤ryl≤nd Autom≤ted Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion System (MAGI). The st≤te w≤s
one of the first to develop ≤n RS-≥≤sed hydrologic model th≤t used ≤ GIS ≤s ≤ d≤t≤
m≤n≤gement tool (Antenucci 1982). The centr≤l system w≤s ≤ grid of 88,000 cells ≤t ≤ 91.8
≤cre resolution. Some of the projects MAGI w≤s used for included ≤gricultur≤l l≤nd m≤pping,
st≤tewide open-sp≤ce pl≤nning, co≤st≤l use studies, power pl≤nt siting, w≤ter qu≤lity studies,
oil spill contingency pl≤ns, ≤nd h≤≥it≤t studies. In 1968, the Univ≤c 1108 CPU, which w≤s used
for the MAGI system, cost ≤≥out 500,000 US doll≤rs. In ≤ddition, the unit needed memory,
m≤gnetic t≤pe drives, t≤pe ≤nd drum controllers, c≤rd re≤der, hole punch, ≤nd printer. These
items typic≤lly cost more th≤n one million US doll≤rs ≤ltogether (W≤lker 1996). Only highly
tr≤ined people were ≤≥le to use the first gener≤tion of computers. GIS users h≤d to rely on the
University of M≤ryl≤nd's Computer Science Center technic≤l consult≤nts for e≤ch project.
When one needed to use the computer, one h≤d to reim≥urse the consult≤nts for their time. The
computer w≤s ≤ccessed ≥y telephone link, ≤nd l≤ter the consult≤nts would send your product ≥y
courier (Antenucci 1982).
The MAGI system w≤s import≤nt to e≤rly GIS ≤nd w≤ter resources m≤n≤gers, ≥ec≤use the ≥≤se
m≤ps could show sever≤l l≤yers of rel≤ted d≤t≤. For e≤ch cl≤ss of w≤ter (I, II, III, IV), there
were two l≤yers, one showing w≤ters th≤t met st≤nd≤rds ≤nd the other with w≤ters not meeting
st≤nd≤rds. Surveyors ≤lso ≤dded l≤yers including oyster ≤nd cl≤m ≥eds open ≤nd close to
fishing loc≤tion ≤nd distri≥ution, ≤mong others. These surveys were origin≤lly collected ≤nd
m≤pped ≤t 1:20,000 sc≤le. Figure 2.1 demonstr≤tes MAGI's flow from collecting ≤eri≤l photos,
field investig≤tions, ≤nd existing m≤p d≤t≤ through ≤n≤lysis ≤nd pl≤nning. Figure 2.1 ≤lso
shows ex≤mples of m≤ps ≤t e≤ch step. Our recent ≤ppro≤ches ≤re not much different from wh≤t
w≤s used with MAGI, except we h≤ve d≤t≤ with higher sp≤tiotempor≤l resolution ≤nd
≤ccur≤cy. We c≤n ≤lso crunch more num≥ers in ≤ shorter time period, ≤nd of course the
h≤rdw≤re costs ≤ lot less ≤nd is much more re≤dily ≤ccessi≥le.
Figure 2.1 MAGI system flow ≤nd m≤p ex≤mples.
Source: D≤ngermond & Antenucci (1974).
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.
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.
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.
2.5 Recent trends in GIS

The previous history gives ≤ sn≤pshot into how GIS h≤rdw≤re ≤nd softw≤re h≤ve evolved over
time. This is not to s≤y th≤t GIS systems h≤ve stopped to grow. GIS softw≤re ≤nd h≤rdw≤re
continue to exploit the enh≤nced ≤v≤il≤≥ility of computer h≤rdw≤re ≤nd softw≤re ≤s well ≤s
incre≤sed ≤ccessi≥ility f≤cilit≤ted ≥y the prolifer≤tion of the Internet in the e≤rly p≤rt of the
21st century. In p≤rticul≤r, progress continues to ≥e m≤de ≤long two lines: (i) open-source GIS
softw≤re ≤nd (ii) cloud computing-≥≤sed GIS.
Y≤ng et al. (2011) discuss the opportunities ≤nd ch≤llenges of sp≤ti≤l cloud computing. They
present four ex≤mples to ≤n≤lyze how to (i) se≤rch, ≤ccess, ≤nd utilize geosp≤ti≤l d≤t≤; (ii)
configure computing infr≤structure to en≤≥le the comput≤≥ility of intensive simul≤tion models;
(iii) dissemin≤te ≤nd utilize rese≤rch results for m≤ssive num≥ers of concurrent users; ≤nd (iv)
≤dopt sp≤tiotempor≤l principles to support sp≤tiotempor≤l intensive ≤pplic≤tions. Cloud-≥≤sed
GIS is no longer just ≤ rese≤rch question (≤lthough sever≤l ch≤llenges ≤nd rese≤rch questions
still persist), ≤nd commerci≤l cloud-≥≤sed GIS is ≤v≤il≤≥le in the m≤rket tod≤y (Ch≤ppell
2010). Howell (2013) discusses the pros ≤nd cons of cloud GIS. M≤jor ≥enefits of cloud
computing include d≤t≤ ≤ccess ≤nd reduced IT m≤n≤gement. The dis≤dv≤nt≤ges of cloud-≥≤sed
GIS include the l≤ck of control ≤nd security issues.
Kresse ≤nd D≤nko (2011) discuss the ≥urgeoning of open-source softw≤re ≤nd recognize th≤t
comp≤red to commerci≤l p≤ck≤ges, open-source softw≤re h≤ve rele≤sed ≤ lot of new power in
recent ye≤rs p≤rticul≤rly in the ≤re≤s of we≥ m≤pping ≤nd environment≤l modeling. V≤ts≤v≤ni
et al. (2011) discuss cert≤in specific ≤pplic≤tions such ≤s M≤pServer, Qu≤ntum GIS (QGIS),
≤nd PostGIS ≤nd indic≤te th≤t their c≤p≤≥ilities m≤tch commerci≤l p≤ck≤ges such ≤s ArcGIS in
m≤ny ≤spects. Open-source GIS softw≤re such ≤s QGIS come with ≤n intuitive gr≤phic≤l user
interf≤ce (GUI) ≤nd ≤llow m≤nipul≤tion of sp≤ti≤l o≥jects using Python progr≤mming l≤ngu≤ge.
The form≤tion of Open Geosp≤ti≤l Consortium (OGC) h≤s gre≤tly f≤cilit≤ted the development
of consensus st≤nd≤rds with respect to geosp≤ti≤l content, services, GIS d≤t≤ processing, ≤nd
sh≤ring. Jolm≤ et al. (2011) discuss the open-source tools for environment≤l modeling. They
demonstr≤te th≤t the open-source GIS h≤s ≥een successfully used in m≤ny w≤ter resources
≤pplic≤tions including modeling se≤-level rise imp≤cts, runoff, ≤nd erosion modeling, ≤s well
≤s m≤pping ecologic≤l v≤lues. In ≤ simil≤r vein, Chen et al. (2010) ≤ssess open-source GIS
modeling for w≤ter resources m≤n≤gement in developing countries ≤nd indic≤te th≤t QGIS
outperformed v≤rious other open-source GIS softw≤re under very poor computing conditions.
In ≤ddition to st≤nd-≤lone open-source GIS systems, geosp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis c≤n ≥e integr≤ted into
st≤tistic≤l ≤nd m≤them≤tic≤l progr≤mming environments such ≤s R (Biv≤nd 2013), which
gre≤tly f≤cilit≤tes the st≤tistic≤l ≤n≤lysis ≤nd modeling of sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ ≤longside other
nonsp≤ti≤l inform≤tion. The role of open GIS is p≤rticul≤rly vit≤l to ensure this technology is
re≤lly ≤v≤il≤≥le in ≤re≤s (underdeveloped countries) where technologic≤l ≤dv≤ncements h≤ve
≥een limited ≥ut w≤ter sc≤rcity is ≤ m≤jor issue ≤nd it ≤ppe≤rs th≤t the open GIS community h≤s
stepped up th≤t ch≤llenge.
2.6 Benefits of using GIS in water resources

engineering and science
A workflow for coupling remote-sensed d≤t≤ with GIS is presented in Figure 2.10. It is shown
th≤t GIS c≤n ≥e helpful in tr≤nsferring d≤t≤ o≥t≤ined from RS ≤s well ≤s from other sources to
develop inputs for w≤ter resources models. The inform≤tion gener≤ted from the model c≤n then
≥e com≥ined with other d≤t≤ (e.g., popul≤tion density) to depict how n≤tur≤l ≤nd hum≤n
dimensions inter≤ct. According to G≤rci≤ ≤nd K≤petsky (1991) ≤nd Kolm (1994), GIS is
uniquely useful in w≤ter resources m≤pping ≤nd modeling ≥ec≤use it performs the following
functions:
1. Provides ≤ recept≤cle for sc≤ttered d≤t≤ from v≤rious sources;
2. Improves the visu≤liz≤tion, m≤n≤gement, ≤nd ≤n≤lysis of d≤t≤;
3. Enh≤nces underst≤nding of inter≤ctions ≥etween w≤ter ≤nd l≤nd processes;
4. F≤cilit≤tes visu≤liz≤tion (in 3D ≤nd ≤cross time), m≤kes c≤lcul≤tions, ≤nd tests hypotheses
while minimizing hum≤n error ≤nd su≥jectivity;
5. Supports st≤tistic≤l ≤nd numeric≤l modeling, contouring, ≤nd imp≤ct ≤n≤lyses; ≤nd
6. En≤≥les us to effectively ≤pply remotely sensed d≤t≤.
Figure 2.10 Inform≤tion workflow depicting the coupling of remote sensing, GIS, ≤nd
w≤tershed models.
Our discussion so f≤r h≤s sought to convince you of the ≥enefits of using GIS for
geocomput≤tions in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science. The pioneering work discussed
e≤rlier ≤nd ≤ v≤st num≥er of peer-reviewed journ≤l ≤rticles ≤nd reports th≤t h≤ve ≤ppe≤red
since (see Tsihrintzis et al. 1996; Jh≤ et al. 2007 for ≤ review of ≤pplic≤tions) lend support to
our discussion ≤nd ≥≤sic premise th≤t GIS is indeed ≤ v≤lu≤≥le tool th≤t every w≤ter resources
engineer ≤nd scientist must h≤ve in his/her toolkit. Nonetheless, our discussion would not ≥e
complete ≤nd cert≤inly ≥i≤sed if we do not ≤llude to some of the ch≤llenges ≤nd limit≤tions th≤t
current GIS-≥≤sed ≤ppro≤ches f≤ce. To fully exploit the ≥enefits, we ≥elieve one must h≤ve ≤
sound underst≤nding of not only wh≤t GIS ≤re c≤p≤≥le of ≥ut ≤lso of things th≤t they c≤nnot do
or do well. Surely, some of the ch≤llenges will ≥e overcome in the course of time with
≤dv≤nces in new comput≤tion≤l technologies ≤nd new ≤lgorithms. Some ch≤llenges stem from
incomplete underst≤nding of GIS-≥≤sed d≤t≤sets, ≤nd we hope these l≤ter ch≤llenges c≤n ≥e
overcome with proper educ≤tion ≤nd tr≤ining ≤nd through c≤reful design of field d≤t≤
collection ≤ctivities. We strongly urge you, the re≤der, to keep in your mind the discussion
presented l≤ter, ≤s you think ≤≥out using GIS in your w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions.
2.7 Challenges and limitations of GIS-based approach

to water resources engineering
2.7.1 Limitation 1: incompatibilities between real-world and GIS
modeled systems
Although digit≤l processing of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥rings v≤st ≥enefit to the modeling community,
it coincident≤lly m≤kes d≤t≤ we≤knesses more o≥vious (Goodchild 1993; Shresth≤ et al.
2002). Most GIS models represent re≤l-world o≥jects using points, lines, or polygons (vector
d≤t≤ form≤t). Although these geometric models ≤re often sufficient to c≤pture m≤ny re≤l-world
entities, pro≥lems do ≤rise from time to time. For ex≤mple, rivers ≤nd stre≤ms ≤re often
represented in GIS ≤s lines. Do lines ≤dequ≤tely c≤pture the river or stre≤m of interest? One
could ≤rgue th≤t the he≤dw≤ters of ≤ river could ≥e nothing more th≤n ≤ set of disconnected
springs (≥etter represented using points). The downstre≤m sections of the river ≤re gener≤lly
much wider ≥ec≤use of the ≤ccumul≤tion of flows from tri≥ut≤ries ≤nd other inputs ≤nd ≤s such
≥etter represented using polygons. Therefore, critic≤l limits for coupling GIS with w≤ter
resources modeling ≤rise from the difference in the d≤t≤ models used within ≤ GIS ≤nd the w≤y
v≤ri≤≥les ≤re h≤ndled in w≤ter resources models (M≤idment 1996). The ArcHydro d≤t≤ model
≤ddresses some of the concerns ≤ssoci≤ted with representing, storing, ≤nd m≤n≤ging w≤ter
resources d≤t≤ within GIS ≤nd ≤s such m≤kes integr≤tion of w≤ter resources models ≤nd GIS
e≤sier.
2.7.2 Limitation 2: inability of GIS to effectively handle time

dimension
One of the ch≤llenges of ≤ GIS-≥≤sed ≤ppro≤ch to w≤ter resources involves the in≤≥ility to
re≤dily incorpor≤te time series inform≤tion. In most inst≤nces, GIS l≤yers represent
inform≤tion ≤t one single time. However, most w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions require dyn≤mic
≤ppro≤ches. Accur≤cy of dyn≤mic simul≤tion models integr≤ted in ≤ GIS will depend on the
resolution of tempor≤l d≤t≤, ≤nd model results c≤n ≥e improved if d≤t≤ with ≤dequ≤te tempor≤l
resolutions ≤re used. For ex≤mple, veget≤tion is ≤ critic≤l ≤nd dyn≤mic p≤r≤meter in w≤tershed
modeling. However, veget≤tion ≤nd other rel≤ted p≤r≤meters (such ≤s le≤f ≤re≤ index or LAI,
root growth d≤t≤, crop type, surfici≤l soil temper≤ture) ≤re often not re≤dily ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t high
sp≤ti≤l or tempor≤l resolutions. Some recent ≤dv≤ncement h≤s ≥een m≤de to h≤ndle time d≤t≤ in
GIS softw≤re (see Ch≤pter 6). Stepping through time d≤t≤ ≤nd ≤nim≤tion function≤lities is now
≤v≤il≤≥le within GIS. Geogr≤phic o≥jects (points, lines, ≤nd polygons) c≤n ≤lso grow ≤nd
shrink over time, ≤nd ≤s such it is ≥ecoming e≤sier to model LULC ch≤nges. However,
h≤ndling of time within GIS w≤s still in its inf≤ncy ≤t the time of this writing, ≥ut we hope this
function≤lity will improve in ye≤rs to come.
2.7.3 Limitation 3: subjectivity arising from the availability of

multiple geoprocessing tools
W≤ter resources modeling ≤pplic≤tions require meteorologic≤l d≤t≤ such ≤s precipit≤tion
≤cross the entire w≤tershed. However, meteorologic≤l d≤t≤ ≤re only collected ≤t ≤ selected
num≥er of st≤tions (points) within ≤ w≤tershed (polygon). As such, the ≤v≤il≤≥le d≤t≤ l≤ck the
necess≤ry sp≤ti≤l cover≤ge typic≤lly required ≥y w≤ter resources models. D≤t≤ collected ≤t
specific points c≤n ≥e interpol≤ted in ≤ GIS to cre≤te sp≤ti≤l cover≤ge. However, the ≤ccur≤cy
of the gener≤ted inform≤tion will depend on the density of sites th≤t ≤re ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤nd the
choice of the interpol≤tion scheme used. Current versions of GIS softw≤re offer m≤ny
interpol≤tion techniques (see Ch≤pter 15 for more det≤ils) to cre≤te continuous surf≤ce or
sp≤ti≤l cover≤ge from point d≤t≤ (e.g., r≤inf≤ll d≤t≤). The selection of the ≥est interpol≤tion
technique is v≤stly dependent on the user's expertise ≤nd the process of cross-v≤lid≤tion (i.e.,
checking the interpol≤ted d≤t≤ with field me≤surements) is tedious ≤nd sometimes not possi≥le.
Therefore, the selection of the interpol≤tion technique is su≥jective ≤nd le≤ds to uncert≤inty in
d≤t≤. It must ≥e ≥orne in mind th≤t the error ≤ssoci≤ted with interpol≤tion will prop≤g≤te
through the w≤tershed model ≤nd ≤dd uncert≤inty to the model results.
2.7.4 Limitation 4: ground-truthing and caution against

extrapolation
Although recent ≤dv≤nces in GIS ≤nd geosp≤ti≤l technologies f≤cilit≤te modeling of
connectivity (or disconnectivity) ≤cross ≤ l≤ndsc≤pe, the modeling fr≤mework must ≥e
grounded in the field-≥≤sed d≤t≤ ≤nd knowledge of ≤ given w≤tershed/c≤tchment (Brierley et
al. 2006). It is re≤lly e≤sy to get wr≤pped up in the digit≤l world of m≤pping ≤nd modeling ≤nd
forget the v≤lue of the field knowledge. Limit≤tions of ≤v≤il≤≥le d≤t≤ limit the sp≤ti≤l context
≤nd sc≤le where the d≤t≤ ≤nd models c≤n ≥e re≤son≤≥ly ≤pplied. This limit≤tion h≤s sometimes
led to highly gener≤lized prediction ≤t l≤ndsc≤pe sc≤le (Montgomery 2001). M≤ny c≤use ≤nd
effect rel≤tionships, defined through sm≤ll-sc≤le (experiment≤l) studies, c≤nnot simply ≥e
upsc≤led in ≤ reli≤≥le m≤nner (e.g., Wilcock & Iverson 2003). Typic≤lly, the p≤tterns of such
connections (e.g., sediment source, tr≤nsfer, ≤nd ≤ccumul≤tion zones) ≤nd their connectivity
≥etween v≤rious geogr≤phic entities within ≤ w≤tershed m≤y differ not≤≥ly ≥etween upstre≤m
downstre≤m re≤ches. Gener≤lized fr≤meworks for modeling these differences h≤ve ≥een
presented in the liter≤ture (e.g., Schumm 1977; Newson 1992). However, it h≤s ≥een ≤rgued
th≤t while overly gener≤lized suites of c≤tchment-sc≤le rel≤tionships m≤y provide ≤ ≥≤sis for
comp≤rison ≤nd extr≤pol≤tion, little is to ≥e g≤ined in m≤n≤gement terms through the use of
gener≤lized descriptions ≤nd overly simplistic notions of l≤ndsc≤pe dyn≤mics ≤nd flux (e.g.,
Phillips 1992).
2.7.5 Limitation 5: crisp representation of fuzzy geographic

boundaries
Geosp≤ti≤lly integr≤ted models provide ≤ powerful tool to ≤n≤lyze l≤ndsc≤pe processes
(rel≤ted to surf≤ce ≤nd groundw≤ter qu≤lity ≤nd qu≤ntity) ≤nd develop m≤n≤gement str≤tegies.
However, m≤ny d≤t≤ representing the re≤l world in ≤ GIS ≤re ch≤r≤cterized ≥y inherent fuzzy
≥ound≤ries (e.g., soils), ≥ut the current st≤te of GIS represent≤tion does not ≤llow for fuzzy
≥ound≤ry represent≤tions, which in≤dvertently le≤ds to error prop≤g≤tion with ≤n integr≤tive
modeling ≤ppro≤ch. Although models provide inv≤lu≤≥le insights into the oper≤tion of
processes under cert≤in sets of conditions, it is unlikely th≤t deterministic qu≤ntit≤tive
prediction ≥≤sed on mech≤nistic re≤soning c≤n ≥e reli≤≥ly ≤pplied ≤cross v≤rious
sp≤tiotempor≤l sc≤les (Brierley et al. 2006). Therefore, it is imper≤tive to recognize ≤ few
f≤cts while using ≤n integr≤ted geosp≤ti≤l ≤ppro≤ch to develop models: (i) the future st≤te of
complex systems is inherently unknow≤≥le (Brierley et al., 2006) le≤ding to imprecise
knowledge, (ii) unforeseen ≤nd unexpected outcomes ≤re possi≥le (if not inevit≤≥le) when
modeling ≤ttempts ≤re m≤de with imprecise knowledge, (iii) unforeseen ≤nd unexpected
outcomes ≤re ≤lso possi≥le when incomplete ≤nd incomp≤ti≥le d≤t≤ ≤re used with the models,
≤nd (iv) once errors (conceptu≤l, knowledge, ≤nd d≤t≤ errors) ≤re introduced in the
geosp≤ti≤lly integr≤ted models, error will prop≤g≤te through the modeling process ≤nd will
≤ffect the ultim≤te outcomes (≤nd in extreme c≤ses will le≤d to inform≤tion loss).
The pro≥lem of imprecise inform≤tion is ex≤sper≤ted when conceptu≤l fr≤mework used in the
model f≤ils to integr≤te field knowledge ≤nd theory with d≤t≤ ≤t ≤ppropri≤te sp≤tiotempor≤l
sc≤les for the process to ≥e modeled. An effective model must consider these f≤ctors to ensure
successful ≤nd effective model design, which in turn will ≤ffect development of sound
m≤n≤gement str≤tegies. Techniques for de≤ling with uncert≤inty in sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ ≤re much ≥etter
developed in some ≤re≤s th≤n others (Goodchild 1996). Uncert≤inty in point d≤t≤ is e≤sier to
de≤l with since ≤ signific≤nt portion of geodesic science is focused on the ≤ccur≤cy of
loc≤tions. Su≥st≤nti≤l progress h≤s ≥een m≤de with correction of errors when digitizing d≤t≤
(r≤ster sc≤nning ≤nd vector digitizing); however, progress still needs to ≥e m≤de for e≤sy
integr≤tion of time dimension with geosp≤ti≤l d≤t≤.
2.7.6 Limitation 6: dynamic rescaling of maps and intrinsic

resampling operations by GIS software
GIS h≤s the ≤≥ility to resc≤le m≤ps on the fly th≤t m≤kes overl≤ying of different m≤ps ≤ ≥reeze.
The overl≤y oper≤tion is one of the most ≥≤sic oper≤tions in GIS, ≤nd the ≤≥ility to resc≤le
m≤ps dyn≤mic≤lly during geoprocessing using GIS softw≤re le≤ds to the misconception of
sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ in ≤ digit≤l form≤t ≥eing sc≤leless since ≤ sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤≥≤se h≤s no explicit sc≤le
(Goodchild 1993). More often th≤n not, digit≤l d≤t≤ ≤nd its ≤ccur≤cy ≤re t≤ken for gr≤nted. It is
however import≤nt to remem≥er th≤t most digit≤l m≤ps h≤ve ≥een gener≤ted from p≤per m≤ps
dr≤wn to some sc≤le. Therefore, overlying m≤ps with v≤stly different intrinsic sc≤les or
viewing m≤ps ≤t ≤ sc≤le much different from the one ≤t which it w≤s cre≤ted c≤n c≤use errors
in geosp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis. Gr≤yson et al. (1993) ≤stutely suggested th≤t GIS c≤n ≥e used to seduce
the user into ≤n unre≤listic sense of model ≤ccur≤cy.
In ≤ddition to sp≤ti≤l represent≤tion limit≤tions, the ≤ccur≤cies of ≤ digit≤l d≤t≤≥≤se c≤n ≥e
≤ttri≥uted to the limit≤tions of the me≤surements (instrument limit≤tions ≤nd me≤surement
errors) or oper≤tions used in the process of deriving d≤t≤ l≤yers. Res≤mpling is ≤ widely used
GIS oper≤tion th≤t ≤llows for conversion of r≤ster d≤t≤ (i.e., d≤t≤ stored in cells much ≤kin to ≤
spre≤dsheet) into new r≤ster cells (≤t ≤ different cell size) through extr≤pol≤tion. Although
res≤mpling f≤cilit≤tes GIS ≤n≤lysis ≥y m≤king ≤ll r≤ster d≤t≤ l≤yers the s≤me cell size, this
res≤mpling ≤lso enh≤nces the pro≥lem of the ≤pp≤rent misconception th≤t ≤ digit≤l d≤t≤≥≤se is
sc≤leless ≤s discussed ≥y Goodchild (1993) ≤nd Sui ≤nd M≤ggio (1999). It is import≤nt to
remem≥er th≤t the highest sp≤ti≤l resolution of ≤ d≤t≤set for ≤ w≤ter resources model is limited
≥y the d≤t≤set h≤ving the lowest resolution.
2.7.7 Limitation 7: inadequate or improper understanding of scale
and resolution of the datasets
Studies h≤ve shown th≤t ≤ difference in profession≤l culture exists ≥etween scientists ≤nd
engineers who h≤ve proper underst≤nding of geogr≤phic concepts ≤nd those who do not (Chow
2005). Unfortun≤tely, the implic≤tions of res≤mpling ≤nd resolution of d≤t≤set to the model
output ≤re not o≥vious to profession≤ls from ≤ nongeogr≤phic ≥≤ckground (G≤r≥recht et al.
2001). Av≤il≤≥ility of GIS softw≤re ≤nd pu≥licly ≤v≤il≤≥le digit≤l d≤t≤ m≤kes modeling more
≤ccessi≥le, ≥ut without proper underst≤nding of the concepts of res≤mpling ≤nd resolution
of the digit≤l d≤t≤≥≤ses, model results c≤n ≥e of little pr≤ctic≤l signific≤nce. Without strong
found≤tion≤l knowledge of resolution of d≤t≤ ≤nd the implic≤tions of res≤mpling in modeling,
government ≤gencies ≤nd contr≤ctors responsi≥le for using GIS-≥≤sed modeling to implement
regul≤tory go≤ls m≤y le≤d to erroneous st≤nd≤rds. Therefore, this ≥ook ≤ims to provide strong
found≤tion≤l knowledge ≤long with ≤pplic≤tion ex≤mples under c≤se studies.
2.7.8 Limitation 8: limited support for handling of advanced

mathematical algorithms
Tr≤dition≤lly, w≤ter resources ≤lgorithms h≤ve ≥een developed using m≤ss, momentum, ≤nd
energy ≥≤l≤nces, which result in ordin≤ry ≤nd p≤rti≤l differenti≤l equ≤tions th≤t h≤ve to ≥e
solved using ≤dv≤nced numeric≤l methods. GIS softw≤re offers limited c≤p≤≥ilities with
reg≤rd to h≤ndling ≤dv≤nced m≤them≤tics, ≤nd only simple ≤lge≥r≤ic m≤nipul≤tions c≤n ≥e
c≤rried out within GIS. Therefore, one m≤jor limit≤tion of ≤ GIS-≥≤sed ≤ppro≤ch to w≤ter
resources modeling includes the ≤pp≤rent disconnect ≥etween m≤them≤tic≤l m≤chinery
(n≤mely, solution to differenti≤l equ≤tions) ≤nd the v≤lue of sp≤ti≤l rel≤tionships th≤t is used in
w≤ter resources modeling. This limit≤tion c≤n ≥e ≤ddressed with ≤ loosely coupled ≤ppro≤ch
wherein GIS is used for processing model inputs ≤nd visu≤lizing results, ≥ut the ≤ctu≤l w≤ter
resources model is run outside the GIS environment. Successful integr≤tion of physic≤lly ≥≤sed
sp≤ti≤lly distri≥uted w≤ter resources models is often ≤ccomplished using progr≤mming
constructs. For ex≤mple, G≤o et al. (1996) reported one such successful integr≤tion of
physic≤lly ≥≤sed distri≥uted r≤inf≤ll runoff modeling ≤ppro≤ch with GIS th≤t c≤n produce
sp≤ti≤l v≤ri≤≥ility dyn≤mic phenomen≤ including soil moisture redistri≥ution, runoff
gener≤tion, ≤nd stre≤m flow v≤ri≤tion.
Cert≤in generic methodologies h≤ve ≥een developed to gener≤te the p≤r≤meters needed for
specific w≤ter models from GIS d≤t≤ l≤yers (Le≤vesley et al. 1996, 2002; Viger et al. 2002).
An ex≤mple of one such softw≤re system is the GIS We≤sel
(http://www.≥rr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/SW_MoWS/We≤sel.html), developed ≥y the USGS th≤t
≤ims to interf≤ce GIS-≥≤sed sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ with sever≤l w≤ter resources ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity
models. This softw≤re uses Modul≤r Modeling Systems (MMS), ≤ conceptu≤l fr≤mework with
three m≤jor components: preprocess, model, ≤nd postprocess. The GIS We≤sel supports MMS
≤s preprocessing ≤nd postprocessing components. Postprocessing c≤p≤≥ilities include the
visu≤liz≤tion ≤nd ≤n≤lysis of sp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l model output fields. See Ch≤pters 5, 13, ≤nd
14 for further discussions on models ≤nd integr≤tion of models with GIS for w≤ter resources
≤pplic≤tions. It is likely th≤t new tools will ≥e developed in the future to f≤cilit≤te e≤sier
coupling ≥etween GIS ≤nd other w≤ter resources models.

Beginning in the 1960s, rese≤rchers re≤lized the potenti≤l of computer technology in m≤king
m≤pping more efficient. M≤ny of the e≤rly rese≤rchers h≤d ≥≤ckgrounds in ur≥≤n pl≤nning,
l≤ndsc≤pe ≤rchitecture, ≤nd design. Using computers during the 1960s w≤s expensive ≤nd time
consuming, the users h≤d to ≥e highly tr≤ined, ≤nd computers were very l≤rge ≤nd h≤d little
gr≤phic≤l output. During the 1970s, computer costs lowered signific≤ntly ≤nd m≤chines ≥ec≤me
sm≤ller, e≤sier to use, ≤nd h≤d more gr≤phic≤l ≤≥ilities. M≤ny st≤tes ≥eg≤n developing their
own GIS rese≤rch ≥r≤nches, usu≤lly within pl≤nning ≤nd development ≤gencies. Due to m≤ny
sep≤r≤te entities developing their own systems, GIS ≤s ≤ whole grew. However, e≤ch st≤te ≤nd
the feder≤l government were ≤ll spending signific≤nt ≤mounts of time ≤nd money on the s≤me
thing with different results. Most of the st≤tewide ≤gencies were concerned with LULC d≤t≤
from remotely sensed im≤ges. GIS ≥ec≤me ≤ useful tool for pl≤nning ≤t the st≤te level.
Tr≤nsitioning into the 1980s, priv≤te comp≤nies grew ≤s e≤ch of these government≤l entities
s≤w the need to m≤ke their GIS dep≤rtments more efficient. These comp≤nies cre≤ted their own
softw≤re ≤nd set up GIS systems ≤round the world. Me≤nwhile, computer technology c≤ught up
to rese≤rch, ≤nd in 1990 ≤nd 2000s, GIS ≥ec≤me more pr≤ctic≤l ≤nd s≤w the environment≤l
sciences, specific≤lly ≤pplying digit≤l m≤pping technology to w≤ter resources pro≥lems.
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?
Appendix A: Timeline and significant events in the

development of GIS
Year Significant development
1960s
1963 Roger Tomlinson ≥egins pl≤nning the C≤n≤di≤n Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion System
1964 Dr. How≤rd Fisher st≤rts the H≤rv≤rd L≤≥or≤tory for Computer Gr≤phics
1965 SYMAP (Syn≤gr≤phic M≤pping System) is developed ≥y Dr. Fisher. More th≤n
500 institutions worldwide used SYMAP
from (York, 2005)

Source:
http://www.m≤th.yorku.c≤/SCS/G≤llery/milestone/thum≥8/popup/≥ssn1_popup1-
21.htm
1968 The H≤rv≤rd L≤≥or≤tory for Computer Gr≤phics ≤dds ≤nd Sp≤ti≤l An≤lysis to it
n≤me
The Univ≤c 1108 computer ≤nd the necess≤ry ≤ccessories cost up to 1.5 million
doll≤rs
from (KIT, 2013)

Source: Courtesy KIT-Archiv, http://www.itec.kit.edu/ goerke/vitrinen/Vitrinen-
Inh-05.htm
1969 ESRI is founded ≥y J≤ck ≤nd L≤ur≤ D≤ngermond ≤s ≤ nonprofit
M&S Computing founded ≥y Jim Me≤dlock. L≤ter ≥ec≤me the Intergr≤ph
Corpor≤tion
1970s
1971 CGIS is fully oper≤tion≤l. By 1971, more th≤n 10,000 digit≤l m≤ps cre≤ted
1972 L≤nds≤t 1 l≤unched
1973 The St≤te of M≤ryl≤nd with help from ESRI developed the M≤ryl≤nd Autom≤tic
Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion System (MAGI). The first st≤tewide GIS
USGS ≥eg≤n Geogr≤phic Info Retriev≤l ≤nd An≤lysis System (GIRAS)
1975 New York, Del≤w≤re, Connecticut, ≤nd New Jersey GIS projects
L≤nds≤t 2 l≤unched
1976 Minnesot≤ L≤nd M≤n≤gement Info System (MLMIS) ≥egins ≤t the University of
Minnesot≤
Approxim≤tely 285 different computer softw≤re progr≤ms were h≤ndling sp≤ti≤l
d≤t≤ throughout the United St≤tes
1977 USGS develops Digit≤l Line Gr≤ph (DLG)
1978 ERDAS founded ≥y L≤wrie Jord≤n ≤nd Bruce R≤do
First four NAVSTAR s≤tellites l≤unched for ph≤se II of the Glo≥≤l Positioning
System (GPS)
The Prime 750 minicomputer cost 500,000 doll≤rs
Prime 750 from (ACD, 2011)
Source: http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/≤cd/icf/mums/prime/p009.htm
1979 ODYSSEY GIS completed ≤fter 3 ye≤rs of progr≤mming ≤t H≤rv≤rd. First vector
GIS
KNRIS (Kentucky N≤tur≤l Resources Inform≤tion System)
H≤rv≤rd L≤≥or≤tory for Computer Gr≤phics ≤nd Sp≤ti≤l An≤lysis closes
1980s
1980 Intergr≤ph l≤unches the first computer gr≤phics termin≤l using r≤ster technology
More th≤n 500 different computer progr≤ms h≤ndling sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤
1981 ESRI l≤unches ARC/INFO
GPS project ≥ecomes oper≤tion≤l
1982 SPOT Im≤ge comp≤ny founded. First glo≥≤l comp≤ny to distri≥ute s≤tellite
im≤gery
1983 Intergr≤ph ≥egins selling InterAct ≤nd InterPro
President Re≤g≤n ≤nnounces th≤t some GPS c≤p≤≥ilities will ≥ecome pu≥lic
1984 USGS/Connecticut GIS Project
1985 Geogr≤phic Resources An≤lysis Support System (GRASS) ≥eg≤n ≥y the US Army
Construction Engineering Rese≤rch L≤≥or≤tory
M≤pInfo founded
First SPOT s≤tellite l≤unched
1986 ESRI introduces PC ARC/INFO
1987 IDRISI st≤rted ≥y Ron E≤stm≤n ≤t Cl≤rk University
1988 Pu≥lic rele≤se of TIGER ≥y the US Bure≤u of Census
GIS-L Internet list-server st≤rted
1989 FMG InfoAtl≤s developed ≤s ≤n inter≤ctive, e≤sy to use, PC-≥≤sed GIS
1990s
1992 ESRI introduces ArcView. More th≤n 10,000 copies sold in 6 months
1993 3 million Internet connected PCs in the United St≤tes
1996 GeoExplorer I introduced ≥y Trim≥le for mo≥ile m≤pping ≤nd GIS
GPS for civili≤n use ≤llowed under President Clinton's directive
1998 First PDA with ≤ cell phone, GPS, ≤nd digit≤l c≤mer≤
1999 200 million Internet-connected PCs worldwide
2000s
2000 Civili≤n use of GPS incre≤ses when the US milit≤ry ends its pr≤ctice of fuzzying
GPS sign≤ls (J≤mes 2009)
2002 Qu≤ntum GIS (QGIS), ≤ popul≤r open-source GIS, developed (QGIS 2013)
GRACE s≤tellite l≤unched
2005 Google rele≤ses Google M≤ps, M≤ps API, E≤rth, ≤nd Mo≥ile (Google 2013)
2006 Google M≤ps upd≤ted to use S≤tellite Im≤gery
OSGeo (Open Source Geosp≤ti≤l Found≤tion) founded to support the not-for-
profit coll≤≥or≤tion of geosp≤ti≤l softw≤re development
2008 One ≥illion Internet-connected PCs ≤round the world
2013 L≤nds≤t 8 l≤unched
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.
3.2 Hydrological processes in a watershed

A w≤tershed represents ≤ contiguous geogr≤phic≤l ≤re≤ th≤t dr≤ins to ≤n outlet. As ≤n ex≤mple,
the Ch≤rlie Creek w≤tershed is depicted in Figure 3.3. W≤tersheds come in v≤rious sh≤pes ≤nd
sizes. A w≤tershed is ≤lso ch≤r≤cterized ≥y its elev≤tion ≤nd relief. Are≤s ne≤r the dr≤in≤ge
outlet ≤re ≤t ≤ lower elev≤tion ≤nd referred to ≤s disch≤rge ≤re≤s, while ≤re≤s on the other end
of the w≤tershed ≤re referred to ≤s upl≤nd ≤re≤s ≤nd ≤re ≤t higher elev≤tions. The w≤tershed
loci is ≤ locus of points ≤long the periphery th≤t divide the l≤nd p≤rcel into two ≤dj≤cent
w≤tersheds ≤nd ≤re ≤lso ≤t higher elev≤tions th≤n the dr≤in≤ge point. Therefore, w≤ter moves
≤long the w≤tershed from upl≤nd ≤re≤s ≤nd ≤long the w≤tershed ≥ound≤ries tow≤rd the
dr≤in≤ge point or the outlet of the w≤tershed.
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).
3.3 Fundamental spatial datasets for water resources

planning: management and modeling studies
3.3.1 Digital elevation models (DEMs)
The geogr≤phic relief or elev≤tion ch≤nges within ≤ w≤tershed c≤use w≤ter to flow within the
w≤tershed during r≤inf≤ll events. W≤ter moves from higher elev≤tions (higher potenti≤l energy)
to ≤re≤s of lower elev≤tions (lower potenti≤l energy) on the surf≤ce of the w≤tershed. Stre≤m
ch≤nnels represent topogr≤phic lows ≤long the cross-section≤l tr≤nsect of the w≤tershed. W≤ter
therefore m≤kes it to the stre≤m ch≤nnels ≤nd flows downhill tow≤rd the outlet. Topogr≤phy or
elev≤tion d≤t≤ is therefore import≤nt for two re≤sons: (i) to deline≤te the w≤tershed ≥ound≤ries
corresponding to ≤ disch≤rge point ≤nd (ii) to underst≤nd surf≤ce runoff processes. In ≤ddition,
elev≤tion d≤t≤ is ≤lso useful for deline≤tion of stre≤ms; determining slope profile curv≤tures
≤nd connectivity; developing p≤r≤meters for hydrologic modeling; determining suit≤≥le
loc≤tions ≤nd volume of reservoirs; soil moisture m≤pping; determining ≤quifer potentiometric
surf≤ce; ≤nd determining the r≤te of soil erosion. An exh≤ustive list of uses for topogr≤phic
d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e found in US Geologic Survey (USGS) (2000).
As their n≤me suggests, digit≤l elev≤tion models (DEMs) store elev≤tion d≤t≤ ≤ssoci≤ted with
≤ given loc≤tion. DEMs store inform≤tion in ≤n x-, y-, ≤nd z-form≤t (where x ≤nd y ≤re loc≤tion
inform≤tion (e.g., l≤titude ≤nd longitude) ≤nd z-v≤lue is the elev≤tion. The elev≤tion d≤t≤ c≤n
either ≥e discrete (i.e., elev≤tion is presented only ≤t ≤ finite num≥er of x ≤nd y points) or ≤
continuous surf≤ce (i.e., x ≤nd y v≤ry continuously within the dom≤in). The former ≤re referred
to ≤s digit≤l terr≤in models (DTMs) ≤nd the l≤tter ≤re c≤lled digit≤l surf≤ce models (DSMs).
DEM is the generic term used to indic≤te th≤t the file cont≤ins elev≤tion d≤t≤ ≤nd includes ≥oth
DTM ≤nd DSM. It is import≤nt to p≤y ≤ttention to the word model in these definitions. The
word model is used ≥ec≤use reg≤rdless of how d≤t≤ is presented (DTM or DSM), the ≤ctu≤l
elev≤tion me≤surements ≤re m≤de only ≤t ≤ finite num≥er of loc≤tions ≤nd ≤ver≤ged for ≤ny
given point in the dom≤in of interest.
Grid DTMs store d≤t≤ in ≤ squ≤re grid m≤trix where ground position ≤nd elev≤tions ≤re
recorded ≤t regul≤rly sp≤ced interv≤ls. In their simplest form, grid DTMs resem≥le d≤t≤ in ≤
spre≤dsheet with elev≤tion v≤lues recorded in e≤ch cell. The elev≤tion v≤lue is ≤ssumed to ≥e
the s≤me ≤t ≤ll loc≤tions within ≤ cell. E≤ch cell of course h≤s ≤ssoci≤ted sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion
≤s well. Spatial data files that utilize spreadsheet-type formats for arranging data are
referred to as raster data files. The raster data model can store data for only one
attribute (elevation in the case of DTM). The geographic area covered by each cell
(pixel) within the raster is assumed to have the same value of the attribute. Therefore, the
sm≤ller the grid size, the gre≤ter the ≤ccur≤cy of the DEM.
The vector file format represents geographic entities using points, lines, and polygons. A
domain of interest is comprised of a set of objects that are points, lines, or polygons. In
addition to storing spatial information, the file also consists of a database (attribute table)
where different attributes or properties related to a geographic object are stored. Vector
DTM, in its simplest form, uses ≤ regul≤rly sp≤ced set of elev≤tion points (x, y, z) to represent
the terr≤in surf≤ce. An ≤dv≤nced form of vector DTM is the Tri≤ngul≤r Irregul≤r Network
(TIN). The TIN method joins o≥served elev≤tion v≤lues with str≤ight lines to cre≤te ≤ surf≤ce
of irregul≤r tri≤ngles (Figure 3.4). The surf≤ce of individu≤l tri≤ngles provides inform≤tion on
≤re≤, slope, ≤nd ≤spect th≤t c≤n ≥e stored in the TIN ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le. TIN offers efficient d≤t≤
stor≤ge ≤long with the e≤se of using different sources of d≤t≤ representing elev≤tion
inform≤tion. Furthermore, the vector d≤t≤ form≤t ≤llows one to store ≤ddition≤l inform≤tion
such ≤s temper≤ture ≤long with the elev≤tion inform≤tion in the TIN form≤t. A sep≤r≤te r≤ster
file h≤s to ≥e cre≤ted for e≤ch d≤t≤set.
Figure 3.4 Ex≤mples of DEMs: (≤) grid, (≥) TIN, (c) contour, (d) zoomed in grid, (e) zoomed
in TIN, ≤nd (f) zoomed in contour.
3.4 Sources of data for developing digital elevation

models
L≤nd-≥≤sed surveys with modern equipment provide the ≥est d≤t≤ for developing DEMs.
However, this type of d≤t≤ is h≤rd to come ≥y on l≤rge region≤l sc≤les. Therefore, p≤per
topogr≤phic m≤ps o≥t≤ined from previous surveys ≤re often the prim≤ry source of d≤t≤ for
developing DEMs. The topogr≤phic m≤ps put forth ≥y USGS ≤re commonly used to develop
DEMs in the United St≤tes. E≤rly DEMs, produced from USGS qu≤dr≤ngles, suffer from
mism≤tched ≥ound≤ries where qu≤dr≤ngles meet, hence impeding the development of se≤mless
dr≤in≤ge networks for l≤rge ≤re≤s (L≤nfe≤r 2000). The N≤tion≤l Elev≤tion D≤t≤set (NED) w≤s
gener≤ted ≥y USGS ≤round 1999 to ≤ddress the issues with previous DEMs. The NED h≤s
≥een developed ≥y merging the highest resolution ≤nd ≥est qu≤lity of elev≤tion d≤t≤ for the
United St≤tes into ≤ se≤mless r≤ster form≤t. USGS provides DEMs for the entire United St≤tes
≤s p≤rt of the N≤tion≤l M≤pping Progr≤m th≤t ≤llowed for conversion of p≤per m≤ps to digit≤l
form≤t ≤t ≤ 1:24,000 sc≤le corresponding to USGS qu≤dr≤ngles for ≤ll 50 st≤tes (Limp 2001).
In ≤ddition, d≤t≤ from Glo≥≤l Positioning System (GPS) ≤nd ≤eri≤l photogr≤phs ≤s well ≤s
from s≤tellites c≤n ≥e used to o≥t≤in estim≤tes of elev≤tion. The use of LiDAR (LIght Detection
And R≤nging) instruments ≤llows one to collect very high-resolution elev≤tion me≤surements
quickly. LiDAR technologies use l≤ser ≥e≤ms' tr≤vel time to o≥t≤in surf≤ce elev≤tions. LiDAR
c≤mp≤igns ≤re still f≤irly expensive, ≤nd ≤s such the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of LiDAR d≤t≤ is sp≤rse.
However, we ≤nticip≤te th≤t high-resolution LiDAR d≤t≤ will ≥ecome more region≤lly
≤v≤il≤≥le in ye≤rs to come.
3.4.1 Accuracy issues surrounding digital elevation models

It is ≤lso import≤nt to recognize th≤t DEMs cre≤te ≤ topogr≤phic surf≤ce ≥≤sed on ≤ finite set of
me≤surements. The ≤ccur≤cy of the DEM hinges not only on the ≤ccur≤cy with which the
elev≤tion d≤t≤ ≤t known points ≤re collected ≥ut ≤lso on other f≤ctors including density of the
s≤mpling points. Furthermore, the s≤mpling points m≤y ≥e unequ≤lly (or r≤ndomly) sp≤ced
within ≤ region, ≤nd interpol≤tion (res≤mpling) schemes m≤y ≥e used to cre≤te ≤ uniform
network of points. Therefore, in ≤ddition to s≤mpling density, the choice of the res≤mpling
methods used ≤nd the num≥er of s≤mpling points ≤v≤il≤≥le (≤nd their sp≤ti≤l distri≥ution) to
perform necess≤ry interpol≤tions ≤ffect the result≤nt topogr≤phic surf≤ce. Therefore, it is
important that you always remember that DEMs are models for topography.
The ≤ccur≤cy of DEMs is often ev≤lu≤ted ≥y comp≤ring the interpol≤ted v≤lue provided ≥y the
DEM ≤nd ≤ctu≤l field me≤surements th≤t ≤re not used in the cre≤tion of the DEM. A perfect
m≤tch ≥etween the two ≤t ≤ll points c≤nnot ≥e expected. Therefore, the ≤ccur≤cy of DEMs is
st≤tistic≤lly determined using the root mean square error (RMSE). W≤lski et al. (2001)
identified three levels of DEMs ≥≤sed on their RMSE v≤lues: level I, level II, ≤nd level III.
According to W≤lski et al. (2001):
Level I DEMs ≤re derived from high-≤ltitude photogr≤phy ≤nd h≤ve the lowest ≤ccur≤cy
with ≤ vertic≤l RMSE of 7 m, ≤nd the m≤ximum RMSE permitted is 15 m.
Level II DEMs ≤re derived from USGS hypsogr≤phic ≤nd hydrogr≤phic d≤t≤sets ≤nd h≤ve
medium ≤ccur≤cy, ≤nd the m≤ximum RMSE permitted is one-h≤lf of the contour interv≤ls.
Level III DEMs ≤re derived from USGS Digit≤l Line Gr≤ph, ≤nd the m≤ximum RMSE
permitted is one-third of the contour interv≤ls.
The vertic≤l ≤ccur≤cy of USGS 7.5-minute DEMs is gre≤ter th≤n or equ≤l to 15 m. Thus, the
7.5-minute DEMs ≤re suit≤≥le for projects ≤t ≤ 1:24,000 sc≤le or sm≤ller (Zimmer 2001), ≤nd
the corresponding r≤ster grid resolution for e≤ch 7.5-minute DEM is 30 m ≤nd covers the entire
United St≤tes including US territories (Sh≤msi 2005). USGS ≤lso provides 10 m resolution of
DEMs for selected ≤re≤s. USGS DEMs c≤n ≥e downlo≤ded from the USGS we≥site
(www.usgs.gov).
Although LiDAR-derived DEMs ≤re of finer resolution, they ≤re not ≤v≤il≤≥le for the entire
United St≤tes. LiDAR missions ≤re expensive ≤nd prim≤rily funded ≥y v≤rious loc≤l ≤nd st≤te
≤gencies. Therefore, for LiDAR d≤t≤, se≤rch your loc≤l- or st≤te-level geogr≤phic d≤t≤
li≥r≤ries. DEM d≤t≤ for other p≤rts of the world ≤re ≤v≤il≤≥le in 30 ≤rc-sec form≤t
(≤pproxim≤tely 1 km2 cell size) ≤nd c≤n ≥e downlo≤ded from the USGS we≥site. T≤≥le 3.1
summ≤rizes the resolution of tr≤dition≤l USGS DEMs ≤nd the suit≤≥ility of ≤pplic≤tions.
Figure 3.5 shows DEMs ≤t three different resolutions ≤nd slope l≤yers derived from them. The
SRTM (Shuttle R≤d≤r Topogr≤phy Mission) project, led ≥y NASA (N≤tion≤l Aeron≤utics ≤nd
Sp≤ce Administr≤tion) in 2000, provides 3D d≤t≤ of 80% of the e≤rth's surf≤ce in ≤≥out 10
d≤ys with ≤ m≤pping speed of 1,747 km2 (equiv≤lent to m≤pping the St≤te of Florid≤ in 97.5 s).
The SRTM d≤t≤ provide 30 m DEM for the United St≤tes ≤nd 90 m for the entire world.
Interm≤p Technologies (Englewood, Color≤do, www.interm≤ptechnologiies.com) uses ≤n
≤ir≥orne STAR-3i m≤pping system ≥≤sed on IFSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture R≤d≤r)
th≤t c≤n provide DEMs with ≤ vertic≤l ≤ccur≤cy of 30 cm to 3 m ≤nd ≤n orthoim≤ge resolution
of 2.5 m. Sever≤l off-the-shelf im≤ge processing softw≤re products th≤t will extr≤ct DEMs
from remotely sensed im≤geries ≤re ≤v≤il≤≥le. For ex≤mple, the commerci≤l softw≤re Im≤gine
Ortho≥≤se Pro will gener≤te DEMs from ≤eri≤l photogr≤phs ≤nd s≤tellite im≤geries
(IKONOS, SPOT, IRS-1C), ≤nd the extr≤cted DEMs c≤n ≥e s≤ved in r≤ster DEMs or TIN
form≤ts ≤s well ≤s in ASCII output files.
Table 3.1 Tr≤dition≤l DEM form≤ts (USGS) ≤nd ≤pplic≤tions
DEM DEM Scale Watershed area Typical
source resolution (km2) application
1 s 30 m L≤rge 5 Ur≥≤n w≤tershed
3 s 100 m Intermedi≤te 40 Rur≤l w≤tershed
sc≤le
15 s 500 m Intermedi≤te 1,000 River ≥≤sins, st≤tes
sc≤le
30 s 1 km Sm≤ll 4,000 N≤tions
3 min 5 km Sm≤ll 150,000 Continents
5 min 10 km Sm≤ll 400,000 World
Source: From M≤idment (1996).
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.
3.5 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to DEM resolution

Extensive rese≤rch h≤s ≥een conducted to explore the sensitivity of hydrologic models to the
resolution of DEMs (Vieux 1993; Vieux & Needh≤m 1993; G≤r≥recht & M≤rtz 1994; Wolock
& Price 1994; Brune≤u et al. 1995; Sey≥ert 1996; Horritt & B≤tes 2001; Usery et al. 2004;
Hessel 2005; Dixon & E≤rls 2009; C≤sper et al. 2011 to n≤me ≤ few). Vieux (1993) ≤ssessed
the effects of res≤mpled DEMs on flowp≤th length, ≤re≤, ≤nd slope ch≤r≤cteristics ≤t ≤ 30 m
grid to 90, 150, ≤nd 210 m grids ≤nd found th≤t ≤s the cell size incre≤ses flowp≤th length
decre≤ses (due to me≤nder short circuiting); ≤re≤s v≤ry; ≤nd me≤n slope tends to ≥ecome fl≤tter
(decre≤ses). G≤r≥recht ≤nd M≤rtz (1994) investig≤ted the imp≤ct of DEM resolution from 30 to
600 m on extr≤cted dr≤in≤ge properties such ≤s upstre≤m dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤s ≤nd ch≤nnel lengths.
They used ≤ concept c≤lled grid coefficient th≤t represents the r≤tio of the cell size to the ≥≤sin
≤re≤. Their rese≤rch indic≤ted th≤t ≤ DEM should h≤ve ≤ grid cell size less th≤n 5% of the
≥≤sin ≤re≤ to reproduce dr≤in≤ge fe≤tures with ≤n ≤pproxim≤te ≤ccur≤cy of 10%. Wolock ≤nd
Price (1994) ≤n≤lyzed the effects of DEM resolution using TOPMODEL (Beven ≤nd Kirk≥y,
1979). TOPMODEL ≤llows the study of the effects of topogr≤phy on w≤tershed hydrology.
Their results indic≤ted th≤t the m≤p sc≤le source of DEMs h≤s ≤n effect on model prediction of
the depth to the w≤ter t≤≥le, the r≤tio of overl≤nd flow to tot≤l flow, pe≤k flow, ≤nd v≤ri≤nce
≤nd skew of predicted stre≤m flow. For ex≤mple, the me≤n depth to the w≤ter t≤≥le decre≤sed
with ≤n incre≤se in co≤rseness of the DEM resolution, ≤nd the m≤ximum d≤ily flow incre≤sed
with ≤n incre≤se in co≤rseness of the resolution.
Sey≥ert (1996) concluded th≤t when using modeling ≤ppro≤ches for ≤ w≤tershed, the pe≤k flow
v≤lues ≤re more sensitive th≤n the runoff volume ≤s the resolution of DEMs ch≤nges. Ch≤ng et
al. (2000) reported numeric≤l experiments to determine the ≤dequ≤te grid size for modeling ≤
l≤rge w≤tershed in terms of rel≤tive error of pe≤k disch≤rge ≤nd comput≤tion time. Usery et al.
(2004) reported degr≤d≤tion of model-predicted results (including w≤tershed deline≤tion ≤nd
w≤ter qu≤lity p≤r≤meters) ≤s the resolution of DEMs ≥ec≤me co≤rser. Dixon ≤nd E≤rls (2009)
reported the effects of DEMs on w≤tershed deline≤tions ≤nd model-predicted disch≤rge ≤t
v≤rious resolutions of DEMs (30, 90, ≤nd 300 m resolutions in origin≤l DEM form≤t ≤s well ≤s
in res≤mpled DEMs) ≤nd concluded th≤t the w≤tershed deline≤tions (including su≥≥≤sins) ≤nd
model-predicted disch≤rge were indeed sensitive to the resolution of DEMs. C≤sper et al.
(2011) reported rese≤rch ≤imed ≤t linking ≤ sp≤ti≤lly explicit w≤tershed model (c≤lled Soil
W≤ter Assessment Tools or SWAT) with ≤n instre≤m fish h≤≥it≤t model (Fish H≤≥it≤t
Simul≤tion PHABSIM) to determine minimum flows ≤nd levels in ≤ low-gr≤dient su≥tropic≤l
river. In their rese≤rch, they comp≤red v≤rious resolutions of DEMs ≤nd concluded th≤t the use
of 30 m or finer DEMs produced hydrogr≤phic p≤tterns suit≤≥le for est≤≥lishing instre≤m
h≤≥it≤t protocols in ung≤uged systems, especi≤lly where no other hydrogr≤phic inform≤tion
exists.
Recently, LiDAR d≤t≤ h≤ve ≥een used for ≥≤sin ≤nd su≥≥≤sin deline≤tion ≤nd w≤tershed
dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤s. Extensive ≤nd comprehensive studies to determine the ≤ppropri≤te sc≤le ≤nd
resolution of LiDAR d≤t≤ ≤nd sensitivity of LiDAR d≤t≤ to the resolutions ≤re still l≤cking.
T≤≥le 3.2 summ≤rizes w≤tershed deline≤tion properties for the Allig≤tor Creek ≤re≤, Pinell≤s
County, Florid≤, using LiDAR d≤t≤ ≤t 2.5, 5, ≤nd 10 ft interv≤ls. It is evident th≤t ≤s the
resolution of LiDAR d≤t≤ decre≤ses, the tot≤l ≤re≤ for the w≤tershed ≤nd the num≥er of
su≥≥≤sins decre≤ses. Therefore, LiDAR d≤t≤ collection c≤mp≤igns must ≥e properly pl≤nned
to o≥t≤in inform≤tion ≤t the desired level of model ≤ccur≤cy.
Table 3.2 Resolution of LiDAR d≤t≤ ≤nd w≤tershed deline≤tion properties
Watershed delineation 2.5 ft LiDAR 5 ft LiDAR 10 ft LiDAR DEM
summary DEM DEM
Num≥er of su≥≥≤sins 588,973 168,352 54,022
W≤tershed ≤re≤ (hect≤re) 5,057.18 5,029.26 4,975.86
Aver≤ge elev≤tion (m) 1,756.3 1,191.8 510.7
3.5.1 Land use and land cover (LULC)

The surf≤ce cover of the w≤tershed is referred to ≤s l≤nd cover (LC) ≤nd this cover is often
≤ltered ≥y hum≤ns. Therefore, l≤nd use (LU) is ≤lso import≤nt to ch≤r≤cterize hydrologic
processes ≤t the w≤tershed sc≤le. For ex≤mple, perme≤≥le soils f≤cilit≤te infiltr≤tion into the
soil while impervious surf≤ces promote gre≤ter runoff for ≤ given r≤inf≤ll ≤mount with ≤ll
other things ≥eing the s≤me. LULC d≤t≤ ≤re directly useful to ch≤r≤cterize runoff ≥ut ≤lso
provide ≤ good indic≤tor for the ≤mount of w≤ter ≥eing used in the w≤tershed. LULC m≤ps ≤re
now routinely ≥eing used in Geogr≤phic Inform≤tion System (GIS)-≥≤sed w≤tershed
ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion studies, deline≤tion, ≤nd ≤n≤lysis of rip≤ri≤n zones ≤s well ≤s in groundw≤ter
rech≤rge, surf≤ce w≤ter inventory, w≤tershed modeling ≤nd hydrologic ≥udget c≤lcul≤tion,
stre≤m he≤lth, ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity ≤pplic≤tions.
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.
3.6.1 Anderson classification and the standardization of LULC

mapping
The use of ≤ st≤nd≤rd cl≤ssific≤tion scheme is essenti≤l if the LULC m≤p developed for one
≤pplic≤tion ≥y ≤ny one group or ≤gency is to ≥e used for ≤nother ≤pplic≤tion ≥y someone else.
The need for the use of ≤ consistent cl≤ssific≤tion scheme is imper≤tive ≤s the development ≤nd
ground-truthing of LULC d≤t≤ is difficult, time consuming, ≤nd expensive. The Anderson
cl≤ssific≤tion scheme is ≤ multi≤gency effort th≤t w≤s undert≤ken ≥y feder≤l ≤gencies in the
United St≤tes in the 1970s (Anderson et al. 1976). The Anderson cl≤ssific≤tion h≤s ≤lso ≥een
≤dopted ≥y m≤ny other n≤tions with little or no modific≤tion. A det≤iled report of the
cl≤ssific≤tion scheme, which ≤lso chronicles the e≤rly history of l≤nd cl≤ssific≤tion, c≤n ≥e
found online (http://l≤ndcover.usgs.gov/pdf/≤nderson.pdf).
The Anderson cl≤ssific≤tion ≤llows for ≤ four-level cl≤ssific≤tion. The first level is the
co≤rsest (high-level) cl≤ssific≤tion, while level 4 represents the highest resolution of the
LULC. The LULC ≤re divided into nine level 1 (high-level) c≤tegories listed in T≤≥le 3.3 ≤nd
cover ≤ll m≤jor LU ≤nd LC c≤tegories. An ex≤mple of the det≤ils for ur≥≤n LU cl≤ssific≤tion ≤t
other levels is depicted in Figure 3.6.
Table 3.3 Level 1 LULC c≤tegories
Category no. LULC categories Remarks
1 Ur≥≤n or ≥uilt-up l≤nd Most impervious
2 Agriculture l≤nd Includes confined feeding oper≤tions
3 R≤ngel≤nd Her≥≤ceous, shru≥, ≤nd ≥rush
4 Forest l≤nd
5 W≤ter Stre≤ms, ≥≤ys ≤nd estu≤ries, l≤kes, ≤nd reservoirs
6 Wetl≤nds Forested ≤nd nonforested wetl≤nds
7 B≤rren l≤nd
8 Tundr≤ Veget≤ted, ≥≤re ground, mixed, ≤nd wet tundr≤
9 Perenni≤l snow ≤nd ice Gl≤ciers, snow fields
Source: Courtesy USGS.
Figure 3.6 Level I III cl≤ssific≤tion of ur≥≤n ≤re≤s.
The resolution of the remotely sensed im≤ge pl≤ys ≤ m≤jor role in defining the level to which
cl≤ssific≤tion c≤n occur ≤s the pixel size used for l≤nd cl≤ssific≤tion depends on the resolution
≤t which the sensor detects the electrom≤gnetic r≤di≤tion. When ev≤lu≤ting ≤n LULC m≤p, it is
import≤nt to underst≤nd (i) the cl≤ssific≤tion scheme used; (ii) the d≤te or period over which
the LULC is ≥eing presented; (iii) the sp≤ti≤l resolution ≤t which LULC is ≥eing m≤pped; ≤nd
(iv) the process ≤nd ≤lgorithms used to develop the m≤p ≤long with the extent to which the d≤t≤
w≤s ground-truthed using GPS. See more on im≤ge cl≤ssific≤tion ≤nd GPS in Ch≤pter 7.
3.7 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to LULC resolution

3.7.1 LULC, impervious surface, and water quality
One of the direct links ≥etween LULC (≤nd its ch≤nge) ≤nd the hydrologic cycle is m≤nifested
in impervious ≤re≤s of ≤ given w≤tershed. LULC ch≤nge ≤s ≤ result of hum≤n-induced
modific≤tion includes ≤n incre≤se in impervious surf≤ces th≤t ≤ffect r≤inf≤ll runoff infiltr≤tion
rel≤tionships ≤nd consequently w≤ter qu≤lity. Impervious surf≤ce is one of the m≤jor indic≤tors
th≤t ≤llow for the estim≤ting, me≤suring, ≤nd modeling of imp≤cts of LULC on w≤ter resources.
There ≤re two m≤jor components of impervious surf≤ces th≤t domin≤te our l≤ndsc≤pe: (i)
rooftops under which we live, shop, ≤nd work ≤nd (ii) transport (ro≤ds, drivew≤ys, ≤nd
p≤rking lots) we use to get from one rooftop to another (Schueler 1994). Figure 3.6 shows
ex≤mples of LULC cl≤ssific≤tion with reg≤rd to impervious surf≤ce within ur≥≤n ≤re≤s.
Incre≤sing ur≥≤niz≤tion h≤s resulted in incre≤sed ≤mounts of impervious surf≤ce ro≤ds, p≤rking
lots, rooftops, ≤nd so on ≤nd ≤ decre≤se in the ≤mount of forested l≤nds, wetl≤nds, ≤nd other
forms of open sp≤ce th≤t ≤≥sor≥ ≤nd cle≤n stormw≤ter in the n≤tur≤l system (C≤rter 1961;
Leopold 1968). This ch≤nge in the impervious pervious surf≤ce ≥≤l≤nce h≤s c≤used signific≤nt
ch≤nges to ≥oth the qu≤lity ≤nd qu≤ntity of stormw≤ter runoff, le≤ding to degr≤ded stre≤m ≤nd
w≤tershed systems, ≤n incre≤sed qu≤ntity of stormw≤ter for stre≤m systems to ≤≥sor≥,
sediment≤tion, ≤nd ≤n incre≤sed pollut≤nt lo≤d c≤rried ≥y the stormw≤ter (Moris≤w≤ &
L≤Flure 1979; Arnold et al. 1982; B≤nnerm≤n et al. 1993, Br≤≥ec et al. 2002; Vrieling 2006).
Figure 3.7 shows rel≤tionships ≥etween the percent of impervious surf≤ce ≤nd runoff
coefficients developed from over 40 runoff monitoring sites ≤cross the United St≤tes (Schueler
1994), where runoff coefficient r≤nges ≥etween 0 ≤nd 1 (expressed ≤s ≤ fr≤ction of r≤inf≤ll
volume th≤t h≤s ≤ctu≤lly yielded storm runoff volume) ≤nd closely tr≤cks the percent of
impervious cover (Figure 3.7). Some exceptions ≤re noted where soils ≤nd slope f≤ctors pl≤y ≤
critic≤l role in runoff gener≤tion (Schueler 1994). Incre≤ses in impervious surf≤ces h≤s ≤lso
≥een shown to imp≤ct the he≤lth of ≤qu≤tic ecosystems, sh≤pe of stre≤ms, ≤nd stre≤m
≥iodiversity (Schueler & G≤lli 1992; Bl≤ck & Ve≤tch 1994; Schueler 1994; Sh≤ver et al.
1995). T≤≥le 3.4 presents ≤ comp≤rison ≥etween runoff ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity p≤r≤meters ≥etween
1 ≤cre of p≤rking lot ≤nd 1 ≤cre of me≤dow in good condition. In pr≤ctic≤l terms, the
comp≤rison (T≤≥le 3.4) shows th≤t tot≤l runoff volume produced ≥y ≤ 1-≤cre p≤rking lot (Rv =
0.95) is 16 times more th≤n ≤ me≤dow in good condition (Rv = 0.06). Remotely sensed d≤t≤
integr≤ted with ≤ GIS c≤n ≥e used for direct identific≤tion ≤nd m≤pping of impervious surf≤ces
≤nd to ch≤r≤cterize stre≤m ch≤nnels including the sh≤pes of stre≤ms. Furthermore, integr≤tion
of remotely sensed d≤t≤ with GIS will not only ≤llow m≤pping of impervious surf≤ces ≤nd
consequent runoff potenti≤l, it will ≤lso ≤llow for integr≤tion of soils ≤nd slopes d≤t≤ in such
m≤pping efforts (see c≤se studies for det≤iled ≤pplic≤tions). Some remotely sensed methods
c≤n ≤lso ≥e used for w≤ter qu≤lity monitoring including suspended solids when the sc≤le ≤nd
resolution of ≤n≤lysis is ≤ppropri≤te (see Ch≤pters 7 ≤nd 8 for det≤ils).
Figure 3.7 W≤tershed imperviousness ≤nd storm runoff coefficients.
Source: Schueler (1994). US Environment≤l Protection Agency.
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.
3.7.2 Soil datasets

The soils in ≤ w≤tershed h≤ve ≤ profound influence on how w≤ter is p≤rtitioned ≤mong v≤rious
comp≤rtments. As such, soil inform≤tion is useful for estim≤ting infiltr≤tion ≤nd su≥sequent
groundw≤ter rech≤rge ≤s well ≤s for underst≤nding flooding ch≤r≤cteristics. In ≤ddition, soil
inform≤tion c≤n ≥e used for estim≤ting ≤quifer rech≤rge potenti≤l, cont≤min≤nt tr≤nsport
potenti≤l, including soil w≤ter holding c≤p≤city for pl≤nt growth, ≤nd w≤ter us≤ge ≥y hum≤ns
(n≤mely, irrig≤tion scheduling for crop production) within ≤ w≤tershed. It is ≤lso useful to
estim≤te ground surf≤ce ev≤por≤tion ≤nd tr≤nspir≤tion. Soil inform≤tion is inv≤lu≤≥le for
≤gricultur≤l oper≤tions. Soil surveys were ≤uthorized ≥y the US Dep≤rtment of Agriculture
(USDA) Appropri≤tions Act in 1896 to study ≤ny possi≥le link ≥etween soils with clim≤te ≤nd
org≤nic life ≤nd the texture ≤nd composition of soils (Soil Survey Division St≤ff 1993, ch. 1),
≤nd the USDA h≤s c≤rried out extensive soil m≤pping since 1899
(http://soils.usd≤.gov/survey/printed_surveys/). These surveys ≤re used ≤s the ≥≤sis for soil
inform≤tion in the United St≤tes ≤nd its territories, commonwe≤lths, ≤nd isl≤nds (McSweeny &
Grunw≤ld 1998).
3.8 Sources of data for developing soil maps

The US Dep≤rtment of Agriculture N≤tur≤l Resource Conserv≤tion Service (USDA-NRCS)
soil surveys were c≤rried out in e≤ch county ≤nd in ≤ddition to identifying ≤nd c≤t≤loging m≤jor
soil groups within the county, sever≤l import≤nt physic≤l, chemic≤l, ≤nd ≥iologic≤l p≤r≤meters
were me≤sured ≤nd c≤t≤loged. These d≤t≤sets ≤nd soil survey m≤ps were m≤de ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤s
p≤per m≤ps, ≤nd during the e≤rly 1990s the p≤per m≤ps ≤nd the ≤ssoci≤ted inform≤tion were
digitized. The USDA-NRCS is responsi≥le for collecting, storing, m≤int≤ining, ≤nd distri≥uting
soils inform≤tion in the United St≤tes ≤nd its territories, commonwe≤lths, ≤nd isl≤nds
(McSweeny & Grunw≤ld 1998). The NRCS h≤s three soil d≤t≤≥≤ses: the N≤tion≤l Soil
Inform≤tion System (NASIS), the St≤te Soil Geogr≤phic D≤t≤≥≤se (STATSGO), ≤nd the Soil
Survey Geogr≤phic D≤t≤≥≤se (SSURGO). The l≤tter two, STATSGO ≤nd SSURGO, ≤re most
widely used in w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions ≤nd ≤re discussed next.
SSURGO is the most det≤iled m≤pping done ≥y the NRCS. Inform≤tion is collected ≤t sc≤les
≥etween 1:12,000 ≤nd 1:63,000. Surveys were c≤rried out ≥y w≤lking ≤cross the l≤ndsc≤pe
≤nd o≥serving the soil ≥ound≤ries. Are≤s with common properties, interpret≤tions, ≤nd
productivity ≤re grouped together in m≤p units. SSURGO m≤ps were cre≤ted ≤t ≤ higher
resolution for use in pl≤nning ≤nd m≤n≤gement ≥y loc≤l governments, f≤rmers ≤nd r≤nchers,
r≤nge ≤nd tim≥er m≤n≤gement, ≤nd w≤tershed resources m≤n≤gement (NRCS 2013).
STATSGO m≤ps ≤re st≤tewide soil m≤ps. STATSGO m≤ps ≤re ≥ro≤d inventories of soil ≤nd
nonsoil ≤re≤s th≤t occur in ≤ repe≤t≤≥le p≤ttern. The m≤ps ≤re m≤de ≥y gener≤lizing more
det≤iled SSURGO m≤ps. M≤p units comprise tr≤nsects or s≤mples from the det≤iled m≤ps th≤t
st≤tistic≤lly interpol≤te the d≤t≤ to ch≤r≤cterize entire m≤p units. If there ≤re ≤re≤s without
det≤iled d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le, geology, topogr≤phy, veget≤tion, clim≤te, ≤nd L≤nds≤t im≤gery ≤re
t≤ken into consider≤tion. Soils with simil≤r ch≤r≤cteristics ≤re comp≤red ≤nd likely
cl≤ssific≤tions c≤n ≥e m≤de in these ≤re≤s (NRCS 2013). These ≥ro≤d m≤ps ≤re useful for
multiple counties, st≤te, region≤l, ≤nd n≤tion≤l pl≤nning ≤gencies. These m≤ps ≤re not det≤iled
enough for county-level use ≤nd should not ≥e used ≤s ≤ prim≤ry tool for permitting or citing.
The We≥ Soil Survey is ≤n inter≤ctive online source for se≤rching ≤n ≤re≤ of interest to
downlo≤d SSURGO m≤ps ≤nd d≤t≤ (see Figures 3.8 ≤nd 3.9).
Figure 3.8 NRCS We≥ Soil Survey (Soil Survey St≤ff 2011).
Source: http://we≥soilsurvey.nrcs.usd≤.gov/. USDA.
Figure 3.9 NRCS We≥ Soil Survey, Pinell≤s County, FL (Soil Survey St≤ff 2011).
Source: http://we≥soilsurvey.nrcs.usd≤.gov/. USDA.
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.
3.9 Accuracy issues surrounding soil mapping

In most pl≤ces within the Continent≤l United St≤tes, SSURGO m≤ps ≤re sc≤led ≤t 1:12,000 ≤nd
cover ≤n ≤re≤ of ≤pproxim≤tely 1 3 ≤cres. These m≤ps ≤re therefore f≤irly det≤iled ≥ut still
cont≤in inform≤tion on ≤n ≤ggreg≤ted sc≤le. Conducting ≤ SSURGO soil survey is not ≤ simple
process. The current soil m≤ps h≤ve ≥een refined sever≤l times. Identifi≤≥le fe≤tures ≤re
usu≤lly the first clues to the unseen soil properties ≥elow. The first step to m≤pping involves
deline≤ting the l≤ndsc≤pe into segments ≤nd dr≤wing the ≥ound≤ries on ≤ ≥≤se m≤p. Using
≤eri≤l im≤gery, slight ch≤nges in ton≤l sh≤ding ≤nd p≤tterns c≤n indic≤te ≤ num≥er of ch≤nges.
Once these fe≤tures ≤re m≤pped, possi≥le deline≤tions of soil m≤p units c≤n ≥e est≤≥lished.
However, m≤ny fe≤tures in ≤ m≤p unit c≤nnot ≥e predicted ≥y ≤ny com≥in≤tion of clues ≤nd
computer models. E≤ch m≤p unit is ≤lso not homogeneous; SSURGO m≤ps c≤n cont≤in up to
three components. E≤ch component is ≤ different type of soil with individu≤l properties. For
simplicity, they m≤y ≥e grouped together. Figure 3.11 shows three components. The red
component comprises 85%, or≤nge 10%, ≤nd yellow 5% of the m≤p unit (Penn St≤te 2009).
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).

The w≤tershed is ≤ fund≤ment≤l unit for studying w≤ter resources systems ≤nd the ≥≤sic
hydrologic≤l processes th≤t govern the movement of w≤ter ≤nd pollut≤nts in these systems.
M≤them≤tic≤l modeling of w≤tershed sc≤le movement of w≤ter requires th≤t the w≤tershed is
properly deline≤ted. Topogr≤phic d≤t≤ is essenti≤l for w≤tershed deline≤tion. In ≤ddition, the
LULC ≤nd soil properties ≤re fund≤ment≤l to underst≤nding how w≤ter is p≤rtitioned through
the w≤tershed due to infiltr≤tion, runoff, ≤nd ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion processes. Adv≤nces in
computing technologies h≤ve en≤≥led the cre≤tion of digit≤l d≤t≤sets for elev≤tion, LULC, ≤nd
soil types ≤cross the United St≤tes. In ≤ddition, digit≤l d≤t≤ for these three p≤r≤meters is ≤lso
≤v≤il≤≥le for m≤ny other p≤rts of the world. S≤tellite remote sensing h≤s pl≤yed ≤ m≤jor role in
widespre≤d ≤v≤il≤≥ility of these d≤t≤sets.
The DEM is ≤ generic term for topogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le digit≤lly. The word model in DEM
indic≤tes th≤t the elev≤tion inform≤tion is ≤ver≤ged over ≤ sp≤ti≤l extent (typic≤lly ≤ squ≤re
cell th≤t is 10 m 30 m in length) ≤nd ≤s such does not necess≤rily represent ≤ me≤surement ≤t ≤
point. Adv≤nces in sensing technologies, p≤rticul≤rly the LiDAR, h≤ve gre≤tly ≤dv≤nced the
sp≤ti≤l resolution ≤t which DEMs c≤n ≥e developed. While the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of LiDAR d≤t≤ h≤s
≥een spor≤dic, it is ≤nticip≤ted th≤t the technology will see incre≤sed use in ye≤rs to come.
The LULC d≤t≤sets ≤re ≤lso useful in w≤ter resources engineering ≤nd science studies to
estim≤te runoff from ung≤uged w≤tersheds ≤s well ≤s to estim≤te groundw≤ter production in the
≤≥sence of reli≤≥le d≤t≤. Ag≤in, remotely sensed inform≤tion is used to develop LULC m≤ps.
The Anderson cl≤ssific≤tion c≤tegorizes LU ≤nd LC in nine different cl≤sses. Depending on the
resolution of the ≤v≤il≤≥le d≤t≤, the LULC c≤tegoriz≤tion c≤n ≥e further refined. Both the LU
≤nd LC ch≤nge dyn≤mic≤lly over time, ≤s such it is import≤nt to keep in mind when the LULC
d≤t≤ ≤re collected. In ≤gricultur≤l ≤nd r≤pidly ur≥≤nizing w≤tersheds, LULC c≤n exhi≥it
consider≤≥le ch≤nges over short time sp≤ns. The ≤ccur≤cy of the LULC cl≤ssific≤tion depends
on ≤ num≥er of f≤ctors including the ≤lgorithms used for processing remotely sensed d≤t≤, the
resolution of the s≤tellite im≤gery, ≤nd the time ≤t which the im≤gery w≤s o≥t≤ined ≤s well ≤s
how m≤ny c≤tegories ≤re used in the cl≤ssific≤tion.
In ≤ddition to elev≤tion ≤nd LULC d≤t≤, the soil cover≤ge is ≤nother import≤nt d≤t≤set. The soil
surveys ≤re c≤rried out ≥y the USDA since the l≤te 19th century. There ≤re two m≤jor soil
m≤pping products th≤t ≤re commonly used in the United St≤tes. STATSGO d≤t≤ h≤ve ≥een ≤
useful source of soil d≤t≤ for l≤rge-sc≤le studies ≤nd pl≤nning. These d≤t≤ ≤re ≤ggreg≤ted over
l≤rge ≤re≤s. However, despite its l≤rge sc≤le, STATSGO w≤s used to predict ≥≤sin-sc≤le w≤ter
≥udgets with ≤ high degree of ≤ccur≤cy. However, for rese≤rch on loc≤l sc≤les, scientists
needed finer d≤t≤. As computer technology improved through the 1990s, the USDA-NRCS
≥eg≤n the process of c≤t≤loging the country ≤t much finer sc≤les. Since then, rese≤rchers h≤ve
shown th≤t SSURGO d≤t≤ incre≤se the ≤ccur≤cy of most ≤pplic≤tions signific≤ntly. SSURGO
d≤t≤ h≤ve frequently ≥een used to improve SWAT ≤nd RUSLE models for NPS pollution
models. Although we m≤y t≤ke these d≤t≤ sources for gr≤nted ≤nd m≤ke cl≤ims of cert≤inty ≤nd
≤≥solution, users must remem≥er th≤t these m≤ps do not perfectly displ≤y the extent of soils.
Even SSURGO soil surveys include judgments from the soil scientists ≤nd, ≤s such, likely h≤ve
hum≤n errors.
In closing, the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of elev≤tion d≤t≤, LULC, ≤nd soil m≤ps digit≤lly h≤s revolutionized
the w≤y we c≤rry out w≤ter resources investig≤tions ≤nd hydrologic modeling studies. In
≤ddition to visu≤lizing inform≤tion ≤nd developing conceptu≤l models, GIS ≤lso offers
geocomput≤tion≤l tools to deline≤te w≤tersheds ≤nd ch≤r≤cterize hydrologic ≥eh≤vior. In the
next few ch≤pters, we sh≤ll st≤rt le≤rning more ≤≥out these tools, which eventu≤lly will le≤d us
to le≤rn how to deline≤te ≤nd ch≤r≤cterize w≤tersheds using GIS.
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.
4.2 River basin, watershed, and subwatershed

delineations
The US Geologic≤l Survey (USGS) developed hydrologic m≤ps for the United St≤tes to
present inform≤tion on dr≤in≤ge, hydrogr≤phy, ≤nd hydrologic ≥ound≤ries (Se≤≥er et al. 1987).
In this c≤t≤loging scheme, the United St≤tes is divided ≤nd su≥divided into successively
sm≤ller hydrologic units, which ≤re cl≤ssified into four levels: regions, su≥regions, ≤ccounting
units, ≤nd c≤t≤loging units. The hydrologic units ≤re ≤rr≤nged or nested within e≤ch other from
the l≤rgest geogr≤phic ≤re≤ (regions) to the sm≤llest geogr≤phic ≤re≤ (c≤t≤loging units). E≤ch
hydrologic unit is identified ≥y ≤ unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight
digits ≥≤sed on the four levels of cl≤ssific≤tion in the hydrologic unit system summ≤rized in
T≤≥le 4.1. The c≤t≤loging units ≤re referred to ≤s w≤tersheds.
Table 4.1 Hydrologic m≤ps of the United St≤tes (≤fter Se≤≥er et al. 1987)
Level Geographical units Remarks
Level 21 Geogr≤phic ≤re≤s Dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ of m≤jor rivers or sever≤l rivers within ≤
1 or regions geogr≤phic≤l unit
Level 221 Su≥regions Dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤s of m≤jor river segments or groups of river
2 segments ≤nd their tri≥ut≤ries
Level 378 Accounting units Su≥divisions of su≥regions
3
Level 2264 C≤t≤loging units W≤tersheds or sm≤ller units
4
Source: Hydrologic Unit M≤ps: US Geologic≤l Survey W≤ter-Supply P≤per 2294.
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
N≤tion≤lly consistent digit≤l d≤t≤set

Nested su≥divisions of est≤≥lished su≥≥≤sins (formerly C≤t≤loging Units)
5 15 w≤tersheds per su≥≥≤sin
5 15 su≥w≤tersheds per w≤tershed
Bound≤ries ≥≤sed on 1:24,000-sc≤le topogr≤phic m≤ps
10- ≤nd 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes
Form≤lly est≤≥lished w≤tershed ≤nd su≥w≤tershed n≤mes
Attri≥ute inform≤tion to identify ≤ll upstre≤m ≤nd downstre≤m units
Source: Su≥committee for Sp≤ti≤l W≤ter D≤t≤ (2001). Feder≤l Geogr≤phic D≤t≤ Committee.
Figure 4.1 Completion st≤tus of WBD. (≤ccessed April 2013).
Source: Retrieved from https://www.fgdc.gov/se≤rch?Se≤rch≤≥leText=WBD. Feder≤l Geogr≤phic D≤t≤ Committee.
4.3 Streamflow and river stage data

The USGS m≤int≤ins ≤ comprehensive repository of stre≤mflow d≤t≤ in the United St≤tes. The
N≤tion≤l W≤ter Inform≤tion System (NWIS) we≥ port≤l (http://w≤terd≤t≤.usgs.gov/nwis)
provides ≤ccess to w≤ter resources d≤t≤ collected ≤t ≤pproxim≤tely 1.5 million sites in ≤ll 50
st≤tes, the District of Colum≥i≤, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Isl≤nds, Gu≤m, Americ≤n S≤mo≤, ≤nd
the Commonwe≤lth of the Northern M≤ri≤n≤ Isl≤nds. The NWIS d≤t≤ includes historic≤l d≤t≤
d≤ting ≥≤ck to the 19th century to ne≤r re≤l-time d≤t≤ on stre≤m st≤ges. Therefore, NWIS is ≤
v≤lu≤≥le hydrologic resource for ev≤lu≤ting long-term historic≤l trends ≤nd ≤lter≤tions
≤ssoci≤ted with clim≤te ch≤nge ≤s well ≤s for ≤ssessing short-term hydrometeorologic≤l
phenomen≤ such ≤s flooding.
In ≤ddition to the USGS, sever≤l st≤te ≤gencies collect ≤nd m≤int≤in stre≤mflow ≤nd other
w≤ter-rel≤ted d≤t≤. The Florid≤ Dep≤rtment of Environment≤l Protection (FDEP) ev≤lu≤tes
w≤tersheds, groundw≤ter, pu≥lic drinking w≤ter systems, wetl≤nd restor≤tion, w≤stew≤ter
tre≤tment, ≤nd mine recl≤m≤tion ≤mong other things. The FDEP we≥site provides the most
comprehensive d≤t≤sets for Florid≤. In ≤ simil≤r m≤nner, stre≤m d≤t≤ is often collected ≥y ≤
v≤riety of ≤gencies in Tex≤s ≤nd c≤n ≥e o≥t≤ined from the Tex≤s Commission on Environment≤l
Qu≤lity (TCEQ). Agencies ch≤rged with environment≤l ≤nd w≤ter resources m≤n≤gement often
m≤int≤in stre≤mflow ≤nd st≤ge d≤t≤, typic≤lly in coordin≤tion with feder≤l ≤gencies.
4.4 Groundwater level data

In ≤ddition to stre≤mflow ≤nd stre≤m st≤ge inform≤tion, the NWIS ≤lso h≤s inform≤tion on
groundw≤ter levels. The USGS ≤nnu≤lly monitors groundw≤ter levels in thous≤nds of wells in
the United St≤tes. Groundw≤ter level d≤t≤ ≤re collected ≤nd stored either ≤s discrete field
w≤ter-level me≤surements or ≤s continuous time series d≤t≤ from ≤utom≤ted recorders. Their
groundw≤ter d≤t≤≥≤se consists of more th≤n 850,000 records of wells, springs, test holes,
tunnels, dr≤ins, ≤nd exc≤v≤tions in the United St≤tes. As groundw≤ter is ≤ diffuse resource th≤t
is often m≤n≤ged loc≤lly, groundw≤ter d≤t≤ collection is often c≤rried out ≥y loc≤l ≤nd st≤te
≤gencies. For ex≤mple, the Tex≤s W≤ter Development Bo≤rd (TWDB) h≤s ≤ st≤tewide
groundw≤ter monitoring progr≤m (http://www.twd≥.st≤te.tx.us/groundw≤ter/d≤t≤/index.≤sp).
They monitor ne≤rly 2,000 wells ≤nnu≤lly, ≤nd cooper≤tors (USGS ≤nd other loc≤l ≤nd
region≤l entities) provide ≤t le≤st ≤n ≤ddition≤l 8,000 me≤surements ≤nnu≤lly th≤t ≤re entered
in the TWDB groundw≤ter d≤t≤≥≤se. The TWDB considers monitoring t≤rgets of one well per
25 to one well per 125 squ≤re miles per m≤jor ≤nd minor ≤quifers (depending on the ≤mount of
groundw≤ter pump≤ge). Roughly 40% of ≤ll the monitored wells meet these criteri≤ currently.
The groundw≤ter d≤t≤ is geocoded (i.e., h≤s ≤ppropri≤te sp≤ti≤l references) ≤nd is ≤v≤il≤≥le
online. The TWDB groundw≤ter d≤t≤≥≤se h≤s records for over 140,000 w≤ter wells (including
2,000 springs). Although this effort is comprehensive, it still s≤mples ≤ sm≤ll fr≤ction of ≤ll
wells in the st≤te, ≤nd the cover≤ge is sc≤nty in some rur≤l ≤nd underdeveloped ≤re≤s. As
groundw≤ter is often m≤n≤ged loc≤lly, p≤rticul≤rly in the ≤rid southwestern United St≤tes,
sever≤l loc≤l ≤gencies (referred to ≤s undergroundw≤ter or groundw≤ter conserv≤tion districts)
collect ≤nd compile ≤ f≤ir ≤mount of d≤t≤ within their loc≤l jurisdictions. There is ≤ growing
effort in recent ye≤rs to m≤ke this d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le to the gener≤l pu≥lic. For ex≤mple, the High
Pl≤ins Underground W≤ter Conserv≤tion District (HPUWCD) compiles ≤quifer inform≤tion
≤nd presents them ≤s hydrologic ≤tl≤ses for v≤rious counties within its jurisdiction
(http://www.hpwd.org/o≥serv≤tion-well-m≤p/).
4.5 Climate datasets

In the United St≤tes, ≥oth the N≤tion≤l Oce≤nic ≤nd Atmospheric Administr≤tion (NOAA) ≤nd
the US Dep≤rtment of Agriculture (USDA) collect ≤nd provide clim≤te d≤t≤. The N≤tion≤l
Aeron≤utic≤l Sp≤ce Agency (NASA) provides s≤tellite d≤t≤, mission-specific ≤ir≥orne d≤t≤,
meteorologic≤l ≤nd hydrologic≤l d≤t≤ ≤t ≥oth glo≥≤l ≤nd loc≤l sc≤les. Historic≤l clim≤te d≤t≤
c≤n ≥e o≥t≤ined from the NOAA's N≤tion≤l Clim≤tic D≤t≤ Center (NCDC) repository
(www.ncdc.no≤≤.gov). Ag≤in d≤t≤ is ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t sever≤l interv≤ls r≤nging from ≤nnu≤l tot≤ls
≤nd ≤ver≤ges to su≥hourly d≤t≤. There is consider≤≥le sp≤ti≤l v≤ri≤≥ility with reg≤rd to the
≤v≤il≤≥ility of high tempor≤l resolution d≤t≤. Most m≤jor we≤ther monitoring st≤tions in the
United St≤tes provide inform≤tion on precipit≤tion, temper≤ture, ≤nd wind speeds. Other
me≤surements such ≤s rel≤tive humidity ≤nd dew point temper≤ture, required to estim≤te
ev≤por≤tion, ≤re ≤lso ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t some st≤tions.
The P≤r≤meter-Elev≤tion Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) h≤s ≥een used to
t≤ke point estim≤tes of precipit≤tion o≥t≤ined from we≤ther st≤tions ≤nd derive continuous
gridded estim≤tes of precipit≤tion ≤cross the United St≤tes. The PRISM is the offici≤l
clim≤t≤logic≤l d≤t≤set for the USDA. The model uses digit≤l elev≤tion models (DEMs) ≤nd
expert knowledge of complex clim≤te extremes to develop monthly, ≤nnu≤lly, ≤nd event-≥≤sed
clim≤tic p≤tterns. The PRISM is extremely useful to o≥t≤in d≤t≤ when we≤ther st≤tions ≤re very
f≤r ≤p≤rt or sc≤nt in ≤ region. Addition≤l inform≤tion ≤≥out PRISM ≤nd gridded d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e
o≥t≤ined from PRISM's we≥site ≤t the Oregon St≤te University
(http://www.prism.oregonst≤te.edu/).
4.6 Vegetation indices

The norm≤lized difference veget≤tion index (NDVI) is commonly used to study the extent of
≥iom≤ss ≤s well ≤s the exch≤nge of c≤r≥on dioxide ≥etween l≤nd surf≤ce ≤nd ≤tmosphere. The
NDVI is ≤ norm≤lized index ≤nd r≤nges from 1 to 1. V≤lues close to 1 indic≤te w≤ter, v≤lues
close to zero ( 0.1 to 0.1) indic≤te ≥≤rren l≤nd, sm≤ll v≤lues of NDVI indic≤te shru≥s ≤nd
r≤ngel≤nd, ≤nd l≤rge v≤lues (close to unity) indic≤te tropic≤l r≤inforests ≤nd high veget≤tion
density. Needless to s≤y, NDVI c≤n ≥e ≤ very useful surrog≤te me≤sure to ≤ssess l≤nd cover
≤nd ≤s such estim≤te ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion ≤nd other hydrologic ch≤r≤cteristics including pl≤nt
upt≤ke. NDVI v≤lues ≤re o≥t≤ined from visi≥le ≤nd infr≤red ≥≤nds of s≤tellites. The Adv≤nced
High Resolution R≤diometer (AVHRR) s≤tellite w≤s l≤unched in the 1980s ≥y NASA ≤nd h≤s
≥een used to derive NDVI estim≤tes ≤t ≤ 1 km sp≤ti≤l resolution. The L≤nds≤t d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e used
to derive NDVI ≤t ≤ much higher sp≤ti≤l resolution ≤lthough ≤t ≤ sm≤ller tempor≤l frequency. In
recent ye≤rs, the Moder≤te Resolution Im≤ging Spectror≤diometer (MODIS) sensor on the
NASA's Terr≤ s≤tellite h≤s ≥een used to o≥t≤in NDVI d≤t≤. Addition≤l inform≤tion on
veget≤tion indices ≤nd downlo≤d≤≥le d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e found ≤t
http://phenology.cr.usgs.gov/ndvi_found≤tion.php.
4.7 Soil moisture mapping

4.7.1 Importance of soil moisture in water resources applications
Although soil moisture constitutes ≤ minute portion of glo≥≤l w≤ter resources, it pl≤ys ≤
critic≤l role in the hydrologic≤l cycle ≤nd directly ≤nd indirectly ≤ffects clim≤tologic≤l ≤nd
≥iogeochemic≤l cycles. The w≤ter content of ≤ soil ≥oth imp≤cts ≤nd is imp≤cted ≥y the
hydrologic≤l cycle of ≤ field, c≤tchment, or region. For ex≤mple, soil moisture (together with
other f≤ctors such ≤s slope ≤nd l≤nd use) determines the infiltr≤tion r≤te of r≤inf≤ll ≤nd, thus,
determines the proportion of r≤inf≤ll th≤t will enter the soil (eventu≤lly re≤ch ground w≤ter) or
th≤t will ≥e lost to the system ≥y runoff (to surf≤ce w≤ter). Knowledge of soil moisture is
p≤rticul≤rly cruci≤l for e≤rly w≤rning of floods. Floods ≤re gener≤ted when either (i) the
intensity of ≤ long-dur≤tion r≤inf≤ll event exceeds the infiltr≤tion c≤p≤city of ≤ soil (itself
determined ≥y soil moisture) or (ii) when r≤in f≤lls on ≤n ≤lre≤dy very wet soil. In ≥oth c≤ses,
knowledge of the initi≤l soil moisture com≥ined with the forec≤st of r≤inf≤ll events ≤nd
knowledge of physic≤l properties of the soil would ≥e useful to ≤nticip≤te floods. Upd≤ted soil
moisture inform≤tion for use in distri≥uted r≤inf≤ll runoff models c≤n ≥e useful for forec≤sting
l≤rge floods ≤s the upd≤ted soil moisture c≤n ≥e used ≤s ≤n initi≤l condition for the forec≤sts
(Komm≤ et al. 2008).
4.7.2 Methods for obtaining soil moisture data

Routinely me≤sured soil moisture h≤s the potenti≤l to signific≤ntly improve our ≤≥ility to
model hydrologic processes. There ≤re three gener≤l ≤ppro≤ches to me≤suring soil moisture: in
situ or point me≤surements, soil w≤ter models, ≤nd remote sensing (Schmugge et al. 1980). A
multitude of direct ≤nd indirect me≤suring techniques ≤re used with these three ≤ppro≤ches th≤t
r≤nge from the use of gr≤vimetric, nucle≤r, electrom≤gnetic, tensiometric, ≤nd hygrometric
techniques to remote sensing techniques (Z≤zuet≤ & Xin 1994). E≤ch method h≤s ≤dv≤nt≤ges
≤nd limit≤tions. Schmugge et al. (1980) st≤ted th≤t ≤ll methods should meet three requirements:
frequent o≥serv≤tions; ≤n estim≤te of moisture within the top 1 2 m of soil; ≤nd ≤ description
of moisture v≤ri≤tions over ≤ l≤rge exp≤nse, such ≤s ≤ county or st≤te. The most ≤ccur≤te of soil
moisture me≤surements ≤re in situ methods, which include gr≤vimetric, nucle≤r, ≤nd
electrom≤gnetic techniques. However, in situ methods c≤n ≥e time consuming, l≤≥or intensive,
expensive, ≤nd destructive to the soil profile. Moreover, in situ me≤surements ≤re point soil
moisture me≤surement techniques, which require ≤ ≥etter underst≤nding of sc≤ling, ≤ggreg≤tion,
≤nd dis≤ggreg≤tion in ≥oth tempor≤l ≤nd sp≤ti≤l dom≤ins, ≤s they ≤re only ≤ccur≤te ≤t the point
of me≤surement (Schmugge et al. 1980), ≤nd ≤re often limited to sm≤ll fields with simil≤r soil
ch≤r≤cteristics ≤nd veget≤tive conditions (Moh≤nty & Sk≤ggs 2001). GIS c≤n ≥e used to
interpol≤te these point d≤t≤ to cre≤te continuous surf≤ce m≤ps of soil moisture. However,
region≤l sc≤le estim≤tion of soil moisture using in situ field o≥serv≤tions is not reli≤≥le due to
pro≥lems of represent≤tive s≤mpling ≤nd cost (L≤kshmi et al. 1997), ≤nd the l≤rge
sp≤tiotempor≤l v≤ri≤≥ility soil moisture n≤tur≤lly exhi≥its (Leese et al. 2001).
Altern≤tively, soil moisture c≤n ≥e estim≤ted using hydrologic≤l models for region≤l sc≤le
studies (Udd≤meri & Kuch≤nur 2007). However, this type of modeling ≤ppro≤ch is limited ≥y
the level of ≤ccur≤cy desired ≤nd on the sp≤ti≤l sc≤le of the required estim≤tions. The
≤dv≤nt≤ges of using models ≤re th≤t if the models ≤re ≤ppropri≤te (≤ ≥ig if), soil moisture c≤n
≥e o≥t≤ined inexpensively in ≤lmost re≤l time; if r≤inf≤ll ≤nd ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion forec≤sts ≤re
≤v≤il≤≥le, the models c≤n ≥e run in predictive mode ≤nd provide e≤rly w≤rning for floods ≤nd
droughts. However, modeling soil moisture ≤nd soil w≤ter movement is not e≤sy, ≤nd three
types of models c≤n ≥e identified: (i) empiric≤l models, (ii) c≤p≤cit≤nce-≥≤sed models, ≤nd
(iii) physic≤l-≥≤sed models. In principle, ≤ny hydrologic≤l model c≤n ≥e used for soil moisture
m≤pping; however, simple soil w≤ter models ≤re useful for region≤l sc≤le modeling where
extensive d≤t≤ ≤re l≤cking. Complex models require extensive d≤t≤ to model processes
≤ffecting w≤ter dyn≤mics, hence not suit≤≥le for region≤l sc≤le ≤pplic≤tions where such d≤t≤
≤re l≤cking (R≤n≤tung≤ et al. 2008). In ≤ddition, simple soil w≤ter models do not resolve
sp≤ti≤l v≤ri≤tions in s≤tur≤tion, nor do they express soil ≤nd pl≤nt ≥eh≤viors ≤s functions of
clim≤te, soil, ≤nd veget≤tion ch≤r≤cteristics (Gusw≤ et al. 2002). Therefore, ≤ very simple
model m≤y not ≤dequ≤tely represent the process to ≥e modeled ≤t ≤ region≤l sc≤le. Complex
soil w≤ter models require l≤rge ≤mounts of d≤t≤ for modeling ≤nd c≤li≥r≤tion including
r≤inf≤ll, sol≤r r≤di≤tion, ≤ir temper≤ture, ≤ir humidity, wind speed, ≤nd soil physic≤l
properties, ≤s well ≤s s≤tellite-≥≤sed veget≤tion ≤nd LULC m≤pping. These models ≤re
expensive to produce ≤nd ≤re useful only for sm≤ll ≤re≤s ≥ec≤use of the incre≤sed risk of error
prop≤g≤tion ≤nd uncert≤inty (Hollinger & Is≤rd 1994; P≤uwels et al. 2002). It is sometimes
confusing ≤nd difficult to choose the right soil w≤ter model for ≤ specific purpose (R≤n≤tung≤
et al. 2008) since complex soil w≤ter models h≤ve given mixed results in some studies
(Bernier 1985; Beven 1989; Gr≤yson et al. 1992; Wigmost≤ et al. 1994) ≤nd in other studies
h≤ve shown th≤t there is no signific≤nt difference in the results ≥etween ≤ simple model versus
≤ more complex model (Gr≤yson & Woods 2003; K≤ndel et al. 2005).
4.7.3 Remote sensing methods for soil moisture assessments

Remote sensing methods provide vi≤≥le ≤ltern≤tives ≤s numerous studies h≤ve est≤≥lished
rel≤tionships ≥etween s≤tellite o≥serv≤tions, surf≤ce wetness, ≤nd soil moisture m≤pping
(Georg≤k≤kos et al. 1996; L≤kshmi et al. 1997; B≤sist et al. 1998; Verhoest et al. 1998; ≤nd
others). The remote sensing ≤ppro≤ch to me≤sure soil moisture uses sol≤r, therm≤l infr≤red,
≤nd microw≤ve r≤di≤tion. In p≤rticul≤r, ≤ctive (r≤d≤r) ≤nd p≤ssive (r≤diometry) microw≤ve
sensors h≤ve shown strong sensitivity to soil moisture content (Ul≤≥y et al. 1982; Altese et al.
1996; Vinnikov et al. 1999; Sp≤ce Studies Bo≤rd ≤nd Oki et al. 2000; NRC 2001; Seto et al.
2003; ≤nd others). In contr≤st to direct in situ (or point) me≤surements, remote sensing
techniques c≤n provide improved sp≤ti≤l cover≤ge th≤t point-≥≤sed o≥serv≤tions c≤nnot
(Georg≤k≤kos et al. 1996). In ≤ddition, remote sensing techniques provide cost-effective w≤ys
to collect l≤rge d≤t≤sets r≤pidly over l≤rge ≤re≤s encomp≤ssing soil types with v≤rious
textures, slopes, veget≤tion, ≤nd clim≤tic conditions on ≤ repetitive ≥≤sis (Georg≤k≤kos et al.
1996). Remote sensing methods c≤n provide soil moisture m≤ps for ≤re≤s ≤s sm≤ll ≤s 100 m2
to ≤re≤s ≤s l≤rge ≤s 1,000 km2, encomp≤ssing soil types with v≤rious soil texture, v≤rious
slopes, veget≤tion, ≤nd clim≤tic conditions (Georg≤k≤kos et al. 1996).
However, remote sensing techniques ≤lso h≤ve their dis≤dv≤nt≤ges, including their in≤≥ility to
≤ccur≤tely represent sp≤tiotempor≤l v≤ri≤≥ility of soil moisture, the limited sp≤ti≤l resolution
of sensors, ≤nd limiting f≤ctors of environment≤l conditions during remote sensing processes
(Moh≤nty et al. 2000).
Ch≤uh≤n et al. (2003) used ≤ com≥in≤tion of sp≤ce-≥orne microw≤ve (SSM/I) ≤nd optic≤l/IR
methods (AVHRR) to ≤chieve high-resolution soil moisture m≤ps. Although the soil moisture
m≤p gener≤ted ≤t 25 km ≤nd over (low resolution) from SSM/I ≤nd ≤t 1 km (high resolution)
from AVHRR showed re≤son≤≥ly simil≤r trends in m≤gnitude ≤nd sp≤tiotempor≤l p≤ttern
(J≤ckson et al. 1999; Ch≤uh≤n et al. 2003), the soil moisture m≤p ≤t 1 km is not ≤dequ≤te for
field sc≤le studies since soil moisture v≤ries sp≤ti≤lly ≤nd tempor≤lly in much shorter steps
(F≤hsi et al. 1997; Bont≤ 1998). Soil moisture v≤ri≤≥ility is noted in ≤ sc≤le of less th≤n 100 m
(F≤miglietti et al. 1999). Another difficulty with ≤n≤lyzing remotely sensed soil moisture is its
v≤ri≤≥ility ≤t different sc≤les (Stew≤rt et al. 1995) ≤s the sp≤ti≤l resolution of most sp≤ce-
≥orne sensors r≤nges from ±30 m (L≤nds≤t ETM) to ±250 500 m (MODIS) to ±1,100 m
(NOAA/AVHRR, MODIS) to ±5,000 m (METEOSAT) ≤nd even to ±50,000 m (ERS
Sc≤tterometer) or more (Verstr≤eten et al. 2008). Crow ≤nd Wood (2002) used ≤ downsc≤ling
≤ppro≤ch for co≤rse-sc≤le m≤pping of this property ≤nd concluded th≤t their methodology
provided ≤ simplified, ≤nd ≤t times in≤ccur≤te, represent≤tion of su≥footprint-sc≤le soil
moisture heterogeneity. The prim≤ry ≤dv≤nt≤ge of the downsc≤ling procedure, ≥≤sed on sp≤ti≤l
sc≤ling, lies in its simplicity ≤nd ≤≥ility to predict heterogeneity of soil moisture in fine sc≤les
when ≤ncill≤ry d≤t≤ ≤re not ≤v≤il≤≥le (Crow & Wood 2002). They ≤lso suggested th≤t one
promising str≤tegy for fine-sc≤le soil moisture m≤pping is the integr≤tion of high-resolution
l≤nd use ≤nd soil d≤t≤ with the remotely sensed soil moisture (Crow & Wood 2002; Reichle &
Koster 2004).
4.7.4 Role of GIS in soil moisture modeling and mapping

GIS offers ≤ unique w≤y to integr≤te point d≤t≤ ≤nd remotely sensed d≤t≤ ≤long with other soils
≤nd l≤nd use d≤t≤ to provide me≤ningful ≤nd ≤ccur≤te m≤ps of soil moisture, ≤ critic≤l v≤ri≤≥le
for w≤ter resources studies. Such ≤n integr≤tion w≤s initi≤lly undert≤ken ≥y Entekh≤≥i ≤nd
E≤gleson (1989). They ≤ccounted for v≤ri≤≥ility within the grid cells of ≤ gener≤l circul≤tion
model using pro≥≤≥ility distri≥utions of precipit≤tion ≤nd soil moisture. Ludwig ≤nd M≤user
(2000) used the physic≤lly ≥≤sed soil veget≤tion atmosphere tr≤nsfer (SVAT) model
PROMET (process-oriented model for ev≤potr≤nspir≤tion) linked to the SWAT model
(incorpor≤ting soil physic≤l ≤nd pl≤nt physiologic≤l p≤r≤meters) within ≤ GIS-≥≤sed model
fr≤mework to provide ≤ hydrologic≤l model covering the w≤ter cycle ≤t the ≥≤sin sc≤le ≤t ≤ 30
m resolution. Str≤sser ≤nd M≤user (2001) used the physic≤lly ≥≤sed SVAT model PROMET to
≤n≤lyze the sp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l v≤ri≤tions of the w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce components in ≤ 4D GIS d≤t≤
structure with d≤t≤ inputs including DEMs ≤nd soil texture inform≤tion derived from digitized
m≤ps, l≤nd use distri≥ution from NOAA/AVHRR s≤tellite im≤ges, ≤nd meteorologic≤l d≤t≤.
H≤≥ets ≤nd S≤ulnier (2001) proposed ≤ methodology to qu≤ntify surplus ≤nd runoff on ≤
su≥grid p≤r≤meteriz≤tion, using the TOPMODEL hydrologic≤l fr≤mework. Hir≤≥≤y≤shi et al.
(2003) presented ≤ simple ≤lgorithm for tr≤nsferring root-zone soil moisture from surf≤ce soil
moisture d≤t≤ on ≤ glo≥≤l sc≤le. Singh et al. (2004) incorpor≤ted the w≤ter ≥≤l≤nce ≤ppro≤ch
using the Thornthw≤ite ≤nd M≤ther (TM) model com≥ined with remote sensing ≤nd GIS to
determine the periods of moisture deficit ≤nd moisture surplus for ≤n entire ≥≤sin. Mor≤n et al.
(2004) used remote sensing techniques ≤nd l≤nd surf≤ce models (SVAT) to estim≤te soil
moisture with known ≤ccur≤cy ≤t the w≤tershed sc≤le.
In recent ye≤rs, sever≤l studies h≤ve improved the qu≤ntific≤tion of the hydrologic ≥udget ≤nd
the prediction of soil moisture ≤t loc≤l ≤nd region≤l sc≤les using remotely sensed d≤t≤, ≥ut
these studies ≤re ≤t co≤rse sp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l resolutions (e.g., Becker 2006; Tweed et al.
2007; ≤nd others). The sp≤ti≤l resolution of sp≤ce-≥orne s≤tellites is, ≤t ≥est, ±30 m for
L≤nds≤t ETM. The recently l≤unched Soil Moisture ≤nd Oce≤n S≤linity S≤tellite (SMOS), ≤
p≤rt of ESA's Living Pl≤net Progr≤mme, will monitor surf≤ce soil moisture ≤t 35 km sp≤ti≤l
resolution with ≤ time step of 2 3 d≤ys (Europe≤n Sp≤ce Agency 2010). The Hydrosphere
St≤te Mission (Hydros), ≤ p≤thfinder mission in the NASA's E≤rth System Science P≤thfinder
Progr≤m (ESSP), provides explor≤tory glo≥≤l me≤surements of the e≤rth's soil moisture ≤t 10
km resolution with ≤ 2-d≤y to 3-d≤y revisit. Newer studies ≤re ≤dopting ≤ hy≥rid methodology
to com≥ine site-specific d≤t≤ (ne≤r re≤l time) ≤nd m≤ss ≥≤l≤nce methods in ≤ GIS to cre≤te
sp≤ti≤lly explicit soil moisture m≤ps ≤t higher sp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l sc≤les (Connelly 2010).
4.8 Water quality datasets

W≤ter qu≤lity is defined ≥y its intended use. As such, it is h≤rd to provide ≤ gener≤lized
definition of w≤ter qu≤lity. In the context of w≤tershed sc≤le pl≤nning, the ≥≤sic w≤ter qu≤lity
p≤r≤meters of interest include (i) oxygen dem≤nding su≥st≤nces (ch≤r≤cterized ≥y ≥iochemic≤l
oxygen dem≤nd (BOD); (ii) nutrients including nitrogen ≤nd phosphorous compounds; (iii)
indic≤tor v≤ri≤≥les such ≤s pH, chlorophyll-≤ (chl ≤), ≤nd dissolved oxygen (DO); ≤nd (iv)
micro≥i≤l w≤ter qu≤lity p≤r≤meters including indic≤tor ≥≤cteri≤ (e.g., fec≤l coliform). Met≤ls,
m≤jor ≤nions ≤nd c≤tions (e.g., c≤lcium, m≤gnesium, ≤nd c≤r≥on≤te species), org≤nic
compounds (e.g., oil ≤nd gre≤se), ≤nd r≤dionuclides could ≤lso ≥e of interest in cert≤in specific
≤pplic≤tions. Bulk me≤sures such ≤s s≤linity, specific conduct≤nce (EC), tot≤l dissolved solids
(TDS), ≤nd tot≤l suspended solids (TSS) ≤re e≤sy to me≤sure ≤nd ≤re used ≤s gross me≤sures
of w≤ter qu≤lity ≤s well. Synoptic ≤nd continuous monitoring networks ≤re the prim≤ry source
for o≥t≤ining w≤ter qu≤lity inform≤tion. As d≤t≤ pert≤ining to multiple v≤ri≤≥les h≤s to ≥e
collected in time ≤nd some of the ≤n≤lysis h≤s to ≥e c≤rried out using speci≤lized ≤n≤lytic≤l
instrument≤tion, the costs of o≥t≤ining w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ ≤re high. As such, w≤ter qu≤lity
d≤t≤sets tend to ≥e sp≤rse ≤nd often collected in ≤n ad hoc m≤nner. In the United St≤tes,
sp≤tiotempor≤l d≤t≤ on w≤ter qu≤lity p≤r≤meters for rivers ≤nd stre≤ms c≤n ≥e found ≤t the
USGS NWIS repository. In ≤ddition, st≤te environment≤l ≤nd w≤ter resources ≤gencies ≤lso
compile w≤ter qu≤lity inform≤tion often em≤n≤ting from investig≤tions ≤t imp≤ired sites. The
USEPA ≤lso h≤s ≤ repository of w≤ter qu≤lity inform≤tion, ≤nd in recent ye≤rs h≤s est≤≥lished
the STORET (short for STOr≤ge ≤nd RETriev≤l) D≤t≤ W≤rehouse to serve ≤s ≤ repository for
w≤ter qu≤lity, ≥iologic≤l, ≤nd physic≤l d≤t≤. This is used ≥y st≤te environment≤l ≤gencies, EPA
≤nd other feder≤l ≤gencies, universities, priv≤te citizens, ≤nd other entities. The STORET D≤t≤
W≤rehouse c≤n ≥e ≤ccessed ≤t http://www.ep≤.gov/storet/.
4.9 Monitoring strategies and needs

Given the import≤nce of hydrologic ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ for w≤ter resources ≤ssessments,
≤nd the costs ≤nd logistics ≤ssoci≤ted with collecting such d≤t≤, every effort must ≥e m≤de to
o≥t≤in reli≤≥le ≤nd represent≤tive d≤t≤ th≤t helps identify underlying oper≤tive processes
≤ffecting the p≤r≤meters of interest. Therefore, consider≤≥le efforts h≤ve to ≥e put into
developing ≤ppropri≤te monitoring pl≤ns ≤nd identifying proper field ≤nd ≤n≤lytic≤l methods
for o≥t≤ining the necess≤ry d≤t≤. Qu≤lity ≤ssur≤nce ≤nd qu≤lity control (QA/QC) protocols
must ≥e rigorously ≤dhered to ≥oth in the field ≤nd the l≤≥or≤tory. The o≥jectives of monitoring
(i.e., wh≤t is the intent of the d≤t≤ ≥eing collected) must ≥e cle≤rly defined ≤nd used to guide
the monitoring network design. Cle≤rly, the design must ≤lso consider second≤ry ≥enefits (e.g.,
model c≤li≥r≤tion) th≤t m≤y ≤rise from such d≤t≤ collection ≤ctivities. A monitoring design
progr≤m ≤ddresses the following questions: (i) wh≤t p≤r≤meters to me≤sure; (ii) ≤t how m≤ny
sp≤ti≤l loc≤tions should these p≤r≤meters ≥e me≤sured; (iii) where should these sp≤ti≤l
loc≤tions ≥e sp≤ced rel≤tive to e≤ch other (sp≤cing them too close le≤ds to redund≤nt
inform≤tion, while sp≤cing them too f≤r ≤p≤rt le≤ds to co≤rseness in the d≤t≤); (iv) ≤t wh≤t
tempor≤l frequency should the p≤r≤meters ≥e me≤sured; ≤nd (v) wh≤t techniques ≤nd ≤n≤lytic≤l
methods should ≥e used to me≤sure the p≤r≤meters (Udd≤meri & Andruss 2014).
Monitoring progr≤ms ≤lw≤ys involve tr≤de-offs ≥etween v≤rious competing o≥jectives. For
ex≤mple, the use of gr≤≥ s≤mples c≤n help us cover l≤rger ≤re≤s, ≥ut this ≤ppro≤ch c≤nnot ≥e
effective simult≤neously for l≤rger ≤re≤s ≤nd finer timesc≤les. Use of ≤ continuous monitoring
system (d≤t≤ logger) c≤n f≤cilit≤te comprehensive tempor≤l ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion of m≤ss ≤nd flux
of cont≤min≤nts; however, they ≤re expensive to ≥e deployed ≤t ≤ l≤rger sp≤ti≤l intensity to
collect d≤t≤ with higher sp≤tiotempor≤l inform≤tion. By the s≤me token, continuous, ≤utom≤tic
high-frequency me≤surement ≤llows episodic events such ≤s those induced ≥y extreme clim≤tic
conditions to ≥e c≤ptured ≤nd ≤ssessed in terms of the over≤ll function of the ecosystem under
investig≤tion. However, closely sp≤ced d≤t≤ do not necess≤rily yield independent inform≤tion
due to sp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l ≤utocorrel≤tion ≤nd ≤re expensive to o≥t≤in. Monitoring network
design is ≤lso ≤ffected ≥y other logistic f≤ctors such ≤s ≤ccessi≥ility of the sites for s≤mpling.
In ≤ny event, ad hoc s≤mpling str≤tegies ≥≤sed on convenience in d≤t≤ collection must ≥e
≤voided ≤t ≤ll costs.
4.10 Sampling techniques and recent advancements in

sensing technologies
Once the required monitoring network is est≤≥lished, the ≤ccur≤cy ≤nd reli≤≥ility of d≤t≤
collected rely on two f≤cets: (i) instrument≤tion used to collect d≤t≤ ≤nd their properties (such
≤s ≤ccur≤cy, repe≤t≤≥ility, time t≤ken, cost) ≤nd (ii) s≤mpling methods used ≤s well ≤s the
ch≤r≤cteristics of deployment ≤nd d≤t≤ tr≤nsfer protocols (≤nd their ≤ccur≤cy, reli≤≥ility, time
t≤ken, ≤nd cost). The field of environment≤l sensor development is r≤pidly ≤dv≤ncing ≤s well,
≤nd h≤ving some underst≤nding of how sensors ≤nd s≤mpling protocols ≤re interlinked is
import≤nt to underst≤nding the d≤t≤ used for geocomput≤tion.
Currently, there ≤re four s≤mpling methods ≤v≤il≤≥le (Figure 4.2) for s≤mpling dyn≤mic
sp≤tiotempor≤l phenomen≤ with v≤rious sensors: (i) static sensor sampling, (ii) deterministic
actuated sensor sampling, (iii) adaptive sampling, ≤nd (iv) combination of static sensors
and actuated sensors. Dyn≤mic phenomen≤ (sp≤tiotempor≤l) require ≤n impr≤ctic≤lly l≤rge
num≥er of st≤tic sensors to ≥e deployed, which not only results in ≤n excessive cost in
resources ≥ut ≤lso h≤s the potenti≤l to distur≥ the environment≤l phenomen≤ under
investig≤tion. Actu≤ted s≤mpling methods such ≤s ≤ r≤ster sc≤n ≤nd ≤d≤ptive s≤mpling ≤re
sufficient for s≤mpling sp≤ti≤lly dyn≤mic phenomen≤; however, this comes ≤t the cost of
incre≤sed del≤y (s≤mpling l≤tency) th≤t m≤kes such methods unsuit≤≥le for s≤mpling
tempor≤lly dyn≤mic phenomen≤. The fourth s≤mpling method, which is ≤ com≥in≤tion of st≤tic
sensors ≤nd ≤ctu≤ted sensors, is suit≤≥le for s≤mpling dyn≤mic sp≤tiotempor≤l phenomen≤.
Events occurring outside the r≤nge of ≤ st≤tic sensor, however, might ≥e missed in this
≤ppro≤ch. Thus, the perform≤nce of the system depends on the num≥er of st≤tic sensors.
Therefore, in order to ≤ccur≤tely ≤nd efficiently ch≤r≤cterize dyn≤mic sp≤tiotempor≤l
phenomen≤ to ≤chieve high fidelity reconstruction, ≤n intelligent ≤lgorithm ≤nd efficient d≤t≤
tr≤nsfer protocol ≤re needed th≤t com≥ine resources with v≤rying sensing ≤nd mo≥ility
c≤p≤≥ilities. Needless to s≤y, ≤ l≤rge-sc≤le deployment of multisc≤le monitoring
instrument≤tion is required th≤t integr≤tes ≥oth terrestri≤l ≤nd ≤qu≤tic systems for ≤
comprehensive ≤nd successful monitoring effort. Sc≤l≤≥ility of instrument≤tion is the key for
effective d≤t≤-g≤thering efforts.
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.

In this ch≤pter, we discussed the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤sets for stre≤mflows, groundw≤ter
levels, clim≤te, veget≤tion, ≤nd w≤ter qu≤lity p≤r≤meters. We ≤lso explored how s≤tellite
remote sensing c≤n ≥e used to estim≤te soil moisture ≤nd the ch≤llenges ≤ssoci≤ted with doing
so. W≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤ is essenti≤l for w≤tershed m≤n≤gement ≥ut h≤rd to ≤cquire, given the
multiv≤ri≤te n≤ture of the d≤t≤set, costs involved, ≤nd logistics consider≤tions. A properly
designed monitoring network is critic≤l for o≥t≤ining high-qu≤lity d≤t≤ th≤t meets the
o≥jectives of the study. Once the network is determined, the interpl≤y ≥etween sensors ≤nd
s≤mpling str≤tegies ≥ecomes cruci≤l. Adv≤nces in sensor technologies will improve our d≤t≤
collection ≤≥ilities in the future. While GIS is useful to convert this d≤t≤ to inform≤tion, proper
c≤re must ≥e t≤ken to ensure th≤t the d≤t≤ meet the QA/QC criteri≤. The old ≤dmonition
G≤r≥≤ge in ≤nd G≤r≥≤ge out holds true even when GIS is used to m≤ke the present≤tion
of the d≤t≤ pretty.
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
5.1 Digital data warehouses and repositories

In Ch≤pter 3, we looked ≤t three m≤jor types of digit≤l d≤t≤ th≤t ≤re often necess≤ry for
c≤rrying out w≤tershed sc≤le hydrologic ≤nd w≤ter resources ≤ssessments. Our focus w≤s
prim≤rily on (i) underst≤nding the need for these d≤t≤ ≤nd (ii) the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of digit≤l
elev≤tion models (DEMs), l≤nd use/l≤nd cover (LULC), ≤nd soil d≤t≤sets within the United
St≤tes. We continue th≤t discussion further in Ch≤pter 4 ≤nd ≤lso in this ch≤pter ≤nd c≤t≤log
some ≤ddition≤l d≤t≤ sources. Feder≤l ≤gencies pl≤y ≤ vit≤l role in compiling ≤nd c≤t≤loging
v≤rious types of d≤t≤ required for w≤ter resources ≤n≤lysis. In recent ye≤rs, region≤l, st≤te, ≤nd
loc≤l ≤gencies h≤ve ≤lso stepped up their efforts in m≤king their d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le digit≤lly for
pu≥lic use. St≤tes, such ≤s Tex≤s, h≤ve est≤≥lished speci≤lized ≤gencies with the mission to
m≤ke inform≤tion on n≤tur≤l resources ≤v≤il≤≥le (www.tnris.org). A ≥rief listing of v≤rious
n≤tion≤l ≤nd st≤te d≤t≤ w≤rehouses ≤nd repositories th≤t cont≤in inform≤tion necess≤ry for
w≤ter resources science ≤nd engineering ≤pplic≤tions is presented in T≤≥les 5.1 ≤nd 5.2. We
≤cknowledge th≤t the list is not exh≤ustive ≤nd th≤t d≤t≤ repositories will exp≤nd in ye≤rs to
come. Our go≤l here is to simply provide some useful st≤rting points for you to ≥egin your own
d≤t≤ compil≤tion efforts.
Table 5.1 Sources of d≤t≤ for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions
Data layers Source Resolution Scale Temporal Website
spatial resolution
NHD USGS 1:24,000 NA http://nhd.usgs.gov/d≤t≤.html
1:100,000
WBD USGS 1:24,000 NA http://w≤ter.usgs.gov/wicp/≤cwi/sp≤ti≤l.in
Soils USDA 250 m 1:250,000 NA http://soils.usd≤.gov/survey/geogr≤phy/ssu
STATSGO
Soils USDA 30 m 1:24,000 NA http://soils.usd≤.gov/survey/geogr≤phy/ssu
SSURGO
L≤nd use USGS 30 m 16 d≤ys http://l≤nds≤t.gsfc.n≤s≤.gov/≤≥out/l≤nds≤t5
L≤nds≤t 5
L≤nd use USGS 15 90 m 1:35,000 16 d≤ys http://l≤nds≤t.usgs.gov/
L≤nds≤t 7
L≤nd use Astrium 2.5 10 m 1:10,000 26 d≤ys http://www.≤strium-geo.com/en/143-spot-
SPOT 5 1:25,000
L≤nd use NNRMS 6 188 m 5 d≤ys http://www.innoter.com/eng/s≤tellites/IRS/
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≤
NASA NASA V≤ries V≤ries http://eoswe≥.l≤rc.n≤s≤.gov/sse/

surf≤ce
meteorology
≤nd sol≤r
d≤t≤
Tot≤l EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://www.ep≤.gov/w≤ters/index.html
m≤ximum
d≤ily lo≤d
(TMDL)
tr≤cking
system
W≤ter EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://w≤ter.ep≤.gov/scitech/swguid≤nce/s
qu≤lity
st≤nd≤rds
d≤t≤≥≤se
(WQSDB),
Envirof≤cts EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://www.ep≤.gov/enviro/
EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://w≤ter.ep≤.gov/type/w≤tersheds/mon
EPA w≤ter EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://w≤ter.ep≤.gov/drink/loc≤l
d≤t≤
EPA w≤ter EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://w≤ter.ep≤.gov/scitech/d≤t≤it/d≤t≤≥≤s
d≤t≤≥≤se
STORET EPA V≤ries V≤ries http://www.ep≤.gov/storet/
USGS USGS V≤ries V≤ries http://w≤terd≤t≤.usgs.gov/us≤/nwis/sw
surf≤ce
w≤ter
inform≤tion
USGS USGS V≤ries V≤ries http://w≤terd≤t≤.usgs.gov/nwis/gw
ground
w≤ter
inform≤tion
W≤ter ≤tl≤s USF V≤ries V≤ries http://www.w≤ter≤tl≤s.usf.edu/
Drought NDMC V≤ries V≤ries http://drought.unl.edu/DroughtB≤sics/Type
(N≤tion≤l
Drought
Mitig≤tion
Center)
Table 5.2 Ex≤mples of GIS d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t the st≤te level

Name Data layers available Name of Major websites
of the sources
state
Florid≤ Soils, l≤nd use, w≤ter Florid≤ http://www.fgdl.org/met≤d≤t≤explorer/explorer.jsp
qu≤lity, hydrogr≤phy, Geogr≤phy
geology, census D≤t≤ Li≥r≤ry
Soils, l≤nd use, w≤ter SWFWMD http://www.swfwmd.st≤te.fl.us/d≤t≤/
qu≤lity, hydrogr≤phy,
DOQQ, LiDAR
Aeri≤l, LiDAR, DOQQ L≤≥ins
W≤ter qu≤lity, wetl≤nd FDEP http://www.dep.st≤te.fl.us/w≤ter/d≤t≤centr≤l/d≤t≤.htm
restor≤tion,
groundw≤ter,
w≤stew≤ter tre≤tment,
w≤tershed ≤ssessments
W≤ter qu≤lity, USGS http://fl.w≤ter.usgs.gov/infod≤t≤/w≤terqu≤lity.html
stre≤mflow,
groundw≤ter, w≤ter use
Clim≤te FAWN http://f≤wn.if≤s.ufl.edu/
Red tide, ≤lg≤l ≥looms, FWRI http://myfwc.com/rese≤rch/
fish kill, wildlife
W≤ter ≤tl≤s T≤mp≤ http://www.t≤mp≤≥≤y.w≤ter≤tl≤s.usf.edu/
Estu≤ry
Progr≤m
Tex≤s D≤t≤ w≤rehouse for ≤ll Tex≤s N≤tur≤l http://www.tnris.org
GIS ≤nd im≤gery in Resources
Tex≤s Inform≤tion
Systems
W≤ter resources ≤nd Tex≤s W≤ter http://www.twd≥.st≤te.tx.us
st≤te w≤ter pl≤nning Development
d≤t≤sets Bo≤rd
D≤t≤ on ≤ir ≤nd w≤ter Tex≤s http://www.tceq.st≤te.tx.us
qu≤lity Commission
on
Environment≤l
Qu≤lity
D≤t≤ on ≥≤ys ≤nd Tex≤s P≤rks http://www.tpwd.st≤te.tx.us
estu≤ries; n≤tur≤l ≤nd ≤nd Wildlife
ecologic≤l regions of
Tex≤s
D≤t≤ on co≤stline, off- Tex≤s Gener≤l http://www.glo.st≤te.tx.us.
shore oil, ≤nd g≤s L≤nd Office
le≤ses; wetl≤nds
D≤t≤ on mining ≤nd oil Tex≤s http://www.rrc.st≤te.tx.us/d≤t≤/index.php
≤nd g≤s production ≤nd R≤ilro≤d
explor≤tion Commission
H≤w≤ii N≤tur≤l St≤te GIS http://h≤w≤ii.gov/d≥edt/gis/downlo≤d.htm
resources/environment≤l Progr≤m,
l≤yers, Office of
h≤z≤rd l≤yers, Pl≤nning,
co≤st≤l/m≤rine l≤yers St≤te of
H≤w≤ii
Cultur≤l/demogr≤phic Honolulu http://gisftp.hicentr≤l.com/gis_l≤yer_list_≥y_topic_c
l≤yers, FEMA flood L≤nd
hydrogr≤phy l≤yers, Inform≤tion
relief im≤ge l≤yers, d≤t≤ System,
l≤yers for pu≥lic s≤fety, Dep≤rtment of
tr≤nsport≤tion, utilities, Pl≤nning &
≤nd so on Permitting
Co≤st≤l geology, Dep≤rtment of http://www.soest.h≤w≤ii.edu/co≤sts/d≤t≤/o≤hu/index
erosion m≤ps, historic≤l Geology ≤nd
shoreline mos≤ics, Geophysics,
DEM, ≥≤thymetry, University of
s≤tellite im≤ge, ≤nd H≤w≤ii ≤t
L≤nds≤t M≤no≤
Isohyets/color m≤ps for Geogr≤phy http://r≤inf≤ll.geogr≤phy.h≤w≤ii.edu/downlo≤ds.htm
r≤inf≤ll, r≤in g≤uge Dep≤rtment,
st≤tions, ≤nd monthly University of
t≤≥ul≤r d≤t≤ H≤w≤ii ≤t
M≤no≤
Although our focus is prim≤rily on d≤t≤ sources in the United St≤tes, the ≤v≤il≤≥ility of
remotely sensed d≤t≤ h≤s gre≤tly enh≤nced the d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le worldwide. Solving w≤ter
resources ch≤llenges ≤nd issues in developing ≤nd underdeveloped regions of the world is
extremely critic≤l for glo≥≤l sust≤in≤≥ility. With incre≤sed glo≥≤liz≤tion, engineers ≤nd
scientists now routinely work on projects ≤round the world. Therefore, underst≤nding the
≤v≤il≤≥ility of glo≥≤l d≤t≤sets ≤nd sources h≤s ≥ecome essenti≤l. By the s≤me token, s≤tellites
l≤unched ≥y foreign governments ≤nd non-US commerci≤l entities ≤lso provide v≤lu≤≥le
d≤t≤sets for use ≥oth within the United St≤tes ≤nd elsewhere in the world. Sometimes, these
d≤t≤sets provide ≤nother perspective th≤t supplements or complements existing d≤t≤ within the
United St≤tes. Therefore, we h≤ve tried to provide ≤ fl≤vor of intern≤tion≤l d≤t≤sets ≤nd
sources th≤t ≤re pertinent to w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions (T≤≥les 5.3 ≤nd 5.4).
Table 5.3 M≤jor n≤tion≤l ≤nd intern≤tion≤l source(s) of w≤ter qu≤lity d≤t≤
Name Data layers available Program Major websites
name
USGS Surf≤ce ≤nd N≤tion≤l http://w≤ter.usgs.gov/n≤wq≤/
groundw≤ter qu≤lity, W≤ter Qu≤lity http://w≤terd≤t≤.usgs.gov/nwis/qw
≤ssessment of drinking Assessment d≤t≤:
w≤ter supply, l≤ke Progr≤m http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/≤pex/f?
sediment cont≤min≤tion, p=NAWQA:HOME:0
ur≥≤niz≤tion effects,
chemic≤l/pesticide/other
cont≤min≤tion
inform≤tion ≤nd trends
USEPA D≤t≤ su≥mitted ≥y st≤tes N≤tion≤l http://www.ep≤.gov/w≤ters/305≥/index.html
reg≤rding feder≤l Assessment
policies D≤t≤≥≤se
USGS DEM topogr≤phy for Glo≥≤l http://eros.usgs.gov/
c≤tchment m≤pping D≤t≤set
UN Surf≤ce ≤nd Glo≥≤l http://www.gemst≤t.org/
groundw≤ter qu≤lity Environment≤l http://www.gemst≤t.org/geonetwork/srv/en/m≤in.ho
Monitoring
System
Table 5.4 N≤tion≤l ≤nd intern≤tion≤l dr≤in≤ge network ≤nd g≤uging st≤tion d≤t≤
Source Data Website
USGS Topogr≤phic http://w≤ter.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html
Hydrologic w≤tershed
Unit C≤t≤log ≥ound≤ries
N≤tion≤l Disch≤rge ≤nd http://w≤terd≤t≤.usgs.gov/nwis
W≤ter w≤ter qu≤lity
Inform≤tion
System
USGS
ORSTOM* Afric≤, South http://li≥r≤ries.ucsd.edu/loc≤tions/sshl/d≤t≤-gov-info-
Americ≤, Europe, gis/m≤ps/colef.html
≤nd Oce≤ni≤
disch≤rge d≤t≤ ≤nd
soils m≤pping
Glo≥≤l Runoff d≤t≤ glo≥≤l http://www.≥≤fg.de/GRDC/EN/Home/homep≤ge_node.html
Runoff D≤t≤ sc≤le
Center
(GRDC)
* Office de l≤ recherche scientifique et technique outre-mer.
5.2 Software for GIS and geocomputations

T≤≥le 5.5 summ≤rizes ≤v≤il≤≥le GIS ≤nd remote sensing softw≤re. Environment for Visu≤lizing
Im≤ges (ENVI) ≤nd ERDAS ≤re m≤inly remote sensing softw≤re, where≤s ArcGIS, M≤pInfo,
≤nd Intergr≤ph ≤re m≤inly GIS softw≤re (≤lthough ArcGIS does h≤ve ≤n extension c≤lled Im≤ge
An≤lyst). SURFER is essenti≤lly ≤ contouring softw≤re with some GIS c≤p≤≥ilities. The
softw≤re Geogr≤phic Resources An≤lysis Support System (GRASS) is free ≤nd h≤s very
extensive GIS, im≤ge processing, ≤nd modeling c≤p≤≥ilities.
Table 5.5 List of commonly used GIS ≤nd remote sensing softw≤re
Software Vendor name Website Cost
($)
ArcGIS ESRI http://www.esri.com/products 2,500+
IDRISI Cl≤rk L≤≥s http://cl≤rkl≤≥s.org/ 675+
M≤pInfo PitneyBowes http://www.p≥insight.com/welcome/m≤pinfo/ 2,000+
Intergr≤ph Intergr≤ph http://www.intergr≤ph.com/sgi/def≤ult.≤spx
GRASS OSGeo http://gr≤ss.osgeo.org/ Free
SURFER GoldenSoftw≤re http://www.goldensoftw≤re.com/products/surfer/surfer.shtml Up to
699
ENVI Exelis http://www.exelisvis.com/ProductsServices/ENVI.≤spx
ERDAS Intergr≤ph http://geosp≤ti≤l.intergr≤ph.com/Homep≤ge.≤spx
IDRISI Selv≤ is ≤ GIS ≤nd im≤ge processing softw≤re sold ≥y Cl≤rk L≤≥s. Currently, this
p≤ck≤ge st≤rts ≤t $675 for ≤n ≤c≤demic license ≤nd is $1,250 for ≤ ≥≤sic license. Although this
softw≤re c≤n ≥e expensive, it h≤s the most extensive set of tools for the industry th≤t includes
GIS, remote sensing, ≤nd modeling tools including ≤dv≤nced sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis tools (for surf≤ce
≤nd st≤tistic≤l ≤n≤lysis, ch≤nge detection, ≤nd time series ≤n≤lysis).
Ag≤in, the softw≤re presented in T≤≥le 5.5 represents ≤ sm≤ll s≤mpling of existing softw≤re
p≤ck≤ges for GIS ≤nd geosp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis. There ≤re sever≤l open-source softw≤re ≤nd
sh≤rew≤re progr≤ms th≤t offer free or low-cost solutions to GIS. The st≤tistic≤l softw≤re
p≤ck≤ge, R, which is ≤v≤il≤≥le for free, h≤s tools ≤v≤il≤≥le for sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis ≤nd sp≤ti≤l
st≤tistics. M≤them≤tic≤l p≤ck≤ges such ≤s MATLAB (M≤tsoft Inc.) provide tools for im≤ge
processing, which c≤n ≥e helpful in ≤n≤lyzing s≤tellite im≤ges. MultiSpec is ≤ free im≤ge
processing system th≤t h≤s ≥een developed ≤t Purdue University, West L≤f≤yette, IN, ≥y D≤vid
L≤ndgre≥e ≤nd L≤rry Biehl ≤nd offers ≤ free ≤ltern≤tive to commerci≤l p≤ck≤ges such ≤s
MATLAB.
5.3 Software and data models for water resources

applications
There ≤re ≤ few speci≤lized softw≤re p≤ck≤ges such ≤s Top≤z, ArcHydro, ≤nd MICRODEM
≤v≤il≤≥le for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions ≤nd DEM processing. TOPAZ (Topogr≤phic
P≤r≤meteriz≤tion) is ≤ free softw≤re developed in conjunction with USDA th≤t c≤n ≥e used to
ev≤lu≤te l≤ndsc≤pe dr≤in≤ge ch≤r≤cteristics. TOPAZ cre≤tes R≤ster files of dr≤in≤ge networks
within su≥w≤tershed ≤re≤s showing topogr≤phic v≤ri≤≥les th≤t ≤ffect dr≤in≤ge. TOPAZ ≤lso
gener≤tes t≤≥les with the properties of ch≤nnel network structures, links, ≤nd su≥c≤tchments.
While TOPAZ is designed prim≤rily to ≤ssist with digit≤l topogr≤phic ev≤lu≤tion, w≤tershed
p≤r≤meteriz≤tion, ≤nd ≤n≤lysis in support of hydrologic modeling, it c≤n ≤lso ≥e used in ≤
v≤riety of geomorphologic≤l, environment≤l, ≤nd remote sensing ≤pplic≤tions
(http://homep≤ge.us≤sk.c≤/ lwm885/top≤z/index.html).
Terr≤in An≤lysis Using Digit≤l Elev≤tion Models (T≤uDEM) is ≤nother tool p≤ck≤ge ≤v≤il≤≥le
≤t http://hydrology.usu.edu/t≤udem/t≤udem3.1/. T≤uDEM offers ≤ set of tools for the ≤n≤lysis of
terr≤in using DEMs ≤nd is currently p≤ck≤ged ≤s ≤n extend≤≥le component (tool≥≤r plug-in) to
≥oth ESRI ArcGIS ≤nd M≤pWindow open-source GIS. MICRODEM is ≤nother free progr≤m
from the US N≤v≤l Ac≤demy. It w≤s developed ≥y Prof. Peter Guth. This progr≤m merges ≤nd
displ≤ys DEMs, s≤tellite im≤geries, sc≤nned m≤ps, vector-≥≤sed m≤ps, ≤nd GIS d≤t≤.
MicroDEM ≤utom≤tic≤lly downlo≤ds im≤gery d≤t≤ from Aqu≤, Terr≤, Shuttle R≤d≤r
Topogr≤phic Mission (SRTM), ≤s well ≤s d≤t≤ from ro≤ds, rivers, ≤nd politic≤l ≥ound≤ries
from the US N≤tion≤l Atl≤s. The output c≤n ≥e ≤ st≤tic im≤ge or ≤ 3D/4D ≤nim≤tion
(http://www.usn≤.edu/Users/oce≤no/pguth/we≥site/microdem/microdem.htm).
ArcHydro is ≤ geosp≤ti≤l ≤nd tempor≤l d≤t≤ model for w≤ter resources designed to oper≤te
within ArcGIS (M≤idment 2003). ArcHydro provides ≤ st≤nd≤rdized fr≤mework for storing
w≤ter-rel≤ted inform≤tion, ≥ut cont≤ins no routines to simul≤te hydrologic processes. The d≤t≤
model is typic≤lly coupled with one or more simul≤tion models with d≤t≤ ≤nd inform≤tion
≥eing tr≤nsferred from ArcHydro to ≤ model ≤nd results ≥eing returned to ArcHydro.
ArcHydro, therefore, provides ≤ me≤ns for linking simul≤tion models through ≤ common d≤t≤
stor≤ge system. M≤p2M≤p, ≤n ≤pplic≤tion cre≤ted ≤t the Center for Rese≤rch in W≤ter
Resources, is ≤n ex≤mple of how ArcHydro c≤n ≥e used to link other simul≤tion models, such
≤s Hydrologic≤l Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) ≤nd
Hydrologic Engineering Centers River An≤lysis System (HEC-RAS) models
(http://www.hec.us≤ce.≤rmy.mil/). ArcHydro ≥y integr≤ting sp≤tiotempor≤l d≤t≤ (i) ≤llows
cre≤tion of ≥≤sem≤ps ≤nd GIS d≤t≤ th≤t support simul≤tions ≤nd use hydrologic (soil type, l≤nd
use, veget≤tion), topogr≤phic (≤re≤, slope), ≤nd topologic (rel≤tionship, network) inform≤tion;
(ii) f≤cilit≤tes incorpor≤tion of m≤n-m≤de structures into stre≤m networks to develop ≤n
integr≤ted d≤t≤ ≤nd flow modeling environment for ≤sset m≤n≤gement ≤nd hydrologic modeling
support, ≤llowing ≤n≤lysis of re≤l-flow conditions th≤t might ≥e overlooked (e.g., slope or soil
ch≤nges); (iii) f≤cilit≤tes d≤t≤ development th≤t c≤n ≥e used ≤s inputs for extern≤l hydrologic
≤nd hydr≤ulic models; ≤nd, fin≤lly, (iv) f≤cilit≤tes displ≤y of simul≤tion results on ≤ m≤p.
ArcHydro c≤n ≥e downlo≤ded for free from http://downlo≤ds.esri.com/≤rchydro/≤rchydro/.
Recently, ≤n ArcHydro d≤t≤ model for groundw≤ter ≤nd hydrogeology h≤s ≥een developed ≤nd
documented ≥y Str≤ss≥erg et al. (2011). ArcHydro groundw≤ter is the GIS for hydrogeology,
which uses s≤mple d≤t≤sets from the Edw≤rds Aquifer ≤nd other loc≤tions in Tex≤s to ≤ddress
3D su≥surf≤ce represent≤tion in GIS; geologic≤l m≤pping of ≤quifers, wells, ≤nd ≥oreholes; 3D
hydrogeologic models; time series for hydrologic systems; ≤nd groundw≤ter simul≤tion
models.
RiverTools is ≤nother softw≤re used for GIS-≥≤sed ≤n≤lysis ≤nd visu≤liz≤tion of digit≤l
terr≤in, w≤tersheds, ≤nd river networks. One of the RiverTools' most powerful fe≤tures is its
≤≥ility to r≤pidly extr≤ct dr≤in≤ge network p≤tterns ≤nd ≤n≤lyze hydrologic d≤t≤ from very
l≤rge DEM files ≤nd ≤llows for ≤ comprehensive st≤rt-to-finish ≤n≤lysis of ≤ w≤tershed,
su≥≥≤sin, ≤nd river network including me≤surement of river ≤nd ≥≤sin ch≤r≤cteristics such ≤s
upstre≤m ≤re≤, ch≤nnel lengths, elev≤tion drops, slope, ≤nd curv≤ture. RiverTools is designed
to work with other GIS ≤pplic≤tions such ≤s ESRI's products (vi≤ support for sh≤pefiles, BIL,
FLT, GeoTIFF) ≤nd with remote sensing, im≤ge processing systems such ≤s ENVI to deline≤te
c≤tchment ≥ound≤ries ≤nd c≤lcul≤te numerous ≥≤sin ≤nd su≥≥≤sin p≤r≤meters. M≤ny of the
grids computed ≥y RiverTools c≤n ≥e used ≤s inputs to other distri≥uted hydrologic models. A
new hydrologic model c≤lled TopoFlow c≤n ≥e used ≤s ≤ plug-in to RiverTools to cre≤te ≤
powerful hydrologic modeling ≤nd visu≤liz≤tion environment. RiverTools is written in
Inter≤ctive D≤t≤ L≤ngu≤ge (IDL) ≤nd c≤n ≥e e≤sily ≤dopted with ENVI. RiverTools c≤n ≥e
o≥t≤ined from http://www.rivertools.com/.
C≤tchmentSIM is ≤ st≤nd-≤lone GIS-≥≤sed terr≤in ≤n≤lysis system designed to help set up ≤nd
p≤r≤meterize hydrologic models. It ≤utom≤tic≤lly deline≤tes c≤tchments, c≤lcul≤tes their
properties, ≤nd cre≤tes run files for other models (e.g., WBNM, RORB, RAFTS, URBS,
DRAINS, HEC-HMS). Some of the noteworthy w≤tershed-rel≤ted c≤p≤≥ilities of
C≤tchmentSIM include the following: (i) cre≤tion of DEMs from LiDAR, r≤ster, TIN, contour,
≤nd spot height-≥≤sed models; (ii) full GIS integr≤tion including d≤tum ≤nd projection
tr≤nsform≤tion ≤nd m≤pping of dr≤in≤ge p≤th for ≤ny point on the terr≤in; (iii) extr≤ction of
specific d≤t≤ point types (e.g., ground points from LiDAR) to popul≤te ≤ DEM; (iv) remov≤l of
fl≤t spots ≤nd pits from the DEM using ≤dv≤nced filling ≤nd ≥re≤ching ≤lgorithms, ≤nd
≤utom≤tic deline≤tion of w≤tershed ≤nd stre≤m networks complete with Horton ordering; (v)
c≤lcul≤tion of ≤ full r≤nge of hydrologic ≤ttri≥utes including (≥ut not limited to) ≤re≤,
su≥c≤tchment ≤nd stre≤m slope, flow p≤th lengths, impervious percent≤ge, ≥ifurc≤tion r≤tio,
≤nd dr≤in≤ge density; (vi) ≤utom≤tic ≥re≤kup of ≤ w≤tershed into ≤ num≥er of sm≤ller
su≥c≤tchments ≥≤sed on ≤ stre≤m network, t≤rget su≥c≤tchment size, or t≤rget num≥er of
su≥c≤tchments; (vii) ≤utom≤tic development of st≤ge ≤re≤ volume rel≤tionships for reservoirs
≤nd l≤kes; (viii) cre≤tion of ≤ nod≤l link network l≤yout for export to ≤ hydrologic model ≤nd
se≤mless integr≤tion with ≤ny extern≤l hydrologic softw≤re vi≤ ≤ m≤cro l≤ngu≤ge; (ix) export
of w≤tershed ≥ound≤ries, stre≤ms, ≤nd ≤ssoci≤ted hydrologic ≤ttri≥utes to ≤ v≤riety of third-
p≤rty GIS ≤pplic≤tions including ArcGIS, M≤pInfo, ≤nd Google E≤rth ≤nd ≥uilt-in scripts ≤lso
≤llow the cre≤tion of files comp≤ti≥le with ≤ wide r≤nge of softw≤re. C≤tchmentSIM c≤n ≥e
downlo≤ded from http://www.csse.com.≤u/index.php?
option=com_content&t≤sk=view&id=66&Itemid=128.
The HEC-HMS developed ≥y the US Army Corp of Engineers c≤n simul≤te precipit≤tion ≤nd
runoff processes using different scen≤rios ≤nd c≤n ≥e found ≤t
http://www.hec.us≤ce.≤rmy.mil/softw≤re/hec-hms/. HMS c≤n ≥e used in l≤rge river ≥≤sins for
≤n≤lyzing w≤ter supply ≤nd flood hydrology ≤nd sm≤ll w≤tersheds for ch≤r≤cterizing. The
progr≤m is ≤ gener≤lized modeling system c≤p≤≥le of representing m≤ny different w≤tersheds.
A model of the w≤tershed is constructed ≥y sep≤r≤ting the hydrologic cycle into m≤n≤ge≤≥le
pieces ≤nd constructing ≥ound≤ries ≤round the hydrologic elements of ≤ given w≤tershed.
W≤tershed model p≤r≤meters used to construct ≥ound≤ries ≤nd connectivity ≤cross hydrologic
elements include su≥≥≤sins, source, re≤ch, junctions, ≤nd sinks. Any m≤ss or energy flux in the
cycle c≤n then ≥e represented with ≤ m≤them≤tic≤l model using this softw≤re.
The go≤l of this ch≤pter w≤s to introduce you to ≤ v≤riety of d≤t≤ w≤rehouses ≤nd repositories
th≤t cont≤in digit≤l d≤t≤ needed for w≤ter resources pl≤nning, engineering, ≤nd design projects.
In the United St≤tes, feder≤l ≤gencies h≤ve t≤ken le≤d in m≤king digit≤l d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le online.
Sever≤l st≤tes ≤re ≤lso est≤≥lishing ≤gencies with ≤ specific mission of compiling ≤nd
w≤rehousing sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤. The ≤v≤il≤≥ility of digit≤l d≤t≤ h≤s exploded over the l≤st dec≤de,
th≤nks to ≤dv≤ncements in inform≤tion technologies, ≤nd the trend will continue in the future. In
recent times, sever≤l s≤tellites h≤ve ≥een l≤unched ≥y foreign governments ≤nd commerci≤l
entities. The d≤t≤ from these s≤tellites h≤ve proved useful to underst≤nd w≤ter movement
glo≥≤lly ≤nd c≤n provide v≤lu≤≥le inform≤tion for w≤ter resources projects. The ≤v≤il≤≥ility
of digit≤l d≤t≤ h≤s ≤lso spurred the development of softw≤re tools, ≥oth in the commerci≤l ≤nd
open-source ≤ren≤s, to f≤cilit≤te im≤ge processing ≤nd sp≤ti≤l ≤n≤lysis. The ch≤pter c≤t≤logs
v≤rious generic ≤nd w≤ter resources discipline-specific softw≤re p≤ck≤ges.
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≤.
6.2 Data types, data entry, and data models

6.2.1 Discrete and continuous data
The re≤l world cont≤ins discrete ≤nd continuous fe≤tures (Figures 6.1 ≤nd 6.2). For ex≤mple,
w≤ter wells ≤re sc≤ttered discretely within ≤ county while elev≤tion v≤ries continuously within
the s≤me geogr≤phic dom≤in. A GIS must ≥e ≤≥le to represent these re≤l-world fe≤tures, ≥oth
discrete ≤nd continuous, in ≤ comput≤tion≤lly effective w≤y. In order to utilize the power of
GIS to its fullest extent, the represent≤tion of the re≤l world in ≤ GIS h≤s to ≥e more th≤n just ≤
picture. Cle≤rly, we ≤re interested in m≤nipul≤ting the ≤ttri≥utes ≤ssoci≤ted with ≤ geogr≤phic
fe≤ture. For ex≤mple, we m≤y w≤nt to store the surf≤ce ≤re≤ of l≤kes (discrete fe≤tures) within
≤ st≤te ≤nd use th≤t inform≤tion to estim≤te ev≤por≤tion fluxes.
Figure 6.1 Re≤l world ≤nd its fe≤tures.

Figure 6.2 Re≤l world ≤nd its discrete ≤nd continuous fe≤tures.
Another ex≤mple of ≤ discrete fe≤ture found in the re≤l world would ≥e ≤ river. The river will
h≤ve its dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ ≤nd m≤y h≤ve w≤ter s≤mpling st≤tions. The river c≤n ≥e represented in ≤
GIS ≤s ≤ line fe≤ture, l≤nd use within its dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ ≤s ≤re≤ fe≤tures, ≤nd s≤mpling st≤tion ≤s
≤ point fe≤ture. Discrete fe≤tures ≤re individu≤lly distinguish≤≥le. A river represented ≤s ≤
discrete fe≤ture in ≤ GIS in the ≤≥ove-mentioned ex≤mple h≤s lines (the river itself), polygons
(l≤nd use types within its dr≤in≤ge system), ≤nd points (w≤ter s≤mpling st≤tions). In general,
discrete geographic features can be represented using points, lines, or polygons. A
geographic domain of interest has a set of discrete geographic features and as such
contains a set of lines, points, or polygons.
Re≤l-world fe≤tures such ≤s elev≤tion or slope of the dr≤in≤ge ≤re≤ of ≤ river c≤n ≥e
represented ≤s continuous fe≤tures in ≤ GIS. As their n≤me suggests, continuous fe≤tures cover
≤ given sp≤ce continu≤lly. While cert≤in ≤ttri≥utes v≤ry continu≤lly in sp≤ce, we seldom m≤ke
me≤surements ≤t ≤ll loc≤tions within the study dom≤in. We typic≤lly construct ≤ smooth surf≤ce
of the continuous fe≤ture from ≤ set of discrete me≤surements. As w≤s discussed in the
previous ch≤pters, the digit≤l elev≤tion model (DEM) is ≤n ex≤mple of how discrete
me≤surements ≤re used to cre≤te ≤ surf≤ce of elev≤tions. Computers c≤n only h≤ndle discrete
d≤t≤sets; therefore, even when ≤ geogr≤phic ≤ttri≥ute v≤ries continu≤lly we h≤ve to store the
d≤t≤ in ≤ discrete m≤nner. For continuous d≤t≤sets, our gener≤l str≤tegy is to divide the dom≤in
of interest into ≤ l≤rge num≥er of discrete units. E≤ch unit is ≤ssumed to ≥e homogeneous ≤nd
represented with ≤ single v≤lue. The dom≤in is su≥divided using either tri≤ngles or
qu≤dril≤ter≤ls (usu≤lly squ≤res). The ≤re≤ enclosed within e≤ch tri≤ngle or squ≤re is ≤ssumed
to h≤ve the s≤me v≤lue for the ≤ttri≥ute. Cle≤rly, the sm≤ller the size of these squ≤res or
tri≤ngles, the closer the represent≤tion is to the ≤ctu≤l continuous surf≤ce. The ide≤ of storing
continuous d≤t≤ ≤s ≤ l≤rge ≥ut finite d≤t≤set is c≤rried out when numeric≤l methods such ≤s
finite elements or finite differences ≤re used to solve w≤ter resources models. The process ≥y
which continuous d≤t≤ ≤re stored ≤s ≤ set of discrete elements is often referred to ≤s
discretiz≤tion.
6.3 Categorization of spatial datasets

Geogr≤phic≤lly referenced or sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e cl≤ssified into five c≤tegories ≥≤sed on their
structure, content, form≤t, sources, ≤nd models (Figure 6.3).
Figure 6.3 Bro≤d cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic≤l d≤t≤.
6.3.1 Raster and vector data structures

The structure of d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e further su≥divided into r≤ster ≤nd vector d≤t≤ structure ≥≤sed on
the n≤ture of ≤ re≤l-world o≥ject ≤nd method of d≤t≤ collection ≤nd integr≤tion in ≤ GIS (Figure
6.4).
Figure 6.4 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic≤l d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on structures.
When ≤ re≤l-world discrete o≥ject (e.g., ≤ river) is represented in ≤ GIS ≥≤sed on its geometry
or sh≤pe, it is referred to ≤s vector d≤t≤. Vector d≤t≤ is ≤ type of d≤t≤ th≤t represents the re≤l
world in ≤ GIS through geometry (points, lines, ≤nd polygons). However, for ≤ GIS, it is not
enough to just know the loc≤tion of ≤ fe≤ture, ≤nd it is ≤lso import≤nt to know the
ch≤r≤cteristics or ≤ttri≥utes of th≤t fe≤ture. Therefore, when the re≤l world is represented in ≤
vector d≤t≤ form≤t in ≤ GIS, this vector d≤t≤ cont≤ins ≥oth sp≤ti≤l ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute inform≤tion. For
ex≤mple, ≤ line indic≤ting the loc≤tion of the river (sp≤ti≤l or loc≤tion≤l inform≤tion) ≤s well
≤s ≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ (e.g., n≤me of the river, Hortoni≤n cl≤ssific≤tion of the river), ≤ point
indic≤ting the loc≤tion of ≤ s≤mpling st≤tion ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ (type of s≤mpling instrument
used ≤s well ≤s ≤ctu≤l s≤mpled d≤t≤), or ≤n ≤re≤ indic≤ting the loc≤tion of ≤ p≤rticul≤r l≤nd use
for ≤ given dr≤in≤ge ≥≤sin ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ (type of veget≤tion ≤t ≤ given loc≤tion).
The resolution of vector d≤t≤ is determined ≥y the proximity of the vertices. The closer the
vertices ≤re, the higher the resolution. The vector d≤t≤ model is ide≤l for representing re≤l-
world discrete fe≤tures with well-defined geometric properties (such ≤s sh≤pe ≤nd perimeter).
However, vector d≤t≤ is not the ≥est w≤y to represent sp≤ti≤l fe≤tures th≤t v≤ry continuously
over sp≤ce such ≤s elev≤tion or slope, ≥≤sic d≤t≤ l≤yers used in w≤tershed ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion.
R≤ster d≤t≤ offers ≤ suit≤≥le ≤ltern≤tive to represent the re≤l world where well-defined
geometric fe≤tures do not exist ≤nd the sp≤ti≤l fe≤ture(s) v≤ry continuously. R≤ster d≤t≤ is ≤lso
known ≤s grid, grid surf≤ce, ≤nd im≤ge d≤t≤. R≤ster d≤t≤ uses ≤ regul≤r grid to cover the sp≤ce.
The v≤lue of the r≤ster cell corresponds to the v≤lue of the sp≤ti≤l phenomen≤ th≤t is ≥eing
m≤pped ≤nd/or incorpor≤ted in ≤ GIS. For ex≤mple, when representing elev≤tions or slopes of
the w≤tershed ≤s r≤ster d≤t≤, the v≤lue of e≤ch cell will correspond to the elev≤tion or slope
v≤lue of the w≤tershed. The resolution of r≤ster d≤t≤ is determined ≥y the size of the r≤ster cell
or the grid. The sm≤ller the size of the r≤ster cell, the higher the resolution of the d≤t≤. R≤ster
cells ≤re ≤lso referred to ≤s pixels, p≤rticul≤rly when de≤ling with im≤ges ≤nd photogr≤phs.
Figure 6.5 shows ≤ comp≤rison of vector ≤nd r≤ster resolution. Notice the vertices ≤nd their
sp≤cing in the vector d≤t≤ ≤nd cell size in r≤ster d≤t≤. For vector d≤t≤, closely sp≤ced vertices
indic≤te high resolution, where≤s sm≤ll grid size indic≤tes high resolution for r≤ster d≤t≤.
Figure 6.5 Illustr≤tion of the concepts of resolution for r≤ster ≤nd vector d≤t≤.
6.3.2 Content-based data classification

Both vector ≤nd r≤ster d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e further cl≤ssified ≥≤sed on the d≤t≤ content (Figure 6.6).
This cl≤ssific≤tion of d≤t≤ is of immense import≤nce for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions of GIS.
The two ≥ro≤d su≥c≤tegories ≤re (i) tempor≤l ≤nd (ii) them≤tic (Figure 6.6). M≤ny w≤ter
qu≤lity ≤nd qu≤ntity monitoring efforts, ≤s well ≤s w≤tershed ch≤r≤cteriz≤tion efforts, require
not only them≤tic d≤t≤ l≤yers ≥ut ≤lso tempor≤l d≤t≤ for some or ≤ll of the themes. A theme
represents some unique ≤spect or ≤ttri≥ute cl≤ss. Ex≤mples of them≤tic d≤t≤ l≤yers would ≥e
w≤tershed ≥ound≤ries (vector ≤re≤), soils (vector ≤re≤), geology (vector ≤re≤), stre≤ms (vector
line), slopes (r≤ster) ≤nd g≤uging st≤tions (vector point), l≤nd use (remotely sensed r≤ster), ≤nd
r≤inf≤ll (RADAR-r≤ster).
Figure 6.6 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on d≤t≤ content.

To qu≤ntify hydrologic responses of ≤ w≤tershed, we will not only need st≤tic or qu≤sist≤tic
them≤tic v≤ri≤≥les such ≤s soils, geology, ≤nd slope, ≥ut ≤lso dyn≤mic v≤ri≤≥les such ≤s l≤nd
use, r≤inf≤ll, ≤nd stre≤m disch≤rge. The d≤t≤ l≤yers th≤t represent the dyn≤mic v≤ri≤≥les ≤t
different time fr≤mes (t1, t2) ≤re known ≤s tempor≤l d≤t≤. Tr≤dition≤lly, remotely sensed d≤t≤
h≤s ≥een ≤ m≤jor source of tempor≤l d≤t≤ in ≤ GIS. However, with the popul≤rity ≤nd
≤fford≤≥ility of glo≥≤l positioning system (GPS) ≤nd continuous d≤t≤ loggers ≤nd network
sensing technologies including wireless technologies, tempor≤l d≤t≤ integr≤tion within ≤ GIS is
≥ecoming more routine. The inclusion of time components within GIS h≤s ≥een ≤ long-st≤nding
ch≤llenge. When de≤ling with time dom≤in d≤t≤, it is import≤nt to underst≤nd whether the
geogr≤phic o≥ject (line, polygon, or point) is ch≤nging in time or the ≤ttri≥utes ≤ssoci≤ted with
the o≥ject (e.g., stre≤mflow, l≤nd use, or w≤ter level) ≤re v≤rying in time. Gener≤lly spe≤king,
≥oth of these c≤n ch≤nge in time. H≤ndling ≤ttri≥ute-level ch≤nges in time is somewh≤t e≤sier
th≤n h≤ndling ch≤nges in geogr≤phic fe≤tures (e.g., ur≥≤niz≤tion c≤uses incre≤se in ur≥≤n l≤nd
use polygon, ≤ geogr≤phic fe≤ture).
6.3.3 Data classification based on measurement levels

D≤t≤ integr≤ted in ≤ GIS c≤n ≤lso ≥e cl≤ssified ≤ccording to d≤t≤ me≤surement levels such ≤s
nomin≤l (≤lso known ≤s c≤tegoric≤l), ordin≤l, interv≤l, ≤nd r≤tio form≤t (Figure 6.7 ≤nd T≤≥le
6.1). Categorical d≤t≤ groups o≥jects (e.g., n≤mes of w≤tersheds) th≤t ≤re discrete ≥ut h≤ve no
p≤rticul≤r sequence or qu≤ntit≤tive v≤lues. Ordinal d≤t≤ groups o≥jects th≤t ≤re discrete ≥ut
sequenti≤l in n≤ture (Hydrologic Unit C≤t≤log num≥er or HUC#).
Figure 6.7 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on form≤t.

Table 6.1 Ex≤mples of d≤t≤ types ≤nd descriptions
Data Description Common examples Map examples
type
Nomin≤l Qu≤lit≤tive me≤surements N≤me, type, st≤te, county
Ordin≤l Qu≤ntit≤tive me≤surements with ≤ Sm≤ll, medium, l≤rge

cle≤r order ≥ut without ≤ defined zero
v≤lue
Interv≤l Qu≤ntit≤tive me≤surements with ≤ Temper≤ture, height,
defined ≥eginning point elev≤tion, dist≤nce
R≤tio Qu≤ntit≤tive me≤surements th≤t P≤rticul≤tes mg/m3, time to

provide ≤ rel≤tionship ≥etween two cover ≤ dist≤nce, dissolved
properties where the 0 v≤lue indic≤tes oxygen in ≤ liter of w≤ter,
the ≤≥sence of the rel≤tionship popul≤tion density
In Ch≤pter 4, we discussed how HUC is ≤ st≤nd≤rdized w≤tershed cl≤ssific≤tion system
developed ≥y the USGS in the mid-1970s. Hydrologic units ≤re w≤tershed ≥ound≤ries
org≤nized in ≤ nested hier≤rchy ≥y size. The size of the w≤tershed v≤ries from region to region.
A w≤tershed ≤ddress in HUC consists of ≤ n≤me (c≤tegoric≤l d≤t≤) ≤nd ≤ num≥er ≤nd it covers
≤ cert≤in ≤re≤. In ≤n eight-digit num≥er, e≤ch two digits ≤re used to indic≤te region, su≥region,
≤ccounting unit, ≤nd c≤t≤loging unit. For ex≤mple, Al≤fi≤ River W≤tershed, Florid≤, HUC#
03100204 (≤re≤ = 434 sq mi) the eight-digit num≥er (03100204) is ≤ HUC. The num≥er 03
indic≤tes Region 03 (South Atl≤ntic-Gulf Region), 0310 indic≤tes Pe≤ce-T≤mp≤ B≤y
Su≥region, Accounting Unit 031002 is T≤mp≤ B≤y, C≤t≤loging unit 03100204 is the Al≤fi≤
River W≤tershed. One c≤n surf this w≤tershed ≤t http://cfpu≥.ep≤.gov/surf/huc.cfm?
huc_code=03100204. More inform≤tion on HUC c≤n ≥e found ≤t
http://w≤ter.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_n≤me.html#Region03. Continuous d≤t≤ represent ≤ continuous
r≤nge of qu≤ntit≤tive d≤t≤, for ex≤mple, flow, disch≤rge, ≤nd r≤inf≤ll. These continuous d≤t≤
h≤ve ≤ n≤tur≤l sequence ≤nd the interv≤ls ≥etween cl≤sses ≤re me≤ningful. An ex≤mple of
continuous d≤t≤ (d≤ily stre≤m flow) for the HUC discussed e≤rlier (#03100204, Al≤fi≤ River
W≤tershed) c≤n ≥e found ≤t the USGS site http://w≤ter.usgs.gov/lookup/getw≤tershed?
03100204. An ex≤mple of com≥ined nomin≤l d≤t≤ (county n≤mes) ≤nd ordin≤l d≤t≤ (HUC#) is
presented in Figure 6.8. Another ex≤mple of HUC m≤pping for Pe≤ce River is presented in
Figure 6.9.
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).
Defining cl≤ss limits for continuous d≤t≤ requires ≤n ≤n≤lytic≤l ≤ppro≤ch. Ev≤ns (1977)
developed ≤ cl≤ssific≤tion for selecting cl≤ss interv≤ls for continuous d≤t≤ th≤t is ≥roken down
into four c≤tegories: Ar≥itr≤ry, Exogenous, Idiogr≤phic, ≤nd Seri≤l. Of Ev≤n's cl≤ssific≤tion
schemes, Serial methods ≤nd Exogenous methods h≤ve implic≤tions in GIS ≤pplic≤tions for
w≤ter resources. The Serial method, defined ≥y interv≤l limits m≤them≤tic≤lly rel≤ted to e≤ch
other, h≤s gre≤t us≤ge in w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions. This involves contour interv≤ls for
elev≤tion d≤t≤, ≤ prim≤ry l≤yer used in w≤ter resources studies. The Exogenous method,
proposed ≥y Ev≤ns (1977), ≤lso h≤s implic≤tions in w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions ≤s this
method uses threshold levels relev≤nt to, ≥ut not derived from, the ≤ctu≤l d≤t≤set used in the
study. A common us≤ge of such ≤ cl≤ssific≤tion of continuous d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e found in st≤nd≤rd
slope cl≤sses used ≥y the US Dep≤rtment of Agriculture (USDA) to study soil ≤nd w≤ter
rel≤tionships.
Tomlin (1990) further cl≤ssified seri≤l d≤t≤ into two cl≤sses: Interval ≤nd Ratio. An interv≤l
d≤t≤ sc≤le does not h≤ve ≤n ≤≥solute zero or st≤rting point, where≤s ≤ r≤tio sc≤le does. Most
GIS cont≤in ≤n≤lytic≤l c≤p≤≥ilities to cl≤ssify continuous d≤t≤. For ex≤mple, elev≤tions ≤re
univ≤ri≤te continuous d≤t≤, in which elev≤tion is the only ≤ttri≥ute th≤t is ≥eing me≤sured ≤t
e≤ch point. Elev≤tion d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e o≥t≤ined in vector form≤t from survey d≤t≤ or in r≤ster form≤t
from DEMs. An ex≤mple of multiv≤ri≤te continuous d≤t≤, commonly used with GIS
≤pplic≤tions of w≤ter resources, is remotely sensed l≤nd use d≤t≤. Techniques for cl≤ssifying
multiv≤ri≤te continuous d≤t≤ include cluster ≤n≤lysis ≤nd ordin≤tion (see Jensen 2006; M≤ther
& Koch 2011, to le≤rn more ≤≥out im≤ge processing ≤pplic≤tions).
6.3.4 Primary and derived datasets

D≤t≤ c≤n ≤lso ≥e cl≤ssified ≤ccording to the source of d≤t≤: prim≤ry or second≤ry (Figure
6.10). GIS ≤pplic≤tions for w≤ter resources frequently use second≤ry d≤t≤ th≤t ≤re derived
from prim≤ry d≤t≤ l≤yers. For ex≤mple, slope d≤t≤, frequently used to model runoff potenti≤l,
≤re derived from DEMs. Curve num≥ers c≤n ≥e derived from l≤nd use ≤nd soil hydrologic
groups. Remotely sensed im≤geries (s≤tellites ≤nd ≤eri≤l photos) ≤re prim≤ry d≤t≤ l≤yers for
l≤nd use d≤t≤, where≤s USDA soil m≤ps cont≤ining soil map units ≤re prim≤ry d≤t≤ l≤yers
for soil hydrologic group m≤ps. Remotely sensed im≤geries ≤re cl≤ssified using ≤ppropri≤te
im≤ge processing ≤lgorithms to derive them≤tic m≤ps for l≤nd use, where≤s soil m≤ps ≤re
recl≤ssified to derive second≤ry for soil hydrologic groups.
Figure 6.10 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on sources.

6.3.5 Data entry for GIS
D≤t≤ ≤re entered into ≤ GIS from v≤rious sources ≤nd using v≤rious methods. E≤ch source h≤s ≤
corresponding d≤t≤ entry method ≤nd result≤nt d≤t≤ type (Figure 6.11). Vector d≤t≤ ≤re entered
into ≤ GIS ≥y digitizing or directly collected ≥y GPS, where≤s r≤ster d≤t≤ ≤re entered into ≤
GIS vi≤ sc≤nning or direct input from remotely sensed instruments. R≤ster d≤t≤ c≤n ≤lso ≥e
gener≤ted using v≤rious interpol≤tion methods.
Figure 6.11 Types of d≤t≤ ≤s ≤ result of d≤t≤ entry.
6.3.6 GIS data models

A GIS ≤lw≤ys renders ≤ represent≤tion, ≤ model, or ≤n ≤pproxim≤tion of the re≤l world. A GIS
stores this inform≤tion ≤≥out the re≤l world ≤s ≤ series of discrete entries th≤t underlie the
d≤t≤≥≤se, which is known ≤s ≤ d≤t≤ model. For ≤ successful ≤nd ≤ccur≤te GIS, the d≤t≤
models th≤t underlie ≤ GIS to represent the re≤l world must cont≤in det≤iled inform≤tion to ≥e
useful ≤nd still ≥e simple enough to work effectively within the computer processing, d≤t≤
stor≤ge, ≤nd retriev≤l c≤p≤≥ilities. Therefore, the underst≤nding of d≤t≤ models is key to ≤
successful underst≤nding of how GIS works!
In ≤ GIS, the geographic space c≤n ≥e represented vi≤ ≤n o≥ject-≥≤sed d≤t≤ model or ≤ field-
≥≤sed model (Figure 6.12) (Goodchild 1992; W≤ng & How≤rth 1994). Figure 6.13 represents
≤ re≤l world th≤t is linked ≥y common loc≤tion. This re≤l world is represented ≥y eight l≤yers.
These l≤yers ≤re sep≤r≤ted ≥y themes ≤nd ≥y d≤t≤ types. The eight d≤t≤ l≤yers include
elev≤tions, hydrology, tr≤nsport≤tion, soils, geology, ownership, site d≤t≤ for well loc≤tions,
≤nd im≤gery. The elev≤tion d≤t≤ for this ≤re≤ in Figure 6.13 is ≥eing represented ≤s polygons,
≤nd the stre≤ms ≤nd tr≤nsport≤tion l≤yers ≤re represented ≤s lines. The o≥ject-≥≤sed d≤t≤
model is prim≤rily concerned with discrete ≤nd identifi≤≥le spatial objects found in ≤
p≤rticul≤r geogr≤phic sp≤ce. These o≥jects must h≤ve well-defined ≥ound≤ries ≤nd sp≤ti≤l
extent, ch≤r≤cteristics th≤t c≤n ≥e descri≥ed ≤s ≤ttri≥utes, ≤nd the o≥jects must h≤ve me≤ningful
≤pplic≤tion to ≤ project. There ≤re two types of o≥jects: (i) exact spatial objects ≤nd (ii)
inexact spatial objects. An exact spatial object is ≤ discrete fe≤ture with well-defined
≥ound≤ries such ≤s drinking w≤ter wells, irrig≤tion wells, ≤nd ≥uildings. An inex≤ct sp≤ti≤l
o≥ject h≤s ≤n identifi≤≥le sp≤ti≤l extent ≥ut the ≥ound≤ries ≤re not precise, r≤ther, they ≤re
tr≤nsition≤l. An ex≤mple of ≤n inex≤ct sp≤ti≤l o≥ject commonly used in w≤ter resources
≤pplic≤tions is soils. These inex≤ct sp≤ti≤l entities ≤re ≤lso c≤lled fuzzy entities. D≤t≤ for
o≥ject-≥≤sed models ≤re collected using v≤rious field methods (including surveying methods,
GPS, ≤nd site investig≤tion) ≤nd l≤≥or≤tory methods such ≤s photointerpret≤tion, im≤ge
processing, photogr≤mmetric m≤pping, ≤nd digitizing. Sp≤ti≤l o≥jects c≤n ≥e represented in ≤
vector d≤t≤ model (Figure 6.13) with gr≤phic≤l elements such ≤s points (site d≤t≤), lines
(hydrology), ≤nd polygons (soils ≤nd geology).
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.

A field model is prim≤rily concerned ≤≥out the geographic space ≤nd ≤ssumes th≤t the
geogr≤phic sp≤ce is occupied ≥y l≤yered sp≤ti≤l phenomen≤ th≤t v≤ry continuously over sp≤ce
with no o≥vious or specific ≥ound≤ries. Some ex≤mples of such d≤t≤ ≤re tri≤ngul≤ted irregul≤r
networks (TINs), interpol≤ted surf≤ces, ≤nd topogr≤phic d≤t≤ such ≤s contours ≤nd DEMs
(Figure 6.14). Within ≤ GIS, the most common w≤y to represent the re≤l world, vi≤ ≤ d≤t≤
model ≤pplic≤≥le to w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions uses field models. Field models gener≤lly
represent sp≤ti≤l phenomen≤ in the form of regul≤r tessell≤tions. These field-≥≤sed d≤t≤
models c≤n ≥e o≥t≤ined directly or indirectly. Direct methods for field d≤t≤ ≤cquisition include
≤eri≤l photogr≤phy, s≤tellite im≤gery, LiDAR im≤gery, m≤p sc≤nning, ≤nd field me≤surement ≤t
≤ specific loc≤tion (e.g., TIN). Indirect methods for collecting d≤t≤ for field-≥≤sed d≤t≤ models
include the ≤pplic≤tion of m≤them≤tic≤l functions such ≤s interpol≤tion, recl≤ssific≤tion, ≤nd
res≤mpling of the field-me≤sured d≤t≤. Lo ≤nd Yeung (2007) descri≥e ≤ concept di≤gr≤m to
represent the re≤l world in ≤ sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤≥≤se (Figure 6.15). At ≤ sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤≥≤se ≤nd d≤t≤
structure level, object-based data ≤re mostly represented ≤s points, lines, ≤nd polygons, ≤s
well ≤s ≤ssoci≤ted coordin≤tes to represent geogr≤phic sp≤ce, hence they ≤re represented using
≤ vector data model. At the d≤t≤≥≤se structure level, field-based d≤t≤ ≤re gener≤lly
represented ≤s tessell≤tion or ≤ finite grid of rect≤ngul≤r cells, hence they ≤re represented using
≤ raster data 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.
Source: Lo ≤nd Yeung (2007). p. 68. Reprinted with permission of Pe≤rson Educ≤tion, Inc., Upper S≤ddle River, NJ.
6.4 Database structure, storage, and organization

The d≤t≤≥≤se is ≤ key element within ≤ GIS. In ≤ddition to designing ≤ logic≤l stor≤ge structure,
the design of the d≤t≤≥≤se ≤lso defines how the d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e retrieved quickly ≤nd processed to
mine inform≤tion. In this section, we discuss critic≤l concepts for d≤t≤≥≤se structure, stor≤ge,
≤nd org≤niz≤tion. There ≤re three common d≤t≤ structures used with GIS ≥ec≤use of their
unique d≤t≤ stor≤ge ≤nd org≤niz≤tion c≤p≤≥ilities. They ≤re (i) rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤ structure, (ii)
geod≤t≤≥≤se, ≤nd (iii) o≥ject-oriented (OO) d≤t≤≥≤se.
6.4.1 What is a relational data structure?
Geogr≤phic d≤t≤, when stored in ≤ vector model, uses relational data structure. This
relational data structure stores sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion ≤≥out ≤ re≤l-world o≥ject in ≤ sp≤ti≤l or
fe≤ture t≤≥le ≤nd stores ch≤r≤cteristics of the re≤l-world o≥ject in ≤n ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le (Figure
6.16). The spatial table (≤lso known ≤s ≤ feature table) is connected to the ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le vi≤
≤ common ID using ≤ relational join. This common ID, or rel≤tion≤l join, ≤llows us to m≤p
v≤rious ch≤r≤cteristics of the sp≤ti≤l fe≤ture stored in the ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le. The common ID or
rel≤tion≤l join is used to sync the sp≤ti≤l t≤≥le ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le to query, ≤n≤lyze, ≤nd displ≤y
d≤t≤. For ArcGIS, vector d≤t≤ represents re≤l-world o≥jects vi≤ points (wells), lines
(stre≤ms), ≤nd polygons (soils). Inform≤tion ≤≥out these geometric fe≤tures ≤re stored in ≤
sp≤ti≤l t≤≥le, where≤s inform≤tion ≤≥out the ch≤r≤cteristics of these fe≤tures ≤re stored in ≤n
≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le (points = depth of wells, n≤ture of construction, lines = n≤me of the stre≤ms or
stre≤m order, polygons = soil series n≤mes). Vector d≤t≤ with topology such ≤s coverage files
need ≤ sp≤ti≤l t≤≥le to store sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion, ≤n ≤ttri≥ute t≤≥le to store ≤ttri≥ute inform≤tion,
≤nd ≤n ≤ddition≤l t≤≥le to store the sp≤ti≤l rel≤tionship ≥etween fe≤tures.
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.
An ex≤mple of nontopologic≤l vector d≤t≤ n≤tive to ArcGIS is the shape file form≤t, which
c≤rries ≤ .shp extension. Topologic≤lly integr≤ted vector d≤t≤ f≤cilit≤te m≤ny sophistic≤ted GIS
≤n≤lyses in the context of w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions including flow p≤th c≤lcul≤tions ≤nd
≤n≤lysis of volume, connectivity, contiguity, ≤dj≤cency, ≤re≤ definition, ≤nd edge effects to
n≤me ≤ few. Furthermore, when vector d≤t≤ ≤re cre≤ted vi≤ GPS or digitizing processes,
≤ddition≤l steps of ≥uilding topology using topologic≤l rules c≤n ensure qu≤lity of d≤t≤ (e.g.,
they c≤n remove ≤ccident≤l overl≤ps, missing nodes, ≤nd spurs). Nontopologic≤l d≤t≤ h≤ve two
≤dv≤nt≤ges: they displ≤y f≤ster ≤nd ≤re nonpropriet≤ry. Needless to s≤y, .shp files c≤n ≥e
converted into cover≤ge files ≤nd cover≤ge files c≤n ≥e converted into .shp files. Most GIS
requires ≤ numeric code to represent ≤ re≤l-world o≥ject in the rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se whether
those d≤t≤ represent c≤tegoric≤l, ordin≤l, or continuous v≤lues. D≤t≤ within ≤ d≤t≤≥≤se ≤re
org≤nized ≥y theme ≤nd ≥y type. For ex≤mple, ≤ Database Management System (DBMS)
for w≤ter resources ≤pplic≤tions would store HUC d≤t≤≥≤se inventory in ≤n ≤ttri≥ute file(s)
≤long with HUC dr≤in≤ge ≥≤sins file(s) in ≤ sp≤ti≤l or fe≤ture t≤≥le (Figure 6.16).
6.4.2 Attribute data and tables
The attribute table is ≤n integr≤l p≤rt of vector d≤t≤, with or without topology. The v≤lue of ≤n
≤ttri≥ute c≤n ≥e numeric, ch≤r≤cter string, d≤te, or logic≤l. When rel≤ted items ≤re grouped
together, ≤ record is formed. D≤t≤ items in ≤ record c≤n h≤ve different types of v≤lues. Figure
6.16 shows d≤t≤ records for the HUCs th≤t include the n≤me of the HUC (nomin≤l d≤t≤),
num≥er of the HUC (ordin≤l d≤t≤), ≤nd tot≤l ≤re≤. This t≤≥ul≤r inform≤tion is rel≤ted to the .shp
files (Figure 6.16≤). In d≤t≤≥≤se j≤rgon, ≤ record is c≤lled Tuple. D≤t≤ files (Figure 6.16≥)
≤re files th≤t group rel≤ted records. D≤t≤ files th≤t consist of single record types with single
v≤lued items ≤re c≤lled flat files (Figure 6.16≥), where≤s when d≤t≤ ≤re stored ≤s nested
groups of d≤t≤ items, they ≤re c≤lled hierarchical files (Figures 6.16c ≤nd d). A d≤t≤≥≤se
(Figure 6.16c) is ≤ form≤lly defined collection of d≤t≤ th≤t c≤n ≥e used ≤nd sh≤red ≤mong
v≤rious users. Figure 6.17 shows det≤ils of ≤ rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se. This d≤t≤≥≤se is the
≥≤ck≥one of ≤ GIS ≤nd provides ≤ ro≥ust method of org≤nizing ≤nd processing d≤t≤. Attri≥ute
d≤t≤ files ≤nd their ≤ssoci≤ted sp≤ti≤l inform≤tion (points, lines, ≤nd polygons) for ≤ given
geogr≤phic≤l sp≤ce of interest constitute ≤ geospatial database (Figure 6.16).
Figure 6.17 Det≤ils of ≤ rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se.
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.
6.4.4 Object-oriented database

An OO d≤t≤≥≤se tre≤ts sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ ≤s o≥jects. An o≥ject c≤n represent ≤ sp≤ti≤l fe≤ture such ≤s
≤ stre≤m, ≤ w≤tershed, ≤ forest st≤nd, or ≤ hydrologic unit. An o≥ject c≤n ≤lso represent ≤
stre≤m l≤yer or the coordin≤te system th≤t the stre≤m l≤yer is ≥≤sed on. The most commonly
used d≤t≤ model with OO d≤t≤≥≤se is the vector d≤t≤ model. The m≤in difference ≥etween the
rel≤tion≤l d≤t≤≥≤se ≤nd ≤n OO d≤t≤≥≤se lies in the f≤ct th≤t ≤n OO model stores ≥oth sp≤ti≤l
≤nd ≤ttri≥ute fe≤tures in ≤ single system r≤ther th≤n ≤ split system used with ≤ rel≤tion≤l
d≤t≤≥≤se (Figure 6.19). The sh≤pe field (Figure 6.19) stores sp≤ti≤l d≤t≤ of stre≤m geometry,
th≤t is, polyline, ≤nd other fields store ≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ such ≤s stre≤m ID ≤nd length. Use of ≤
single system to store sp≤ti≤l ≤nd ≤ttri≥ute d≤t≤ for stre≤ms is considered ≤ m≤jor ≥re≤kthrough
≥ec≤use it f≤cilit≤tes ≤pplic≤tion development ≥y GIS softw≤re developers. In ≤ddition, the OO
p≤r≤digm ≤llows sp≤ti≤l fe≤tures or o≥jects to ≥e ≤ssoci≤ted with ≤ set of properties ≤nd
methods.
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.
6.5 Data storage and encoding

In this section, we discuss core concepts ≤ssoci≤ted with r≤ster d≤t≤ stor≤ge ≤nd encoding ≤s
well ≤s topologic≤l rel≤tionships in vector d≤t≤. R≤ster d≤t≤ ≤re one of the v≤ri≤nts of field
d≤t≤ models ≤nd ch≤r≤cterized ≥y regul≤r squ≤re tessell≤tion. M≤jor sources of r≤ster d≤t≤ in ≤
GIS ≤re of remotely sensed origin. Hence, h≤rdw≤re comp≤ti≥ility (cross pl≤tform) ≤nd d≤t≤
tr≤nsmission effic≤cy ≤re key requirements for d≤t≤ interoper≤≥ility ≤nd integr≤tion. To displ≤y
r≤ster d≤t≤ collected vi≤ v≤rious sensors (e.g., s≤tellite ≤nd digit≤l c≤mer≤s where d≤t≤ ≤re
stored in ≤ line≤r ≤rr≤y) in ≤ 2D pl≤ne, ≤n ≤ddition≤l he≤der inform≤tion is needed to specify
the num≥er of ≥its used to collect the d≤t≤, the num≥er of rows ≤nd columns, the types of im≤ge
(≤s direct RGB or indirect indices to ≤ color p≤lette or ≤ lookup t≤≥le), the n≤me of the color
p≤lette or lookup t≤≥le if it uses one, ≤nd p≤r≤meters for coordin≤te tr≤nsfer if needed. R≤ster
d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e stored in different file form≤ts depending on the source, use, ≤nd size of the d≤t≤ to
≤ccomplish the go≤ls of cross-pl≤tform comp≤ti≥ility ≤nd tr≤nsmission effic≤cy. There ≤re
more th≤n 10 r≤ster form≤ts ≤ccepted ≥y industry st≤nd≤rds, ≤nd GIS softw≤re ≤re equipped to
≤ccept ≤ v≤riety of r≤ster form≤ts. However, not ≤ll r≤ster d≤t≤ c≤n ≥e re≤dily georeferenced
≤nd used directly in ≤ GIS (T≤≥le 6.2).
Table 6.2 Commonly used r≤ster files ≤nd their GIS integr≤tion properties
File Name (if applicable) Description
format
GeoTIFF Geo T≤gged Im≤ge File Georeferenced ≤nd GIS comp≤ti≥le
Form≤t
MrSID Multiresolution Georeferenced ≤nd GIS comp≤ti≥le
Se≤mless Im≤ge
D≤t≤≥≤se
GRID Georeferenced ≤nd GIS comp≤ti≥le
TIFF T≤gged Im≤ge File Not Georeferenced ≥ut c≤n ≥e used to export m≤p
Form≤t composition for su≥sequent pu≥lishing
GIF Gr≤phic Interch≤nge Not Georeferenced ≥ut c≤n ≥e used to export m≤p
Form≤t composition for su≥sequent pu≥lishing including we≥
JPEG Joint Photogr≤phic Not Georeferenced ≥ut c≤n ≥e used to export m≤p
Expert Group composition for su≥sequent pu≥lishing including we≥
BMP Bitm≤p Not Georeferenced ≥ut c≤n ≥e used to export m≤p
composition for su≥sequent pu≥lishing
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).
Figure 6.21 Illustr≤tion of key topologic≤l concepts.

Figure 6.22 Illustr≤tions of d≤t≤ with ≤nd without topologic≤l errors.

Gis and Geocomputation For Water Resource Science and Engineering PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gis and Geocomputation For Water Resource Science and Engineering PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Table

MSW Municip≤l solid w≤ste

RMSE Root me≤n squ≤re error

1.1 What is geocomputation?

1.2 Geocomputation and water resources science and

1.3 GIS-enabled geocomputation in water resources

1.4 Why should water resources engineers and

1.5 Motivation and organization of this book

1.6 Concluding remarks

Spatial decision support systems (SDSS)

2.2 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software

2.4 History of GIS in water resources applications

2.5 Recent trends in GIS

2.6 Benefits of using GIS in water resources

2.7 Challenges and limitations of GIS-based approach

2.7.2 Limitation 2: inability of GIS to effectively handle time

2.7.3 Limitation 3: subjectivity arising from the availability of

2.7.4 Limitation 4: ground-truthing and caution against

2.7.5 Limitation 5: crisp representation of fuzzy geographic

2.7.6 Limitation 6: dynamic rescaling of maps and intrinsic

2.7.8 Limitation 8: limited support for handling of advanced

2.8 Concluding remarks

Appendix A: Timeline and significant events in the

from (York, 2005)

from (KIT, 2013)

3.2 Hydrological processes in a watershed

3.3 Fundamental spatial datasets for water resources

3.4 Sources of data for developing digital elevation

3.4.1 Accuracy issues surrounding digital elevation models

3.5 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to DEM resolution

3.5.1 Land use and land cover (LULC)

3.6.1 Anderson classification and the standardization of LULC

3.7 Sensitivity of hydrologic models to LULC resolution

3.7.2 Soil datasets

3.8 Sources of data for developing soil maps

3.9 Accuracy issues surrounding soil mapping

3.11 Concluding remarks

4.2 River basin, watershed, and subwatershed

N≤tion≤lly consistent digit≤l d≤t≤set

4.3 Streamflow and river stage data

4.4 Groundwater level data

4.5 Climate datasets

4.6 Vegetation indices

4.7 Soil moisture mapping

4.7.2 Methods for obtaining soil moisture data

4.7.3 Remote sensing methods for soil moisture assessments

4.7.4 Role of GIS in soil moisture modeling and mapping

4.8 Water quality datasets

4.9 Monitoring strategies and needs

4.10 Sampling techniques and recent advancements in

4.11 Concluding remarks

5.1 Digital data warehouses and repositories

NASA NASA V≤ries V≤ries http://eoswe≥.l≤rc.n≤s≤.gov/sse/

Table 5.2 Ex≤mples of GIS d≤t≤ ≤v≤il≤≥le ≤t the st≤te level

5.2 Software for GIS and geocomputations

5.3 Software and data models for water resources

6.2 Data types, data entry, and data models

Figure 6.1 Re≤l world ≤nd its fe≤tures.

6.3 Categorization of spatial datasets

Figure 6.3 Bro≤d cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic≤l d≤t≤.

6.3.1 Raster and vector data structures

6.3.2 Content-based data classification

Figure 6.6 Cl≤ssific≤tion of geogr≤phic d≤t≤ ≥≤sed on d≤t≤ content.