Digital database architecture and delineation methodology for deriving drainage basins, and a comparison of digitally and non-digitally derived numeric drainage areas

Abstract

Digital database architecture and delineation methodology for deriving drainage basins, and a comparison of digitally and non-digitally derived numeric drainage areas: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. C6, 59 p.

Montana StreamStats—A method for retrieving basin and streamflow characteristics in Montana: Chapter A in <i>Montana StreamStats</i>

“…Historically, drainage areas for gaging stations were derived by manual delineation of polygonal basin areas on paper topographic maps and reported in USGS Annual Water Data Reports (U.S. Geological Survey, 2015d) and in NWIS. In 2012, the USGS officially accepted the WBD as the authoritative dataset for hydrologic unit boundaries for the Nation (Lins, 2012a) and provided guidance for digitally deriving drainage areas (Dupree and Crowfoot, 2012;Lins, 2012b) using the NHD, WBD, and NED. New drainage areas were computed for the Montana gaging stations using geospatial datasets and following guidance from Dupree and Crowfoot (2012) and Lins (2012b), and the drainage areas were updated in NWIS in 2015.…”

“…Of the 2,924 dams in the NHD, 107 could not be located on an identifiable reservoir or dam within the original plotted vicinity and thus were removed from the database. The CONTDAs for the remaining 2,817 dams were computed using methods described by Dupree and Crowfoot (2012) and Lins (2012b) and are listed in table 1-2 in appendix 1 at the back of this report chapter (available at http:// dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155019A).…”

Peak-flow frequency analyses and results based on data through water year 2011 for selected streamflow-gaging stations in or near Montana: Chapter C in <i>Montana StreamStats</i>

“…The Wyoming-Montana Water Science Center computed the contributing drainage area using methods described by Dupree and Crowfoot (2012) and Lins (2012). …”