Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study

Home | Reports/Documents | News Releases | Photos | Email List | Contact Us

Reclamation 2D Hydraulic Modeling - Water Surface Elevation

Metadata

Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Denver Technical Service Center, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
Publication_Date: 6/26/2008
Publication_Time: Unknown
Title: YFO_Easton_Reach_water_surface_elevation_1100cfs
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Fgdb raster digital data
Online_Linkage: \\IBR1EYOUNGD01\C$\Data_2_SDE_prep\test47filegd.gdb

Description:
Abstract: Water surface elevations propagated to a continuous surface from the two dimensional hydraulogic modeling information for a specific reach and flow level listed in the data sets name. Purpose: This is part of a larger study known as the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasability Study (YRBWSFS). The modeling was conducted to support analysis of how fish habitats change in the reach specified in this data sets name, based on flow variations. The final data sets will be used to help determine how fish habitat will be effected by potential new water storage options. Supplemental_Information: This data set is part of a larger set of information.

Below is a listing of the modeled flows for each reach: Easton Reach - 250, 500, 700, 900, 1100, 1300, 1500, 1750, 2000 Kittitas Reach - 667, 800, 1032, 1288, 1700, 2311, 2770, 2864, 3146, 4000, 5000, 6500, 8000, 10000 Naches Reach - 250, 500, 720, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2680, 3000, 4000, 6000, 8000 Union Gap Reach - 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000 Wapato Reach - 300, 500, 750, 1491, 2000, 2450, 5000, 7500, 15000

For each flow level, the following data sets have been produced from the 2D hydraulic modeling: model points, water depth, water extent, water surface area, water velocity, habitats.

The following reaches in the Yakima River Basin have had similar data produced: Easton, Kittitas, Naches, Union Gap, Wapato

Reclamation conducted the 2D hydraulic modeling for the Easton, Kittitas, and Naches reaches. The USGS conducted the 2D hydraulic modeling for the Union Gap and Wapato reaches. Therefore, separate metadata files have been developed for these two sets of information.

Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 200010
Beginning_Time: unknown
Ending_Date: 200505
Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Status: Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned

Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -121.173949
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -121.034161
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 47.240631
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 47.187090

Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: Habitat
Theme_Keyword: Fish
Theme_Keyword: Riparian
Theme_Keyword: In-Stream Habitat
Theme_Keyword: hydrology
Theme_Keyword: water

Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Place_Keyword: Pacific Northwest
Place_Keyword: Washington
Place_Keyword: Yakima Basin

Access_Constraints:
The USDI Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provides public domain spatial data without restrictions. Access to spatial data that are considered 1) works in-progress, 2) for internal use, or 3) confidential, sensitive, or private may be restricted. Access to such data may require a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. For further information, contact the Geospatial Data Administrator (see Point of Contact info).

Use_Constraints:
The USDI Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provides spatial data """"""""as-is"""""""" without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to, any warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. In no event will the producers of Reclamation spatial data be liable for any damages arising from the use of, or the inability to use, these data. The user assumes all responsibility for spatial and attribute accuracy, completeness, validity, and appropriateness with regard to the suitability of these spatial data for any specific use or application, and such use or application is at the user?s own risk.

Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Upper Columbia Area Office, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
Contact_Position: GIS Specialist

Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: US Bureau of Reclamation Box 1749 1917 Marsh Road
City: Yakima
State_or_Province: WA
Postal_Code: 98907-1794
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 509-575-5848
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 509-454-5611
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: eyoung@pn.usbr.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0730-1600
Contact_Instructions:

Data_Set_Credit: Denver Technical Service Center, USDI Bureau of Reclamation

Native_Data_Set_Environment: Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.0.1770

Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report: Below is a listing showing the amount of error in feet the model showed for water_surface_elevation compared to the surveyed data by reach. Easton: 0.02 - 0.18 Kittitas: 0.04 - 0.23 Naches: 0.01 - 0.36

Below is a listing showing the percent of correctly classified features for habitat_class by reach: Easton: all features = 73% Kittitas: all features = 85% Naches: all features = 81%

Bed_elevation is tied to the accuracies of the bathymetric LiDAR work conducted in 2004 and 2005 with a listed error or 0.25 meters (suspected accuracy is 0.1 meters).

Water_depth would be tied to the above listed water_surface_elevation and bed elevation errors.

Water_velocity accuracy isn't directly measurable, since it was not field verified.

Froude_number is a component of other fields.

Downstream_component_velocity and lateral_component_velocity are non-verified model outputs.

For more information, see the process section of this document. Logical_Consistency_Report: raster topology existsCompleteness_Report: Completely finished for the project areas. The modeling was completed for the following reaches: Easton, Kittitas, Naches, Union Gap, Wapato

Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
The horizontal accuracy value is based on the published accuracies for the equipment used when collecting the bathymetric LiDAR data. This is the major data set used to create the three dimensional mesh for the modeling. Based on error analysis, it is believed that the accuracy value is closer to 0.1. However the modeling process undoubtedly added further error to the base data. Also, the propagation of the modeling point outputs to a continuous surface adds error, especially around the river edges.

Quantitative_Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Assessment:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Value: 0.25
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy:
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
The horizontal accuracy value is based on the published accuracies for the equipment used when collecting the bathymetric LiDAR data. This is the major data set used to create the three dimensional mesh for the modeling. Based on error analysis, it is believed that the accuracy value is closer to 0.1. However the modeling process undoubtedly added further error to the base data. Also, the propagation of the modeling point outputs to a continuous surface adds error, especially around the river edges.

Quantitative_Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Assessment:
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Value: 0.25
Lineage: Process_Step:
Process_Description: This dataset is propagated from a two dimensional hydraulic modeling output. The modeling output almost always had points representing areas of flow being fully encompassed by points representing land, thereby having a river's edge boundary worked into the data.

The 'IDW' tool in ESRI's ArcGIS 9.x software was used to create this data set from the point outputs of the original modeling work. A distance limitation of 75 feet, value of 1 for the distance exponent, variable search radius, and cell size of 2 feet were used. The output was then clipped to the extents of the cooresponding water extent grid using the 'Con' tool in the same ESRI software.

A description of the original two dimensional hydraulic modeling work follows:

The following process information is taken from a 2006 Reclamation technical report draft entitled "Identifying Salmonid Habitat With a Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Model", prepared by Robert C. Hilldale of the Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group.

Description of Modeled Reaches: Five reaches were chosen for a 2-D hydraulic model to obtain a data set with higher habitat resolution than a 1D model. The reaches were chosen based primarily on habitat characteristics outlined by Stanford et al. (2002), who stated that restoration efforts in the Cle Elum, Kittitas, Naches, Gap-to-Gap, and Wapato Reaches provide the greatest potential for improvement to salmon and steelhead populations. It was decided by the Storage Study Technical Committee to replace the Cle Elum Reach with the Easton Reach, which is considered to be of biological significance. Three of the reaches were modeled by Reclamation (Hilldale & Mooney) and two reaches were modeled by the USGS (Hatton) (Figure 1). The reaches modeled by Reclamation are referred to as Easton (RM 193 to 203.5) and lower Kittitas (RM 149 to 153.5) on the Yakima River and Naches (RM 4 to 14) on the lower Naches River. The reaches modeled by the USGS are referred to as the Gap to Gap reach (RM 109 to 118) and Wapato (RM 82.5 to 91.5) on the Yakima River. The USGS is responsible for reporting results for the Gap to Gap and Wapato reaches.

The Easton Reach of the Yakima River begins just downstream of Easton Dam near River Mile 203.5 and continues downstream to the Interstate 90 Bridge at River Mile 193 (Figure 2). The upstream end of this reach (RM 199 to RM 203) is characterized as anastomosed, with the remaining portion of the river being single-thread. A few locations in this reach are vertically controlled by bedrock. Flow rates in this reach are typically much less than downstream of the Cle Elum River mouth. Flows modeled in this reach range from 250 to 2,000 ft3/s. The characteristic slope of this reach is 0.24%. This reach contains more large woody debris than the other two reaches modeled by Reclamation.

The lower Kittitas Reach begins two miles downstream of the Irene Reinhart boat launch and terminates near the head of the Yakima Canyon (Figure 3). The Reaches Report (Stanford et al., 2002) identifies this area as the reach of the Yakima River with the highest habitat channel complexity. The range of flows modeled in this reach were 540 to 10,000 ft3/s. The characteristic slope for this reach is 0.25%. Significant side channel habitat exists throughout the reach.

The Naches Reach begins at the Naches Bridge in the town of Naches (RM 14) and terminates near the Highway 12 twin bridges (RM 4) (Figure 4). This reach of the Naches River is subject to numerous irrigation diversions and returns, which were not accounted for in the model. It was decided that the additional effort of accounting for the many diversions and returns would not significantly alter the analysis of habitat in this reach. In the lower Naches River, there are many locations where the water surface varies across the cross section. This typically occurs at locations that have split channel morphology, where riffles exist on both sides but in different locations longitudinally. Many of these locations were noted during a raft trip down the reach. A check of the modeled water surface elevations at these locations verified that this type of feature was properly duplicated in the model. The flows modeled for this reach ranged from 250 to 8,000 ft3/s.

Data Sources: The data used to build the model terrain and bathymetry was obtained from two sources. Terrestrial LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) was collected aerially in November, 2000. The underwater portion, or bathymetry, was collected with water penetrating LiDAR in September, 2004 for the Easton and lower Kittitas reaches and May, 2005 for the Naches reach. The point data from both LiDAR sets and contour lines generated from the terrestrial LiDAR were used to construct a continuous surface of above and below water terrain using Arc GIS. In many locations break lines had to be added along contours and adjusted to create a smooth transition from under water to above water terrain where the two sets of points met. However the two data sets merged quite well with the exception of a few locations on the Naches River. In those locations the river had migrated in the time between the terrestrial and bathymetric data collection, making it necessary to eliminate some of the terrestrial data points and use the bathymetry data. The complete set of bathymetric and terrestrial data points and contours were used to create a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN). This surface was then converted to feature points for interpolation to the mesh, discussed in the next section. The spot spacing for the bathymetry data is at a resolution of no greater than 6.5 feet. This is the greatest resolution provided by the LiDAR Bathymeter. Hilldale (2006) discusses more information regarding the bathymetric LiDAR data.

Mesh Generation: The finite element mesh used for the model was created using the Surface-water Modeling System (SMS) software package. The mesh combines structured and unstructured regions. The structured portion of the mesh represents the channeled portions of the terrain. The unstructured portion represents the overbank areas of the terrain (Figure 5). The structured portions of the mesh represent the channel using rectangular cells with the long dimension coincident with the upstream/downstream direction. The unstructured portion of the mesh consists of three, four or five sided polygons. At greater distances from the channel the unstructured mesh resolution decreases (cell size increases) in order to reduce the overall number of mesh cells. This type of mesh greatly reduces computing time while maintaining sufficient resolution in areas of greater interest. The resolution of the structured mesh is generally consistent throughout each model and typically varies in the width (short dimension) as the active channel changes width. Structured meshes require the same number of nodes across the channel at each end of a region. Where there are significant changes in active channel width, regions were created in such a way that the number of nodes across the channel could be adjusted to maintain a mostly consistent resolution. For all reaches the cell sizes in the active channel varied from approximately 6 to 10 feet in the lateral direction and 10 to 20 feet in the streamwise direction. The mesh cell size is related to the resolution of the survey data.

Hydraulic Model: The following excerpt is a comprehensive description of the GSTAR-W model, taken from the User's Manual for GSTAR-W (Lai, 2006b).

GSTAR-W, Generalized Sediment Transport for Alluvial Rivers and Watersheds, is a two-dimensional (2D) hydraulic and sediment transport model for river systems and watersheds. It has been developed primarily for use by Reclamation engineers to solve various hydraulic and sedimentation problems; and it has been applied successfully to many projects at Reclamation.

GSTAR-W is a 2D model that may be used to predict water flow and sediment transport for river reaches or water runoff and sediment delivery for a watershed. GSTAR-W adopts an approach for coupled modeling of channels, floodplains, and overland flow. Major features include the following:

Hybrid Zonal Modeling: GSTAR-W divides a watershed or river reaches into modeling zones. A zone may represent a 1D river reach or a 2D feature that may be solved with suitable models and algorithms. This layered hybrid approach facilitates the use of most appropriate models and solvers for each zone; it also extends the model to larger spatial and time scales.

Geometry Representation: The arbitrarily shaped element method (ASEM) of Lai (2000) is adopted for geometry representation. This unstructured meshing strategy is very flexible and facilitates the implementation of the hybrid zonal modeling concept. It essentially allows the use of most existing meshing methods available. For example, it allows a natural representation of a channel network in 1-D or 2-D, as well as the surroundings (flood plains or watersheds). With ASEM, a tight integration between watershed and channel system is achieved and a truly mesh-convergent solution may be obtained.

Major capabilities of GSTAR-W are listed below: -GSTAR-W solves the 2-D form of the diffusive wave or dynamic wave equations. The dynamic wave equations are the standard St. Venant depth-averaged equations; -Both diffusive wave and dynamic wave solvers use the implicit scheme so that solution robustness and efficiency may be achieved for a majority of applications; -Both steady or unsteady flows may be simulated; -Unstructured or structured 2-D meshes, with arbitrary element shapes, may be used with GSTAR-W. In most applications, a combination of quadrilateral and triangular meshes works the best. A Cartesian or raster mesh is a special mesh that may also be used by GSTAR-W; -All flow regimes, i.e., subcritical, transcritical, and supercritical flows, are simulated simultaneously; -Solution domain may include a combination of main channels, floodplains, and overland; -Both steady and unsteady sediment transport may be simulated with the nonequilibrium approach for nonuniform sediment transport; -Sediment transport module includes more than 10 non-cohesive sediment transport capacity formulae that are applicable to a wide range of hydraulic and sediment conditions. -Fractional sediment transport with bed sorting and armoring;

GSTAR-W is a 2-D model and it is particularly useful for problems where 2D effect is important. Examples include flows with in-stream structures, through bends, with perched rivers, and for multiple channel systems. A 2-D model may also be needed if one is interested in local flow velocities and eddy patterns.

The 2-D channel network portion of GSTAR-W was used for modeling the reaches in this report using a diffusive wave solution with an implicit scheme. The diffusive wave solution assumes the convective and diffusive transports of water are in equilibrium. Eddies and flow separation are not considered, resulting in a loss of the ability to calculate micro- and meso-scale flow conditions that might occur in the vicinity of large in-stream boulders or woody debris. The scale of the survey data, on the order of 6.5 ft, does not provide proper resolution to define such meso-scale stream structure, much less the micro-scale. Although the diffusive wave solver can calculate sub-, super-, and trans-critical flow, a hydraulic jump is transitionally smoothed. For the purpose of this modeling effort, these properties are not crucial. For the diffusive wave solver, the Manning roughness coefficient should be interpreted as the energy loss coefficient. Additional losses due to eddies, separations, and hydraulic jumps are lumped together within this coefficient. These roughness values are on the order of traditional 1-D models.

The outputs available from this model are spatially rectified values of x-velocity, y-velocity, magnitude velocity, depth, water surface elevation, bed elevation, and Froude number. This data can be manipulated and presented in a number of ways, including shape files in Arc GIS.

Roughness: Various roughness values were assigned to specific regions of the model via polygons while creating the mesh. In all models there were four primary roughness categories used to represent the various conditions; main channel, littered gravel bars, side channels, cultivated floodplain, and forested regions. The Manning's roughness of the side channels and littered gravel bars increased by 0.005 over the main channel roughness. It is common for debris to collect and small vegetation to grow in side channels, slightly increasing the roughness. The same applies to gravel bars where low vegetation growth and forest litter can slightly impede flow. The forested portions of the floodplain were given the highest roughness. Manning's roughness values used were: main channel = 0.03 - 0.035; side channel/littered gravel bar = 0.035 - 0.045; cultivated field areas = 0.04 - 0.045; forested areas = 0.055 - 0.07.

Boundary Conditions: The models include three types of boundary conditions; upstream, downstream, and a slip boundary. The upstream boundary is the incoming flow rate. The downstream boundary is a fixed water surface elevation. The slip boundary is essentially a friction-free 'wall' built around the model. Ideally the flow should not meet the no-slip boundary.

The downstream boundary condition requires knowledge of the water surface elevation at various flow rates. A rating curve can be developed over a wide range of measured flow rates and corresponding water surface elevations. In the absence of adequate measured data, a 1-D hydraulic model can be constructed for the downstream most portion of the reach, from which a stage-discharge rating curve can be developed. The latter method requires at least one or two known water surface elevations to verify the 1-D model results.

The downstream boundary condition for all three models used water surface elevation values determined for each flow with a 1-D hydraulic model verified with surveys at two different flow rates.

Model Verification: Verification of the models was performed by matching surveyed water surface elevations with modeled water surface elevations at various locations throughout each reach for a minimum of two different flow rates. Surveys of water surface elevations were performed with RTK GPS surveying equipment at accessible locations along each reach.

Below is an array of verification data comparing water surface elevations. The mean value and standard deviation are statistics on the differences between modeled and surveyed water surface elevations (modeled value minus surveyed value). Flows at the Naches Gage at Naches during the 2680 CFS survey fluctuated 80 ft3/s. Additionally, flows fluctuated spatially throughout this same reach by 63 ft3/s due to irrigation diversion and return. An average of the estimated flows at each location was used for the modeled flow rate. Easton at 250 CFS: mean error = -0.02; standard deviation = 0.33; number of locations = 7 Easton at 500 CFS: mean error = 0.18; standard deviation = 0.27; number of locations = 4 Kittitas at 1032 CFS: mean error = 0.23; standard deviation = 0.49; number of locations = 4 Kittitas at 3146 CFS: mean error = -0.04; standard deviation = 0.43; number of locations = N/A Naches at 720 CFS: mean error = 0.01; standard deviation = 0.36; number of locations = 5 Naches at 2680 CFS: mean error = 0.36; standard deviation = 0.33; number of locations = 4

Habitat via Froude Number: A major component of this study was to use the model output to identify habitat types, i.e. pools, riffles and glides, at various flow rates. Jowett (1993) performed an analysis whereby habitat types were numerically determined using a variety of methods to increase replicability and predictability in river studies. Jowett evaluated habitat using the Froude number, slope, velocity/depth ratio and combinations of these values. Although it was found that a velocity/depth ratio best described these habitats, the difference in success between the Froude number and velocity depth ratio was small. For the present study, it was determined that the Froude number better defined the habitat types when compared to field data.

Using the model output at all flow rates, the Froude number (Fr = V/(square root of gh)), where V is depth averaged velocity, g is the gravitational constant and h is the flow depth, was used to determine the areas comprising pools, glides and riffles. Determining the Froude values at which the habitat changes from one type to another was initially done by experiment, beginning with the values determined by Jowett (1993). The break in habitat Froude classification was then adjusted to match field surveys of identified habitat types in all reaches modeled. Generally, the Froude number changes very little from one mesh cell to another, creating clusters of mesh cells corresponding to pools, glides or riffles.

The following piecewise function was used for habitat determination: Fr < 0.09 = pool 0.09 <= Fr <= 0.42 = glide Fr > 0.42 = riffle

The break in Froude number between pools and glides used in this study differs from that used by Jowett (1993), who used Fr = 0.18 but is very similar to that used by Reuter et al. (2003), Fr = 0.10. The break between glides and riffles used in this study was determined to be Fr = 0.42, similar to Jowett (1993), who used Fr = 0.41. Reuter further defined a habitat category of races, 0.2 < Fr < 0.4, with riffles defined as having a Froude number greater than 0.40, similar to the findings of this study.

A TIN was created in Arc GIS to display the results. In the process of creating a TIN, neighboring cells are interpolated between discrete habitat cell values. These interpolations consist of one cell in each dimension bounding each cluster of habitat classifications. Habitat features naturally include transitions along the boundaries of pools, glides and riffles that exist in the stream. For calculations of habitat area, these transition zones are neglected.

Field Verification of Determining Habitat via the Froude Number: Field verification of the Froude habitat classification was performed from a raft using a hand-held Trimble GPS to mark the beginning and end of visually identified pools, glides and riffles throughout the reach. Joel Hubble, a fisheries biologist for Reclamation (Upper Columbia Area Office), assisted with the field habitat identification. The intent was to continuously map the reach, however there were instances where identifying the habitat was unclear. Identifying pools, riffles and glides is a subjective and qualitative process and led to some unidentified lengths. Another cause of unidentified portions of the reach can also be attributed to the difficulty in marking the beginning or end of a specific feature while floating in a raft. There were occasions where a feature type was not realized until the raft had already passed the true beginning of the feature.

It was noted during the float surveys and data processing that the habitat features (pool, glide and riffle) in the Naches and Kittitas reaches are much more easily defined than those in the Easton reach, from the standpoint of both field identification and modeling. The habitat features in the Easton reach are much more discontinuous. Evidence of this is shown in the average length of each feature identified in the field. Features in the Easton reach average 196 feet in length while features in the Naches and Kittitas reaches average 397 and 384 feet, respectively. This result is probably a function of scale. A smaller channel with lower discharge is likely to have smaller features.

Below is an array showing the percent of correctly classified features for habitat type: Easton: all features = 73%; riffles = 63% (69 surveyed in the field); glides = 87% (66 surveyed in the field); pools = 64% (19 surveyed in field) Kittitas: all features = 85%; riffles = 83% (17 surveyed in the field); glides = 91% (15 surveyed in the field); pools = 50% (2 surveyed in field) Naches: all features = 81%; riffles = 87% (34 surveyed in the field); glides = 77% (31 surveyed in the field); pools = 0% (1 surveyed in field)

Overall, the modeled classification agreed very well with the field verification. The number of pools identified by the model is not an appropriate representation of the total amount of pool habitat in each reach. The model can only account for geomorphically created pool habitat and does not account for pool habitat created by woody debris. The float trips of all three reaches identified a significant contribution to pool habitat by large wood in the channel. It is not feasible that large wood in a stream be surveyed to the detail required for numerical modeling when the model covers many miles of river channel. The aerial survey of the bathymetry flown for this model has a horizontal spot spacing on the order of 6.5-x-6.5 feet, meaning that features less than 6.5 feet in size are not accurately represented. The survey did not provide the level of detail required to account for large woody debris and associated pool habitat. Another important consideration is that the number of pools identified in the field habitat survey does not include the entire pool habitat of each reach. Pool habitat exists in the side channels and backwater areas that were not accounted for during the raft survey.

When pools, riffles, and glides are evaluated over various flow rates, their classifications begin to change. The length of pools becomes shorter with increasing flow as the features upstream and downstream encroach on the pool from each end until the entire pool feature becomes a glide. In some areas, a series of short riffles separated by short glides becomes one long riffle. With regards to glides and riffles, the greater tendency is for glides to transition into riffles with increasing flow, although this is not absolute. The ultimate determining parameter regarding this type of habitat is the water surface slope.

In addition to habitat identified via Froude number, flow depth and velocity are also provided for use as input to the EDT model.

Conclusion: The use of GSTAR-W in combination with terrestrial and bathymetric LiDAR has been shown to be effective in determining aquatic habitat for input to EDT.

The combination of bathymetric LiDAR with the terrestrial methods provided a more detailed representation of the terrain than traditional boat survey methods. The resolution captured geomorphic channel features that cross section techniques might miss.

GSTAR-W allows contiguous 2D hydraulic simulation over lengths and resolutions beyond the capabilities of most other 2D models. Two-dimensional results provided depths and velocities over and around complex channel features including laterally varied riffles, pools, and glides as well as side channels.

Froude number classification of pools, riffles, and glides provides an objective and repeatable means of quantifying aquatic habitat. Field verification at different flow rates provided support for the method. Classification did not include features formed by woody debris or features smaller than the mesh resolution.

Process_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Upper Columbia Area Office, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
Contact_Position: GIS Specialist

Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 1917 Marsh Road
City: Yakima
State_or_Province: WA
Postal_Code: 98901
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: (509) 575-5848
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (509) 454-5611
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: eyoung@pn.usbr.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0730-1600
Contact_Instructions:

Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Raster
Point_and_Vector_Object_Information:

SDTS_Terms_Description:
SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: G-polygon
Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 1496

SDTS_Terms_Description:
SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: Label point
Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 55

SDTS_Terms_Description:
SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: GT-polygon composed of chains
Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 55

SDTS_Terms_Description:
SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: Point
Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 4

Raster_Object_Information:
Raster_Object_Type: Pixel
Row_Count: 9632
Column_Count: 17297
Vertical_Count: 1

Spatial_Reference_Information:
Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Planar:
Map_Projection:
Map_Projection_Name: Lambert Conformal Conic

Lambert_Conformal_Conic:
Standard_Parallel: 45.833333
Standard_Parallel: 47.333333
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -120.500000
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 45.333333
False_Easting: 1640416.666667
False_Northing: 0.000000

Planar_Coordinate_Information:
Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: row and column

Coordinate_Representation:
Abscissa_Resolution: 2.000000
Ordinate_Resolution: 2.000000

Planar_Distance_Units: survey feet
Geodetic_Model:
Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222
Vertical_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Altitude_System_Definition:
Altitude_Resolution: 1.000000
Altitude_Encoding_Method: Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates

Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_Label: YFO_Easton_Reach_habitat_class_poly_1100cfs
Entity_Type_Definition: Polygon attribute table
Entity_Type_Definition_Source: Denver Technical Services Center, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview: Contains attributes on the fish habitat classifications

Distribution_Information:
Distributor: Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Upper Columbia Area Office, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
Contact_Position: GIS Specialist

Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: US Bureau of Reclamation Box 1749 1917 Marsh Road
City: Yakima
State_or_Province: WA
Postal_Code: 98907-1794
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 509-575-5848
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 509-454-5611
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: eyoung@pn.usbr.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0730-1600
Contact_Instructions:

Resource_Description: U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima River Basin Database
Distribution_Liability: The USDI Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provides spatial data ""as-is"" without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to, any warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user. In no event will the producers of Reclamation spatial data be liable for any damages arising from the use of, or the inability to use, these data. Reclamation liability is limited to providing a replacement copy for requested data sets that are not readable upon receipt.

The user assumes all responsibility for spatial and attribute accuracy, completeness, validity and appropriateness with regard to the suitability of these spatial data for any specific use or application, and such use or application is at the user?s own risk.

Spatial data provided by the Reclamation are public domain, and the recipient may not assert any proprietary rights thereto nor represent data sets as other than government-produced data.

Standard_Order_Process:
Fees: No fees for electronic download. Processing, media, and shipping fees may apply for CD-ROM requests.
Ordering_Instructions: Contact Geospatial Data Administrator or GIS Coordinator for custom data requests.
Turnaround: Processing time and delivery will vary depending on the size and complexity of the request.
Standard_Order_Process: Fees: Actual costs to produce cartographic products, including labor, plotting costs, and shipping.
Ordering_Instructions: Contact the Geospatial Data Administrator or GIS Coordinator to request non-digital data products.
Turnaround: Processing time will vary with the specific request.Custom_Order_Process: Contact Geospatial Data Administrator or GIS Coordinator for custom data requests.
Available_Time_Period:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Time_of_Day: unknown

Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20081202
Metadata_Review_Date: 20010814
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Upper Columbia Area Office, USDI Bureau of Reclamation
Contact_Person: REQUIRED: The person responsible for the metadata information.
Contact_Position: GIS Specialist

Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: US Bureau of Reclamation Box 1749 1917 Marsh Road
City: Yakima
State_or_Province: WA
Postal_Code: 98907-1794
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 509-575-5848
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 509-454-5611
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: eyoung@pn.usbr.gov
Hours_of_Service: 0730-1600
Contact_Instructions:

Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998
Metadata_Time_Convention: local time
Metadata_Access_Constraints: none
Metadata_Use_Constraints: none
Metadata_Security_Information:

Metadata_Security_Classification: Unclassified

Generated by mp version 2.9.6 on Tue Dec 02 09:45:04 2008

Last Updated: 8/19/20