ARC/INFO coverage of hydrologic units in the Upper Mississippi/Missouri
River Basin at 1:250,000 scale
Citation_Information:
Originator: Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (SAST)
Publication Date: 19950526
Title: HUC250 ARC/INFO Coverage
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map
Online_Linkage: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/sast-home.html
Description:
The SAST ARC/INFO database is a comprehensive vector basemap of the Upper
Mississippi/Missouri River Basin and contains attribute data suitable for
performing a wide range of analyses and for generating thematic maps for
counties and states throughout the flood area.
Abstract:
On January 10, 1994, the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (SAST)
joined in the effort to provide scientific advice and assistance to
officials responsible for making decisions with respect to the flood
recovery in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
The Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) was
developed in the mid 70s to put into digital form a number of data layers
which were of interest to the USGS. One of these data layers was the
Hydrologic Units. The map is based on the Hydrologic Unit Maps published by
the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Water Data Coordination, together with
the list descriptions and name of region, subregion, accounting units, and
cataloging unit. The hydrologic units are encoded with an eight- digit
number that indicates the hydrologic region (first two digits), hydrologic
subregion (second two digits), accounting unit (third two digits), and
cataloging unit (fourth two digits).
The data produced by GIRAS was originally collected at a scale of
1:250,000. Some areas, notably major cities in the west, were
recompiled at a scale of 1:100,000. In order to join the data together
and use the data in a geographic information system (GIS) the data
were processed in the ARC/INFO GIS software package. Within the
GIS, the data were edgematched and the neatline boundaries between
maps were removed to create a single data set for the conterminous
United States.
Purpose:
The objectives for the SAST were to develop a database of readily available
data to support map production, scientific analysis, and decision making;
to produce maps showing base information and vulnerability to flooding; and
to prepare reports documenting the products of SAST and the methodology and
analysis used to produce them, and identifying the ongoing monitoring,
research, modeling, data management and distribution requirements needed to
support integrated river basin management.
Supplemental_Information:
In ARC/INFO the Copy command was used to off-load individual coverages
together with their associated INFO files.
ARC is the main program environment in ARC/INFO. It contains commands
which start each of the other subsystems and also has extensive
capabilities.
INFO is a complete relational database manager for the tabular data
associated with geographic features in map coverages. It provides
facilities for data definition of new data files, use of existing data
files, data entry and update, and sort and query.
ARC/INFO keeps track of and updates map feature attribute tables which
are stored as INFO files. It maintains the relationships between each map
feature and a corresponding tabular record.
ARCPLOT is the interactive cartographic and mapping subsystem of ARC/INFO.
Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates: Geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude)
in decimal degrees.
West_Bounding_Coordinate: 36.0 -111.0
East_Bounding_Coordinate: 36.5 -86.5
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 48.5 -84.0
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 49.5 -114.0
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: Hydrologic Units
Theme_Keyword: Hydrology
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, Codes for the identification of
the States, the District of Columbia and the outlying areas of The
United States, and associated areas (Federal Information Processing
Standard 5-2):Washington ,D. C., National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
Place_Keyword: US
Place_Keyword: Missouri River
Place_Keyword: Upper Mississippi River Basin
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus:
Access_Constraints: None
Use_Constraints: None
Acknowledgement of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Scientific
Assessment and Strategy Team would be appreciated in products derived
from these data. Persons intending to engage in activities involving
modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice
of appropriate Federal, State or local agencies concerning specified
agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect
such activities.
Contact_Information:
Point_of_Contact: Jacqueline Klaver
Contact_Position: Senior Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
Address: SAST
U.S. Geological Survey
EROS Data Center
City: Sioux Falls
State: SD
Postal_Code: 57198
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605 594 6961
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605 594 6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail: jklaver@edcserver1.cr.usgs.gov
Hours_of-Service: 0730-1615
Data_Set_Credit:
Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team
U.S. Geological Survey
Native_Data_Set_Environment:
UNIX ARC/INFO
Cross_Reference:
Upper Mississippi/Missouri River Basin ARC/INFO coverages in the
Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (SAST) database.
During ARC/INFO coverage development several modifications were made to the
source data in order to generate a database with a common scale, uniform
level of resolution, consistent coding scheme, and comparable (standardized)
measurement data.
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
No independent evaluation of the attribute or positional accuracy of
the source data was undertaken.
Attribute_Accuracy_Explanation:
Data were reviewed for attribute accuracy against a 1:2,000,000 base
through random audit of polygon features. Line attributes were verified
by symbolization on the screen. Regions were shaded in to verify
correct polygon values for HUC at the Hydrologic Region level. Basin
codes were updated and additional erroneous neatlines removed.
Logical_Consistency_Report:
All data were found to be topologically correct. No duplicate features are
present. All polygons are closed, and all lines intersect where intended.
No undershoots or overshoots are present.
Limitations_of_Data:
These data were digitized at a scale of 1:250,000 with some portions
of coverage at 1:100,000- and 1:2,000,000- scale. Limitations of
the data strictly revolve around this scale input. Use of these
boundaries with larger scale data (i.e. 1:24,000 hydrography) is not
recommended as it would be beyond the resolution capabilities of
the data set.
Reviews_Applied:
Peer review, 10/18/93, Bill Battaglin, USGS-WRD, Lakewood, Co, memo to
Doug Nebert:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have completed a review of the 1:250,000 scale hydrologic units coverage
(HUC) and found the digital data and metadata to be of high quality. I
have a few suggested improvements to the digital data and to the
documentation. Below is a summary of the methods I used to check feature
accuracy in the digital data base and the problems I found.
Digital Features:
The line work for the HUC coverage was checked against the line work from:
(1) the 1:2,000,000 HUC coverage by plotting both data sets out on one large
graphic (about 1:3,000,000). No major discrepancies were found except in
coastal areas where the 1:2,000,000 scale coverage had more detail than the
1:250,000 scale coverage.
(2) line work from 1:24,000 scale digitized drainage basins in Colorado,
Illinois, and New Jersey. The match was generally good with departures
generally less than 2500 meters. The biggest departures were in Colorado
and were as large as 4000 meters.
(3) line work from the 1:2,000,000 scale rivers coverage for the USA by
plotting both data sets out on one large graphic (about 1:3,000,000). In
general the nesting of streams in HUCs was good and HUC boundaries inter-
sected steams at stream intersections. In some places (SE New Mexico,
SE California and NW Utah), the streams coverage does not match the HUC
coverage that well, but this could easily be because of the unusual nature
of streams in these areas or because of inaccuracies in the streams coverage.
(4) line work from 1:100,000 scale streams from Colorado, Illinois, and
Kansas. The nesting of streams in HUCs was very good. Stream arcs for
the most part did not cross HUC arcs except at stream intersections. The
error (distance from intersection to HUC line) between HUC lines and stream
intersection was less than 500 meters at all intersections checked
(about 25).
Problems with Line work:
(1) There was a very large number of very short arcs in the coverage (3211 Lt
1000 meters long and 1729 Lt. 100 meters long). Most of these arcs were
internal (did not border on outside polygon) and coded as 250k edges(3)
(almost 3000) but some were 250k (2) lines and one was a 2m dlg (4). Arcs with
lengths of less than 100 meters (maybe even less than 1000 meters) are
difficult to deal with when editing subsets of the coverage, and they also add
to the overall size of the database. I know many of these lines were created
in the process of edgematching the quads, but I think the informa- tion
content of these very short arcs is less valuable than the hassle and overhead
involved in keeping them in the coverage.
(2) The edit distance for the coverage was set to a very small value.
This may have been required for earlier processing, however, it makes
the finished coverage difficult to work with. I had to reset the edit
distance to a larger value when I wanted to select arcs in ARCEDIT
interactively. This, of course, will be one of the things users will
want to do with the new HUC coverage.
Polygon labels/attributes:
(1) Label point accuracy was checked by making a point cover of polygon
labels from the 1:2,000,000 HUC coverage and then doing an identify of
those points in the 1:250,000 scale HUC polygon. This procedure looked
for both new or missing polygons, and was also used to check attribute
values. I also dissolved both coverages by accounting unit and compared
the number and location of remaining polygons.
Problems with labels/attributes:
(1) I discovered a total of 649 places where the HUC codes from the label
point of the 1:2,000,000 coverage did not match the HUC code for the
1:250,000 HUC polygon that it fell within. As you had indicated in the
documentation, there were a lot of differences in California. The 2m HUC had
lots of label points resulting from islands, bays, and estuaries that are
not included in the 1:250,000 scale HUC coverages. In other places the
polygons seemed to be the same but the HUC codes were different. For example
HUC 18020111 in the 1:2,000,000 coverage is coded as HUC 18020023 in the
1:250,000 coverage. There were also many differences in the Great Lakes.
It seems odd that the 1:2,000,000 coverage should have more detail with
regard to coastal features than the 1:250,000 scale coverage has. There
were also internal polygon label differences in Minnesota (7100001 in 250k,
70200001 in 2m), Colorado (10090204 in 250k, 10180007 in 2m), Illinois
(mistake in the 2m HUC I think), and Louisiana (11140203 in 250k, 11140202
in 2m). Texas and Florida also have a few that look like they should be
checked.
(2) The dissolved 1:2,000,000 coverage contained 350 accounting unit
polygons while the dissolved 1:250,000 HUC coverage only contained 177.
There were large differences in the way the Accounting unit polygons
looked in the Great Lakes Region, and in parts of California, Wyoming,
and Florida. Again, many of the differences result from the use of a
cruder coastline in the 1:250,000 scale HUC coverage.
Response to Peer review by Bill Battaglin, 1/5/93, Doug Nebert,USGS-WRD
Reston
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Data were reviewed for attribute accuracy against a 1:2million base through
random audit of polygon features. Line attributes were verified by symbol-
ization on the screen. Regions were shaded in to verify correct polygon
values for HUC at the Hydrologic Region level. Documentation was updated.
The short arcs along the quadrangle boundaries were kept in the data set
due to the importance of maintaining as much original information as
possible. Basin codes were updated and additional erroneous neatlines
removed.
Peer review, 11/10/93, Doug Nebert, USGS-WRD, Reston, memo to Paul Kapinos:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As you are aware, we have several digital versions of the hydrologic unit
maps for the United States and I am in the process of verifying and
publishing a 1:250,000-scale version derived from National Mapping Division
Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) data as part of
their land use mapping program of the 1970s and early 1980s.
In comparing the 1:250,000-scale data reviewers noticed differences in both
basin definition and hydrologic unit codes in Southern California and in the
San Joaquin valley. The 1974 state map, at 1:500,000-scale agrees with the
1:250,000-scale GIRAS data in boundaries and numbers, whereas the 1:2.5
million "wall map" of the U.S. agrees with the 1:2,000,000 digital data set.
Both paper maps are authoritative sources of information, but apparently
something changed between the two maps.
On a related note, it is worthwhile to mention that the 1:2.5 million-scale
wall map for the western U.S. is being revised to include new Alaska
hydrologic unit codes before reprinting. It would be wise to be sure that the
boundaries depicted there are also the authoritative ones.
Peer review, 11/29/93, Paul Kapinos, USGS-WRD, memo to Doug Nebert:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The discrepancies in the hydrologic unit codes (and some boundaries)
in the State of California are due to the fact that the California
State Hydrologic Unit Map (HUM) was revised in 1978 but the 1:250,000-scale
digital data set was not. The events that most likely occurred can be
summarized as follows:
o The 1:500,000-scale HUMs were published by OWDC over a period of about
four years between 1974 and 1978.
o The National Mapping Division (NMD) overlaid the hydrologic unit
boundaries on their 1:250,000-scale land-use and land-cover map
series after each State HUM was completed, and later digitized these
boundaries and their respective codes.
o In 1978, the State of California asked OWDC to revise the hydrologic
unit boundaries and codes in the central valley.
o The 1:500,000-scale California HUM was revised and reprinted but NMD
was either not informed of the revisions or chose not to revise or
redigitize their 1:250,000-scale overlays.
o Once all the HUMs were printed (including the 1978 revisions of
California and South Dakota), the 1980 1:2.5 million-scale United
States wall map was published using the up-to-date (1978) boundaries
and codes.
Based on the above summary, I would recommend using the boundaries
and codes from the 1:2.5 million-scale map and the 1:2,000,000 digital
data set. Please be aware that other hydrologic unit boundaries and/or
codes may have been revised when individual State HUMs were reprinted
by OWDC. I doubt if there has been any attempt to update any of the
digital data sets with these changes."
Response to Peer Review by Paul Kapinos, Doug Nebert 2/14/94:
-------------------------------------------------------------
The areas in question in California were updated to reflect the more
current information as contained in the 1:2 million data set. Polygon
hydrologic unit codes were updated in the Central Valley and in coastal
Southern California. Where necessary, 1:2 million-scale linework was
substituted to define the correct basin boundaries where no corresponding
information was available at a different scale.
Completeness_Report:
For Digital Revision Status = Not revised
Data completeness reflects the content of the source GIRAS files
representing either a 1:250,000-scale quadrangle or a 1:100,000-scale
quadrangle. Features may have been eliminated or generalized on the
source graphic, due to scale and legability constraints.
Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal positional accuracy is based upon the use of the Hydrologic
Unit Maps produced by the U.S. Geological Survey for the development of
the GIRAS data. When the data was processed in ARC/INFO for edgematching,
the ARC tolerance command was used to set and examine the tolerances.
Positional accuracy between the data set and ARC data files
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Value: variable
Lineage:
Data derived primarily from 1:250,000 and 1:100,000-scale maps
Source_Information:
The ARC/INFO data was processed from coverages in GIRAS format.
Source_Citation: Data derived as GIRAS tar files
Source_Scale_Denominator: 100,000 or 250,000
Type_of_Source_Media: digital file
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The data was initially received as compressed Geographic Information
Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) tar files representing either a
1:250,000-scale (1:250K) quadrangle or a 1:100,000-scale (1:100K)
quadrangle. Each file was named after its respective quadrangle. A
coverage of 1:250k quadrangles was used to divide the country up into
four sections and get a list of names for each section. Using GIRASARC2,
an aml designed to create an ARC/INFO data set (coverage) from a GIRAS file
and a corresponding neat line coverage, it was quickly discovered that many
of the quad names were too long for the program (i.e. sault_saint_marie)
and a generic naming system for files and coverages was incorporated. In
1 of 10 cases, the name of the quadrangle did not correspond with the name
of the file. These problems were traced down and corrected (after all four
sections were converted there were many files left over...these wound up
to be all the 1:100,000 quads which did not have similar names to the
1:250,000 files).
After the files for a given section were all converted into ARC/INFO
format, a loop AML was run which copied a coverage and its neatline cover
into temporary storage (there was not enough room in INFO to deal with a
large number of files in one directory), attached to that directory, built
line topology, and went into the editor, ARCEDIT. In ARCEDIT, the outer
edge (original neatline) was selected and deleted an the mathematically
calculated neatline coverage from the GIRASNEAT AML program was copied in
using the ARCEDIT GET command. The original neatline was replaced with a
calculated neatline because in all cases, the outline of the coverage
quadrangle never quite conformed to a "true" neatline causing overlaps and
gapes between adjacent maps. The new neatline was connected to the
internal arcs where they intersected. Lines which did not quite join the
new neatline were extended to the edge with a maximum tolerance of 500
meters. All extensions were made within this tolerance. All arcs which
extended beyond the new neatline were clipped off within a 500 meter
tolerance as arguments to the CLEAN command into a separate directory.
Both the neatline and huc coverages were deleted from the temporary space,
and the program looped to the next coverage.
Another program was then run which added an item to the .AAT called OUTER,
went into INFO, and populated the attribute for all arcs composing the
new neatline. This was done by reselecting for the identity of the polygon
to the left or right of each arc whose value was "1", the identity of the
outer "universe" polygon (reselect lpoly# = 1 or rpoly# = 1 in the .aat and
calculated outer to = 1). All coverages were checked for additional
dangles and then a MAPJOIN was run using NET as the feature option.
Finally, most map edge lines were removed from the MAPJOINed coverage
using the DISSOLVE to create a seamless basin coverage with polygons
(basins) and arcs (boundaries) with attributes.
Quality control methods were applied to the resulting coverage by
detecting and fixing node and LABELERRORS and remaining neat line arc
problems (i.e. long neat lines still in the coverage). Many more problems
arose in the western part of the country than in the east. Bordering HUC
code disagreements between quads caused a number of cases in which
neatlines did not dissolve. These were provisionally corrected for the
most part, however there were several cases that required external review
and editing to fix, and are now incorporated in the final data set. After
all 1:250,000 sections were completed, the same procedure was run for the
handful of 1:100,000 quadrangles. These were MAPJOINed with the 1:250,000
quadrangles to provide more detailed coverage where it was available.
The tests of logical consistency were performed by the ARC
commands:
ELIMINATE merges selected polygons with neighboring polygons by
dropping the longest shared border between them.
BUILD creates or updates a feature attribute table for a
coverage. It defines polygon and arc-node topology
when the POLY option is used. Point features and their
attributes are created with the POINT option.
CLEAN generates a coverage with correct polygon or arc-node
topology. It edits and corrects geometric coordinate
errors, assembles arcs into polygons, and creates
feature attribute information for each polygon or arc
(i.e., creates a PAT or AAT).
LABELERRORS lists all polygons which have either no label points
or more than one label point.
The Upper Mississippi/Missouri river basin represented in the ARC/INFO
coverage 1:250,000 HUC250.
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method:
Point and Vector
Point/Vector_Object_Information:
Number of Points: 444
Number of lines: 3400
Number of line segments: 396011
Number of Polygons: 445
Point_Object_Information:
Number of control points: 0
SDTS_Terms_Description:
An area is a generic term for bounded, continuous, two-dimensional object
that may or may not include its boundary. A line is a generic term for a
one-dimensional object.
The attributes (or items) in the ARC/INFO feature attribute tables contain
different types of values; specifically, measurements, codes, flags, and
names.
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type: An ARC/INFO polygon coverage
Entity_Type_Label: HUC250.PAT
Entity_Type_Definition: Polygon attribute table
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: ARC/INFO-generated attributes and
items
DATAFILE NAME: HUC250.PAT
6 ITEMS: STARTING IN POSITION 1
COL ITEM NAME WDTH OPUT TYP N.DEC ALTERNATE NAME
1 AREA 4 12 F 3
5 PERIMETER 4 12 F 3
9 HUC250# 4 5 B -
13 HUC250-ID 4 5 B -
17 HUC 8 8 I -
25 HUC-NAME 40 40 C -
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: AREA
Attribute_Definition: Area of polygon in square coverage units
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Positive real numbers
Attribute_Label: PERIMETER
Attribute_Definition: Perimeter of polygon in coverage units
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Positive real numbers
Attribute_Label: HUC250#
Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Sequential unique positive integer
Attribute_Label: HUC250-ID
Attribute_Definition: User-assigned feature number
Attribute_Definition_Source: User-defined
Attribute_Domain_Values: Integer
Attribute_Label: HUC
Attribute_Definition: HYDROLOGIC UNIT ID
Attribute_Definition_Source: GIRAS DATA
Attribute_Domain_Values: No restrictions
Attribute_Label: HUC_NAME
Attribute_Definition: Name of area associated with the HUC Unit
Attribute_Definition_Source: U.S. Geological Survey as FIPS standard
Attribute_Domain_Values: text
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_label: HUC250.AAT
Entity_Type_Definition: HYDROLOGIC UNIT LINEWORK
Number_of_Attributes_in_Entity: 8
DATAFILE NAME: HUC250.AAT
9 ITEMS: STARTING IN POSITION 1
COL ITEM NAME WDTH OPUT TYP N.DEC ALTERNATE NAME
1 FNODE# 4 5 B -
5 TNODE# 4 5 B -
9 LPOLY# 4 5 B -
13 RPOLY# 4 5 B -
17 LENGTH 4 12 F 3
21 HUC250# 4 5 B -
25 HUC250-ID 4 5 B -
29 SOURCE 1 1 I -
30 LINE-CODE 2 2 I -
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: FNODE#
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of from-node
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Sequential unique positive integer
Attribute_Label: TNODE#
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of to-node
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Sequential unique positive integer
Attribute_Label: LPOLY#
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of polygon to left of arc
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Sequential unique positive integer
Attribute_Label: RPOLY#
Attribute_Definition: Internal number of polygon to right of arc
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Sequential unique positive integer
Attribute_Label: LENGTH
Attribute_Definition: Length of arc in coverage units
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Positive real numbers
Attribute_Label: HUC250#
Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number
Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed
Attribute_Domain_Values: Sequential unique positive integer
Attribute_Label: HUC250-ID
Attribute_Definition: User-assigned feature number
Attribute_Definition_Source: User-defined
Attribute_Domain_Values: Integer
Attribute_Label: SOURCE
Attribute_Definition: Line coding for unique cases
Attribute_Definition_Source: GIRAS AND 1:2M DLG DATA
Attribute_Domain_Values: 1,2,3, or 4
Codeset_Domain:
Codeset_Name: Code attributes
Codeset_Source: USGS/WRD
SOURCE Source Description
1 100K
2 250K
3 250K EDGE
4 2MIL DLG
Attribute_Label: LINE-CODE
Attribute_Definition: Code identifying type of line
Attribute_Definition_Source: U.S. Geological Survey as FIPS standard
Attribute_Domain_Values: Integer
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
For definition of drainage basins, there are two principal tabular
data elements of interest. The first, "HUC", stands for the Hydrologic
Unit Code and includes the 8-digit cataloging unit as assigned to
the basin polygon by the U.S. Geological Survey. The second item,
"SOURCE", is an attribute of each bounding line segment (arc) and
incorporates a code to define the source and scale of the source
linework. Because this data set includes linework from different
scale sources, it is important to recognize the presence and use
of this item in quality evaluation.
The SOURCE item has four special codes to describe the source linework.
Code 1 stands for all arcs that were from 1:100,000 scale GIRAS files
and were internal to the quadrangle (no neatlines). Code 2 stands for
all arcs from the 1:250,000-scale GIRAS files which were internal to
the quadrangle. Code 3 is for lines from either GIRAS source scale but
were part of the neatline which may be used to connect arcs that
dont join cleanly between quads. Code 4 is for linework in the southern
Central Valley and southern Coastal California where the GIRAS data
were replaced with 1:2 million scale basin boundaries.
Distributor: SAST
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person: Jacqueline Klaver
Contact_Position: Senior Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
Address: SAST
U.S. Geological Survey
EROS Data Center
City: Sioux Falls
State: SD
Postal_Code: 57198
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605 594 6961
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605 594 6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail: jklaver@edcserver1.cr.usgs.gov
Hours_of-Service: 0730-1615
Resource_Description:
Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (SAST) ARC/INFO coverage for
hydrologic units at 1:250,000-scale.
Distribution_Liability:
Although these data have been processed
successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior, no warranty expressed or implied is made by
the Geological Survey regarding the utility of the data on any other
system, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
The Geological Survey will warrant the delivery of this product in
computer-readable format, and will offer appropriate adjustment of
credit when the product is determined unreadable by correctly adjusted
computer input peripherals, or when the physical medium is delivered in
damaged condition. Requests for adjustment of credit must be made
within 90 days from the date of this shipment from the ordering site.
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: ARCE (ARC Export)
Format_Version_Number: ARC6.1
Format_Version_Date:
Format_Specification: Polygon coverage data set or layer
Format_Information_Content: Hydrologic Units at 1:250,000
File_Decompression_Technique: ARC6.1 import (compressed)
Transfer_Size:
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
ftp edcftp.cr.usgs.gov
Enter "anonymous" at name prompt
Enter complete e-mail address at the Password prompt
cd (change) pub/data/sast (subdirectory)
Type: binary (set the file transfer mode to binary)
Type: get (to download one file) or
Type: mget (to download more than one file)
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: PC ARC (Export)
Format_Version_Number: ARC6.1
Format_Version_Date:
Format_Specification: Polygon coverage data set or layer
Format_Information_Content: Hydrologic Units at 1:250,000
File_Decompression_Technique: ARC6.1 import (uncompressed)
Transfer_Size:
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
ftp edcftp.cr.usgs.gov
Enter "anonymous" at name prompt
Enter complete e-mail address at the Password prompt
cd (change) pub/data/sast (subdirectory)
Type: binary (set the file transfer mode to binary)
Type: get (to download one file) or
Type: mget (to download more than one file)
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: SDTS
Format_Version_Number:
Format_Version_Date:
Format_Specification: Area coverage data set or layer
Format_Information_Content: Hydrologic Units at 1:250,000
File_Decompression_Technique:
Transfer_Size:
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
ftp edcftp.cr.usgs.gov
Enter "anonymous" at name prompt
Enter complete e-mail address at the Password prompt
cd (change) pub/data/sast (subdirectory)
Type: binary (set the file transfer mode to binary)
Type: get (to download one file) or
Type: mget (to download more than one file)
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Offline_Option:
Offline_Media: 3480 cartridge tape
Recording_Capacity:
Recording_Density: 1600
Recording_Density: 6250
Recording_Density_Units: characters per inch
Recording_Format:
ASCII; available unlabeled or with ANSI-standard labels.
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Offline_Option:
Offline_Media: 8mm cartridge tape
Recording_Capacity:
Recording_Density: 1600
Recording_Density: 6250
Recording_Density_Units: characters per inch
Recording_Format:
ASCII; available unlabeled or with ANSI-standard labels.
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Offline_Option:
Offline_Media: CD-ROM
Recording_Format: ISO 9660
Compatibility_Information:
This CD-ROM can be used with all computer operating systems that
support CD-ROM as a logical storage device. All text files on
the disc are in ASCII format. Data files are in ASCII or binary
format.
Fees:
8-mm cartridge = $70
3480 cartridge = $70
9-track tapes = $70
CD-ROM = $70
Ordering_Instructions:
Point_of Contact: Ron Risty
Contact_Position: Senior Information Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type:
Address: U.S. Geological Survey
EROS Data Center
City: Sioux Falls
State: SD
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 605 594 6969
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605 594 6589
Contact_Electronic_Mail: risty@edcserver1.cr.usgs.gov
Hours_of_ Service: 7:30am - 4:15pm
Turnaround:
One week maximum
Metadata_Date: 19950621
Metadata_Contact_Information:
Metadata_Contact_Person: Sharon M. Ivens
Metadata_Contact_Position: Information Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing address
Address: U. S. Geological Survey
EROS Data Center
City: Sioux Falls
State_or_Province: South Dakota
Postal_Code: 57198
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 1 605 594 6035
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 605 594 6589
Contact_Internet_Address: ivens@edcserver1.cr.usgs.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0730-1615
Metadata_Standard_Name: Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: 1.0
USGS Node of SAST Clearinghouse home page
