---------------------------------------------------------------- Genaral Example of FGDC Metadata for all drainage basin datasets. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The information in this file is from the Delaware River basin (DELA18) dataset for named streams in Pennsylvania. Information contained in this file is representative of the metatdata found for each of the files of drainage basain boundary datasets. Examples used and particular references to an area of Pennsylvania will vary from dataset to dataset. This metadata file has been produced using the Arcinfo DOCUMENT command. Scott A. Hoffman July 15, 1996 Identification_Information: Citation: Originator: Hoffman, Scott A. and Kernan, James T. Publication_Date: July 1, 1996 Publication_Time: Title: Digital drainage basin boundaries of named streams in Pennsylvania Edition: 1.0 Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map Series_Information: Open_file Report, 96-354 Series_Name: Issue_Identification: 1 Publication_Information: Publication_Place: Publisher: Other_Citation_Details: Online_Linkage: Larger_Work_Citation: Scale_Denominator: 24,000 Description: Abstract: In 1989, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER), in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division (USGS published the Pennsylvania (PA) Gazetter of Streams. This publication contains information related to named streams in Pennsylvania. Drainage basin boundaries are delineated on the 7.5-minute series topographic paper quadrangle maps for PA and parts of the bordering states of New York, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia, and Delaware. These boundaries enclose catchment areas for named streams off- icially recognized by the Board on Geographic Names and other unofficially named streams that flow through named hollows, using the hollow name, e.g. "Smith Hollow". This was done in an effort to name as many of the 64,000 streams as possible. In 1991, work began by USGS to put these drainage basin boundaries into digital form for use in a geographic information system (GIS). Digitizing started with USGS in Lemoyne, PA., but expanded with assistance by PaDER and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the U.S Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). USGS performed all editing, attributing, and edgemetching. There are 878, 7.5-minute quadrangle maps in PA. This documentation applies to only those maps in the Delaware River basin (164). Parts of the Delaware River drainage originate outside the PA border. At this time, no effort is being made by USGS to include those named stream basins. Keywords: basins watersheds catchments drainage basin Purpose: Any application involving the need for digitial drainage basin data. It can be used for spatial data layer extractions, clipping, cartographic, and illustrative displays. Supplemental_Information: Procedures_Used: Due to the nature of this data set, i.e., digitized, edited, etc. by various people and in many workareas, only a listing of the major commands used through- out the entire processing are listed and separated by ArcInfo Module: Arc: BUILD, CLEAN, RENODE, CREATELABELS, LABELERRORS, NODEERRORS, MAPJOIN, ELININATE, PROJECT, PRECISION, CREATE, INTERSECTERR. Arcedit: DUPLICATEARCS, NODESNAP, ARCSNAP, WEEDTOLERANCE, SNAPCOVER, ADD, METHOD OVERVIEW Basin were delineated on 7.5-minute paper topographic quadrangles by a qualified USGS surface-water specialist. Using the ArcInfo, Revision 6.1.1, and GRASS, Revion 4.0, GIS software, the drainage basins were digitized using a 5-phase plan: Phase 1 -- Digitize, edit, and attribute all 7.5-minute quads in PA. Phase 2 -- Using a tiling scheme based on National Mapping Division's (NMD) 30 by 60 minute series maps, published at a scale of 1:100,000, edgematched within these boundaries. The following 1:100,000-scale map names have some or all of the 7.5-minute quads in PA. The 100K name appears first followed by the number of 7.5-minute quads in parentheses: Reading (32), Allen- town (31), Scranton (26), Honesdale (26), Sunbury (10), Middletown, NY, Harrisburg, Wilmington, DE (10), and Trenton, NJ (9). Phase 3 -- Edgematch all 1:100,000-scale boundaries and the data is convertered from North American Datum (NAD) of 1927 to NAD83. Phase 4 -- USGS technical review and approval of the data for distribu- tion. Phase 5 -- This phase will be done in Revision 2.0 of this data set. An overlay of a digital hydrography layer that includes double-lined stream lakes, ponds, and reservoirs is used to delineate areas that do not represent a land surface. For example, the Delaware River is wide enough to be shown as a double-lined stream on a 1:24,000-scale map and therefore, is not a land surface. DIGITIZING All 7.5-minute paper quads were hand digitized. The digitizers used by USGS were and Altek, Model AC40 Datatab Controller and a Tektronix 4958 digit- izing tablet. The internal resolution of both are .001 inches. The digitizer used by NRCS is an Altek AC30 with an internal resolution of .001 inches. The digitizing operating mode is a point mode, meaning a coordinate pair is generated on each depression of the cursor button. This allows the operator greater control in maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the drainage basin line. Double precision is used to digitize all quads. Precision is the term used to refer to the number of significant digits used to store numbers for each coordinate value. For double precision data sets, 15 significant digits define each coordinate pair. Digitizing is done directly into the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. PA is divided into two UTM zones. The western section of the state from the Ohio border eastward to 78 degrees longitude is in Zone 17 and the eastern section, from 78 degrees longitude eastward to the Delaware River, is in Zone 18. The tic registration error, or route mean square error (RMSE) for all quads was to be no more than .006 inch or 3.66 meters when digitizing directly into UTM. RMSE is a calculation showing the difference between original and new registration locations and the lower the error, the more accurate the digitizing or transformation into real-world coordinates, e.g. UTM. Some of the RMSE exceeded .006-inch limit, due to the condition of the paper maps with respect to heat and humidity over time. Repeated attemps to get the registration below .006 inch failed for these quads so the lowest attainable RMSE was used. These quads are listed below with the RMSE in inches: Trenton East (.007) Lansdale (.012) Germantown (.009) The datum used for digitizing is NAD27. Most of the quads were made before 1983 and therefore did not have the NAD83 adjustment and those maps made after 1983, still have a NAD27 reference. Conversion to NAD83 occurs in Phase 3. The snapping tolerance used for lines and nodes is 12 meters. This distance moves the digitized line or node to coincide exactly with another line or node. The minimum distance between vertices, or weed tolerance, is one meter. If a digitized vertex is within the weed tolerance of the pre- viously digitized vertex, it is not used in defining the shape of the digit- ized line. Nodes are digitized at the registration tics at the corners of the 7.5-minute quads, at all neatline and drainage line intersections, at each drainage basin line intersection, at the intersection of a drainage basin line and stream mouth, at the intersection of a drainage basin line and hydrography feature and at the intersection of a drainage basin line and USGS gaging station. To guard against inadvertently digitizing the same drainage line twice, a duplicatearcs function was used. This function specifies that no two lines will share the same nodes. Once digitizing was completed, topology was built using a dangling line tolerance of 10 meters and a fuzzy tolerance of one meter. Topology is the term used to define spatial properties of a data set. Those properties are length, area, connectivity, adjacency, and direction. A dangle length of 10 meters is used to remove an unconnected line, called a dangle, less than or equal to 10 meters in length. A distance of one meter for the fuzzy tolerance is used as the smallest distance between all line coordinates and is used to resolve intersections not well defined due to computer precision limitations. This data set has both line and polygon topology. Check plots were produced and compared to the digitized map in an effort to verify the integrity of the digitized lines. Errors on the check plots include undigitized lines, misshaped lines, and excessive node placement. Further editing is done to eliminate sliver polygons, connectivity errors, polygon label errors, and node placement errors. Once the editing of the digitized quads were complete, topology was re-built. EDGEMATCHING and DATUM CONVERSION Edgematching is a procedure used to edit digital data sets ensuring that all features crossing adjacent quadrangle borders have the same locations. Edgematching of the drainage basin lines began with joining all 7.5-minute quads within the 1:100,000-scale boundaries. Typically, mapjoining half of these quads within a selected 100K boundary in a checkerboard pattern was used. Joined maps are adjusted to a data set of state-wide tic locations with identity links established at the tic location. An identity link is used to nail-down a known location so that it does not move during any position adjusting procedures. Once both halves of the checkerboard 100K quad have been adjusted, they are mapjoined together into a single data set for the 100K. Due to the age of the quads and differences in individual quad contour interpre- tations, edgematching across borders was a time-consuming procedure. Nodes across boundaries are adjusted to the respective midpoint between nodes. There is no attribute in the arc attribute table showing which lines are move from the original digitizing in the edgematching procedure. These same steps are used in the edgematching of the 100,000-scale boundaries. Datums are used in defining parameters of a particular coordinate system with control points of known geometric relationships. One element that defines a datum is a spheroid, which is used to approximate the shape of the earth. Defining the shape of the earth in NAD27 is the Clarke spheroid of 1866 Since 1927, technological advances in surveying and geodesy, (the science of determing the size and shape of the earth), forced the issue of defining a new datum. Using these advances, NAD83 uses the GRS80 spheroid which caused some adjustments to be made in topographic maps made before 1984. Most of the quad maps used for the drainage basin digitizing were made before 1986 and did not have the NAD83 corrections located near the neatline corners of the map. Therefore, all digitizing was done in NAD27. Conversion from NAD27 to NAD83 is conducted by using the NADCON tranformation program from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NADCON is the abbreviation of North American Datum Conversion. USGS REVIEW AND APPROVAL The final phase for release of this data set to the public is USGS review and approval. Criteria used in the review process include positional accuracy and precision with repsect to source, contextual accuracy, attribute accuracy topological consistency, and the data set must have the appropriate metadata which is descriptive information about the data set and travels with the data electronically. Evaluation of positional accuracy may include source material comparisons, deductive estimate based on errors introduced at each processing step, and comparisons to stable-base material, if available. Contextual accuracy compares the data set to other similar spatial data sets with respect to time, scale, and aerial extent. Attribute accuracy is verification of the descriptive data for the spatial features and may include verification against source maps. Topological consistency, e.g. no dangling lines exist in a data set with only polygon topology, must be maintained throughout the data to insure integrity. Information about projection, points, and lines, as well as, row and column information for raster data sets are checked. Revisions made to data This geo_data set is Revison 1.0. The next Revision, 2.0., will have a water/land component. Some of the larger streams are depicted at the 1:24,000-scale as have two sides, or banks. The initial digitizing of the drainage basins did not account for these features, so a water-surface area does not exist in Revision 1.0. By combining the drainage basin data set with a selected hydrography data set, land-surface areas may be more accurately measured. Selected hydrography features include double-lined streams, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. Wetlands will not be included. Reviews applied to data Peer review, 1/25/96, Andy Cohen, GIS-Specialist, USGS-WRD, Troy, NY ______________________________________________________________________ Scott supplied me with 15 original material, 1:24,000-scale, topo quad- drangles, a statewide index to topo maps, a copy of Pennsylvania Gazet- teer of Streams, a copy of WRD Memo 94.34, and 1:100,000-scale digital hydrography data for 10 separate areas of eastern Pennsylvania. Using these materials and my own copy of 1:500,000-scale HUC map for Pennsyl- vania, I was able tp perform a fairly detailed peer review of the sub- ject data set. I used approximately 6 hours for this task and generally found the sub- ject data set to be accurate and complete, faithfully reproducing those drainage areas described in the associated metadata. To check for positional and contextual accuracy, I selected 5 of the 15 quadrangles, fairly well distributed around the basin, and produced paper plot overlays, including hydrography. Attribute accuracy and topological consistency were checked on-screen using ArcEdit for the same quads. Two polygons per quad were checked. A complete metadata statement was also pro- duced using the Arc DOCUMENT command and checked for completeness. below are my findings: 1. Positional Accuracy: I found no missing linework. My plots did not exactly overlay on the original quad probably because these originals are paper (not scale-stable material), some of which dated back to the 1950s. These paper quads have seen a lot of use in terms of paper wrinkling and general warpage. Only slight shifting of the overlay plot was needed to verify that all the digitized linework for each of the selected quads was accurate and complete. There were some instances where edgematching between quads was kind of rough, noteably on the Milford Square and Edgemere quadrangles. 2. Contextual Accuracy: I found no errors when comparing the digitized linework to original printed hydrography on the source maps. However, on the Milford Square quad I found several large discrepancies between printed hydrography on the quad and the digitized 1:100,000-scale hydro- graphy. I realize that this is not a valid comparison for contextual accuracy but it does raise some questions as to the timeliness of the hydrography. Has the hydrography changed between the published date of the Milford Square quad (1957) and the date of the 1:100,000-scale digital hydrography (19??)? 3. Attribute Accuracy: Attributes were checked for 10 polygons (2 in each Quad). Only 1 erroneaous WRDS# was detected - DELAWARE-ID = 137 (Edge- mere quad) WRDS# should be 5382. However, 7 out of 10 polygons had in- correct SQM data. I think this may have come about by not recalculating this attribute subsequent to one of more BUILD commands. SQM for the entire data set needs to be recalculated. 4. Topological Consistency: There were no labelerrors in the data set. However, 4 dangling arcs were discovered, 1 each in the Auburn and Frank- ford quads and 2 in the Orwigsburg quad. These dangling arcs should be removed. The metadata, as produced by the Arc DOCUMENT command, was also reviewed. The numbering scheme for the different parts of the metadata seemed to be only partially available, i.e., parts 1-4 were completed but not numbered as such. Parts 5-7 included their respective numbers. Parts 8 and 9 were missing their numbers. Other comments are noted. It is my opinion that this data set is a valuable, probably long-awaited com- pliment to the digital hydrology of Pennsylvania. The authors can be proud to offer GIS users this high-quality product. Response to peer review by Andy Cohen, Scott A. Hoffman, USGS-WRD, Lemoyne, PA., 4/22/96: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 1, Positional Accuracy: Resolved, edgematching was checked and corrected for the entire data set. Item 2, Contextual Accuracy: Hydrography in the Milford Square 7.5-minute quadrangle was not further investigated because it is outside the scope of this data set. Item 3, Attribute Accuracy: Resolved, Edgemere error corrected and SQM item recalculated. Item 4, Topological Consistency: Resolved, dangling arcs removed. Item 5, Metadata: Typos, numbering scheme, and missed lines corrected. =============================================================================== Peer review, Michele Winowitch, GIS research technician, Pennsylvania State University, Environmental Resources Research Institute, University Park, PA., letter to Scott A. Hoffman ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewd the Delaware River watershed boundary Arc/Info coverage as you requested. Using the PennDOT 1994 stream coverages as a background, one county at a time, I checked to make sure the streams fell inside the watersehd boundaries. I also checked, to the best of my ability, that the boundaries made sense. I found a few errors that I thought you might want to look at: (see enclosed map) 1. 4 dangling arcs, 2 major ones. 2. This boundary has a straight vertical line running down the western half. 3. These are small boundaries that to me look out of place, especially the ones in Chester County. There are no new streams/tributaries to justify a new boundary. The final thing I noticed is that there is no boundary along the Delaware River dividing Pennsylvania from New Jersey. I unfortunately don't have a copy of the standards the USGS used when delineating these boundaries, so I'm not sure if this is the norm or not. Other than these minor observations, I feel this coverage is a good repre- sentation of the watershed boundaries for the Delaware River basin and we plan to use it for many projects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response to peer review by Michele Winowitch, 4-22-96, Scott A. Hoffman, USGS-WRD, Lemoyne, PA.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 1: Resolved, dangling arcs corrected. Item 2: Resolved, line deleated. Item 3: Smaller boundaries tend to be project sites within the PA District, therefore, no corrections are necessary. Item 4: Resolved, state boundary added from the PennDOT county boundary file. ============================================================================= Related spatial and tabular data sets and programs GAZ.DAT is related to the .PAT of each data set with a relate named DELA.REL. RELATION NAME: dela18.rel TABLE IDENTIFIER: gaz.dat DATABASE NAME: INFO INFO ITEM: WRDS# RELATE COLUMN: WRDS# RELATE TYPE: ordered RELATE ACCESS: RW Revisions: None. References_Cited: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 1992, Understanding GIS: The Arc/Info method: Redlands, California, p. xxvii-xxiii, 5-1-5-4. ---, 1991, Arc/Info Users Guide: Map projections and coordinate management, p. C-1, C-2. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1989, Pennsylvania gazetteer of streams, 324 p. Nebert, Douglas D., 1989, Review of edgematching procedures for digital cartographic data used in geographic information systems (GIS): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-579, Portland, Oregon. Seaber, Paul R., Kapinos, F. Paul, Knapp, George L., 1987, State hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-708, 216 p. Snyder, John P., and Voxland, Philip M., An album of map projections: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1453, p. 12, 13, 100,101. Notes: Without the following individuals, the lengthy and time-consuming processes of digitizing, editing, and attributing could not have been timely and efficiently done: Naomi Weisbeker (USGS, hydrologic technician) Amanda Hasemeier (NRCS, physical scientist) Currentness_Reference: Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: Unknown: Dependent on available funding. Access_Constraints: None. Data_Set_Credit: Veronica Kasi, PA Dept. of Natural Resources Provided labor in the form of college student interns. Cheryl Johnson, Natural Resources Conservation Service Provided labor. Kevin Breen, USGS, WRD, LSUS NAWQA chief Provided the initial funding to get the state digitized for his study unit. Completeness_Report: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report: Due to the nature of this data set, it is difficult to determine a true positional accuracy. This data set is an interpretation of an interpreta- tion...a photogramatrist interpretated the contour lines from an aerial photo and a USGS hydrologist determined the drainage basin line. Therefore within the scope of the delineation of the drainage basin lines, these data are accurate within 1:24,000-scale guidelines. Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report: Cloud_Cover: Reviews_Applied_to_Data: Related_Spatial_and_Tabular_Data_Sets: Other_References_Cited: Notes: Time_Period_of_Content: Range_of_Dates/Times: Beginning_Date: 10/94 Ending_Date: 4/19/96 Currentness_Reference: Status: Progress: In review Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: Spatial_Domain: Bounding_Coordinates: West_Bounding_Coordinate: -76.4304 East_Bounding_Coordinate: -74.6865 North_Bounding_Coordinate: 42.0007 South_Bounding_Coordinate: 39.7151 Keywords: Theme: Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: none Theme_Keyword: Delaware River drainage basin boundaries in Pennsylvania Place: Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: none Place_Keyword: Eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware River basin Stratum: Stratum_Keyword_Thesaurus: none Stratum_Keyword: Temporal: Temporal_Keyword_Thesaurus: none Temporal_Keyword: Access_Constraints: Use_Constraints: These data were digitized from 7.5-minute paper topographic quadrangles, therefore, edgematching inconsistencies resulted along the map borders which are caused by the expansion and contraction of paper due to heat and humidity In order to maintain polygon topology, a midpoint edgematching scheme was use to resolve the border conflicts and may have altered the original digitizing. This is a dynamic data set, meaning it is in a constant state of change in part, to mans continual reshaping of the earths surface. Many surface feature changes in areas of high or continually developing land use are not shown. Surface-mining drainage area changes started after 1986 are not depicted on any of the maps. Showing land-use change over each quad and reflecting the change in the drainage basin data set varies from quad to quad. Some of the maps digitized are from the early 1950's. Drainage boundaries delineated in areas of large urban expanse are highly questionable due to the network of underground drainage systems. These basins are based soley on the contour lines on the map and have not been field checked to insure accuracy for drainage into any particular named stream. Point_of_Contact: Data_Set_Credit: Security_Information: Security_Classification_System: None Security_Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Security_Handling_Description: None Native_Data_Set_Environment: dgux, 5.4R3.10, AViiON UNIX, ARC/INFO version 7.0.3 Cross_Reference: Originator: Hoffman, Scott A. and Kernan, James T. Publication_Date: Publication_Time: Title: Digital drainage basin boundaries of named streams in PA., Delaware River Edition: 1.0 Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: map Series_Information: Series_Name: Open-File Issue_Identification: xx Publication_Information: Publication_Place: Publisher: Other_Citation_Details: Online_Linkage: Larger_Work_Citation: Data_Quality_Information: Attribute_Accuracy: Attribute_Accuracy_Report: See Entity_Attribute_Information Quantitative_Attribute_Accuracy_Assessment: Attribute_Accuracy_Value: See Explanation Attribute_Accuracy_Explanation: Attribute accuracy is described, where present, with each attribute defined in the Entity and Attribute Section. Logical_Consistency_Report: Polygon and chain-node topology present. Completeness_Report: Positional_Accuracy: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report: Quantitative_Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Assessment: Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Value: 3.66 meters Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Explanation: Resolution as reported Vertical_Positional_Accuracy: Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report: Lineage: See also Supplemental_Information: Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN ARCEDIT /GIS1/SHOFFMAN/REVIEW/DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1608 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN BUILD DELAWARE POLY Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1617 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN CREATELABELS DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1617 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN IDEDIT DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1618 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN ARCEDIT /GIS1/SHOFFMAN/REVIEW/DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1627 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN RENODE DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1629 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN LABELERRORS DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1629 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN NODEERRORS DELAWARE Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1630 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN PROJECT COVER DELAWARE D83 /PAGIS/PROJECTIONS/UTM27.UTM83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960418 Process_Time: 1645 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN BUILD D83 POLY Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1108 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN ARCEDIT /GIS1/SHOFFMAN/REVIEW/D83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1208 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN ARCEDIT /GIS1/SHOFFMAN/REVIEW/D83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1212 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN ARCEDIT /GIS1/SHOFFMAN/REVIEW/D83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1243 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN BUILD D83 POLY Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1245 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN IDEDIT D83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1303 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN RENODE D83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1304 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN NODEERRORS D83 DANGLES Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1304 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN LABELERRORS D83 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1304 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN RENAME D83 DELA18 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1308 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN EXPORT COVER DELA18 DELA18.E00 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960419 Process_Time: 1314 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN BUILD DELA18 POLY Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960422 Process_Time: 937 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN EXPORT COVER DELA18 DELA18.E00 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960422 Process_Time: 1020 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Process_Step: Process_Description: SHOFFMAN IMPORT COVER DELA18.E00 DELA18 Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation:None Process_Date: 19960702 Process_Time: 1636 Source_Produced_Citation_Abbreviation: None Cloud_Cover: Spatial_Data_Organization_Information: Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Vector Point_and_Vector_Object_Information: SDTS_Terms_Description: SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: Point Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 1239 SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: String Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 7087 SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: GT-polygon composed of chains Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 1240 Spatial_Reference_Information: Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition: Planar Grid_Coordinate_System Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: Universal_Transverse_Mercator (UTM) Zone_Number: 18 Planar_Distance_Units: METERS Geodetic Model Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983 Ellipsoid_Name: GRS1980 Entity_and_Attribute_Information: Detailed_Description: Entity_Type: Entity_Type_Label: DELA18.PAT Entity_Type_Definition: Polygon attribute table for named streams Entity_Type_Definition_Source: PA Gazetteer of Streams and USGS OFR 84-708 Attribute: Attribute_Label: - Attribute_Definition: Polygon attribute table for named streams Attribute_Definition_Source: PA Gazetteer of Streams and USGS OFR 84-708 Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: - Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: AREA Attribute_Definition: Area of poly/region in square coverage units Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Positive real numbers Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: PERIMETER Attribute_Definition: Perimeter of poly/region in coverage units Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Positive real numbers Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: DELA18# Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: DELA18-ID Attribute_Definition: User-assigned feature number Attribute_Definition_Source: User-defined Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: SQM Attribute_Definition: Polygon area in square miles Attribute_Definition_Source: Calculated: AREA item multiplied by .0000003861 Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Any positive number greater than 0 Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: WRDS# Attribute_Definition: PA Dept. of Natural Resources stream code number Attribute_Definition_Source: PA Gazetteer of Streams Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Number range from 0 to 99999 Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: HUC Attribute_Definition: USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) number Attribute_Definition_Source: USGS OFR 84-708 Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Numbers range from 02040101 to 02040205 Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Entity_Type: Entity_Type_Label: DELA18.AAT Entity_Type_Definition: Line attribute table Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Default items created by ArcInfo software Attribute: Attribute_Label: - Attribute_Definition: Line attribute table Attribute_Definition_Source: Default items created by ArcInfo software Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: - Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: FNODE# Attribute_Definition: Internal number of from-node Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: TNODE# Attribute_Definition: Internal number of to-node Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: LPOLY# Attribute_Definition: Internal number of poly to left of arc Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: RPOLY# Attribute_Definition: Internal number of poly to right of arc Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: LENGTH Attribute_Definition: Length of arc in coverage units Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Positive real numbers Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: DELA18# Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number Attribute_Definition_Source: Computed Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Sequential unique positive integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Attribute: Attribute_Label: DELA18-ID Attribute_Definition: User-assigned feature number Attribute_Definition_Source: User-defined Attribute_Domain_Values: Enumerated_Domain: Enumerated_Domain_Value: Integer Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition_Source: Overview_Description: Entity_and_Attribute_Overview: LINE ATTRIBUTE TABLE There are no added items to this table. All items have been generatd by the ArcInfo GIS software for line topology. POLYGON ATTRIBUTE TABLE Three attributes have been added to the polygon attribute table: WRDS#, HUC, and SQM. SQM is abbreviated from SQUARE MILES and is calculated by multiplying the item AREA by .0000003861. This item is defined as a floating-point number with and input value of four and an output value of 12. WRDS# is the stream code number of the Water Resources Data System database for PaDER and is defined as an integer with and input and output value of six. For example, the WRDS# 00833 is the Schuylkill River. The attribute is used by PaDER bureau databases to reference streams for any activity related to streams, e.g. water-quality sampling, water-use surface-water withdrawals. A separate INFO file, taken from an ASCII data file used to produce the Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams called GAZ.DAT, can be included with the drainage basins. This file contains the WRDS#, drainage area, and stream name with locational information about the stream mouth: county, 7.5-minute quad name, latitude, and longitude. HUC is the USGS hydrologic unit code number and is defined as a numeric value with an input and output of eight. This attribute has been approved for use by all Federal agencies as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS). The 8-digit HUC number has four specific codes within it: region, subregion, accounting unit, and cataloging unit. For example, the HUC number 02040106 is translated as: 02 = Mid Atlantic region, 04 = Delaware River Basin subregion, 03 = Upper Delaware accounting unit, and 04 = Lehigh River cataloging unit. By name, this example HUC is all drainage basins in the Lehigh River drainage basin. VALID CODES SQM - any positive number greater than 0 WRDS# - Delaware River, 00002 - 06666 *** NOTE *** In some cases, there are gaps in the numbering scheme, i.e, some streams were overlooked or a new name was assigned at a later date. Within each of these groups shown above, there might be addition numbers used to code the streams. Most of these numbers start from 63000. For example, Egypt Creek in the Lackawaxen River drainage basin is coded 63274, the Lackawaxen River is coded 05449. There are some imbedded WRDS# equal to zero (0). Once PaDEP assigns a value, the number will be added to the polygon attribute table. UPPER DELAWARE HUC - 02040101 (Upper Delaware) 02040102 (East Branch Delaware) 02040103 (Lackawaxen) 02040104 (Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead) 02040105 (Middle Delaware-Musconetcong) 02040106 (Lehigh) LOWER DELAWARE HUC - 02040201 (Crosswicks-Neshaminy) 02040202 (Lower Delaware) 02040203 (Schuylkill) 02040204 (Delaware Bay) 02040205 (Brandywine-Christina) Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation: Not Available Distribution_Information: Metadata_Reference_Section: Metadata_Date: 19960422 Metadata_Contact: shoffman Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata Metadata_Standard_Version: 19940608 Metadata_Time_Convention: Local Time Metadata_Security_Information: Metadata_Security_Classification_System: None Metadata_Security_Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Metadata_Security_Handling_Description: None /* end The success of this digitizing effort would not have been successful without the significant contributions of the following individuals: Jim Bubb Steve Char Robert Helm Russ Ludlow John Nantz Naomi Weisbeker