Stream Mapping: A Primer

1
Stream Mapping A Primer

• 2007 North Carolina
• GIS Conference

2
Outline

• Background Joe Sewash
• Technical Issues Scott Edelman
• Transportation Andy McDaniel
• Ecosystem Enhancement Colleen KileyProgram
• Water Quality in the Field Periann Russell / Ian
  McMillian
• Water Quality in the Cam McNuttFuture
• Wrap-Up and Discussion Joe Sewash

3
Background

• Stream Mapping Working Group
• Four meetings in late 2004
• Requirements Survey / User Requirements Summary
• Stream Mapping Implementation Plan
• Submitted to the NC Legislature in January 2005
• Endorsed by GICC and presented to the General
  Assemblys Environmental Review Commission in
  January 2005
• Statewide implementation over five year period

4
Background

• A new dataset with improved horizontal accuracy
  provides many benefits to agencies as well as the
  general public. These benefits include but are
  not limited to improvements in
• Stream Restoration and Buffering
• Permitting
• Flood Assessments
• Watershed Delineation and Modeling
• Regulatory Activities such as Mitigation
• Water Quality Enhancement and Planning
• Viewing Map Data and Map Production
• Planning for Emergency Response to Disasters
• Endangered Species and Natural Resource Management

5
Background

• NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), NC
  Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
• Current mitigation estimates fall around 1.5
  million feet for the next three years, a twenty
  percent underestimation would mean that an
  additional 300,000 linear feet of stream would
  need mitigation. That would be approximately
  100,000 linear feet a year, or an additional 20
  million worth of restoration each year.
• If the new maps were to produce just a two
  percent increase in NCEEP staff efficiency during
  the next three years, NCEEP could provide
  approximately an additional 30,000 additional
  feet of stream mitigation credits to meet NCDOTs
  needs. The additional mitigation credits would
  be worth approximately 6,150,000.

6
Background

• City of Durham
• Review and approval of site plans would take
  staff less time to complete. Assuming the
  midpoint salary of a senior technician (47,000)
  multiplied by 1.7 for benefits, training, etc.
  results in a yearly cost to the City of 215,730
  to perform this task. The new statewide digital
  surface waters file would save the City of Durham
  215,730 per year.
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
• Environmental permit review time would be
  reduced. NCWRC staff currently spends 1,568 days
  to handle 2,746 permits. These numbers are based
  on 2003-2004 data provided by the NCWRC. Review
  time would be reduced by 15 minutes per permit.
  The total time savings is 686.5 hours. The
  review labor rate is 30/hr. The new digital
  surface waters file would save the NCWRC 20,595
  per year.

7
Background

• US Geological Survey
• The time to calculate flood frequency
  statistics at an ungaged site on a stream could
  be cut from 16 hours of manual calculation to 15
  minutes with full coverage 124K NHD available
  for computer processing. At a burdened 60.00
  per hour for a hydrologic technician, that is a
  difference in dollars of 240.00 per manual
  calculation versus 15.00 per computer
  calculation. With about 100 such calculations
  being done each year at USGS, the savings would
  be around 22,500 annually.
• NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM)
• During the fiscal year ending 6/30/04, DCM
  field staff reviewed 171 Major Permit
  applications, 2,373 General Permit applications,
  and 24 General Permit applications for coastal
  wetland impacts. If all water body
  classifications were included as attributes in
  the streams layer or in a linked table, DCM field
  staff could save 30 minutes or more per permit.
  With 1,284 hours in a year and a current average
  salary for field staff of 18.46 per hour, the
  yearly savings would be 23,702.

8
Background

• Hurricane Recovery Act
• 19 Western North Carolina Counties impacted by
• Stream Mapping is one of many projects involved
• Completion date of May 2007

9
(No Transcript)
10
Background

• CGIA Roles
• Project Management
• Facilitate Advisory Committee
• Completion of 24K NHD units

11
Frequently Anticipated Questions

• Where can I find more information?
• How can I begin using the data?
• How will the data be maintained?
• When will the rest of the state be complete?

12
Frequently Anticipated Questions

• Where can I find more information?
• www.ncstreams.net
• www.nconemap.net

13
Frequently Anticipated Questions

• How can I begin using the data?
• Data availability
• Personal Geodatabase
• WMS/WFS services via NC OneMap
• Support for maintenance and sharing of business
  data independent of geometry
• Stream Mapping Application
• Thin-client access to data and linked attributes

14
Frequently Anticipated Questions

• How will the data be maintained?
• NHD Stewardship Agreement
• All updates flow through NC
• Stream Mapping Data Maintenance Plan
• Document business requirements and technical
  workflows
• Cycle of updates will be driven by business
  requirements of the stakeholder community

15
Frequently Anticipated Questions

• When will the rest of the state be complete?
• Horizontal accuracy assessments will precede work
  in the piedmont and coastal areas
• Dedicated coastal pilot for evaluating tools and
  workflow
• Implementation plan calls for five year
  production schedule

16
General Discussion