feedback instructions

The 3D National Topography Model Call for Action Part 1: 3D Hydrography Program

Review Version 7.0, 7/22/2021 2

Feedback Instructions

This document is being provided for feedback in a DRAFT form. Please do not share this document with others. All content is subject to change prior to final publication.

Please submit your comments on the provided spreadsheet to [email protected] by August 20, 2021.

Instructions:

• Document your comments in the provided spreadsheet, focusing on content (grammar and style will be addressed in final editing).

• Include your name, organization, work email, page number, and line number for each comment.

• To provide comments that are not specific to any one page or line but address the overall report, enter

“Overall” in the page number and line number columns of the spreadsheet.

• To comment on a table, please note the page number and line number for the table caption.

• To comment on a text box, please note the page number, and add “Text Box” in the line number column.

• If you find errors, please feel free to suggest changes in the spreadsheet.

• Please document any questions or needs for clarification. Offering an approach or alternative language in

the spreadsheet is appreciated.

Please email [email protected] with any questions or issues with the work “Question” in the subject line.

Thank you for your interest in the 3D National Topography Model and the 3D Hydrography Program.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Executive Summary 1

Topography is defined by terrain and water, each influencing and shaping the other. The USGS is responsible for 2

the topographic mapping of the United States and fulfills this in part by co-leading both the OMB A-16 Elevation 3

and Inland Water themes and managing the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) and National Hydrography Datasets. 4

The 3D National Topography Model (3DNTM) is a new initiative that updates and integrates USGS elevation and 5

hydrography data and encodes these co-dependent topographic relationships into an integrated 3D model to 6

deliver higher-quality data and support improved geospatial analysis. The 3DNTM will enable analysis and 7

visualization for the broad range of the Nation’s environmental, climate, and infrastructure applications. The 3D 8

National Topography Model Call for Action Part 1: 3D Hydrography Program lays out a new vision for the 9

Nation’s topographic data, with a focus on its inland waters. It will be followed by a next generation 3DEP report 10

to address the need to keep terrain data current and to extend the surface model to include bathymetry. 11

Fresh water is a vital natural resource, essential for the health of communities and ecosystems and critical for 12

agriculture, industry, and commerce. Availability of fresh water is increasingly strained by the demands and 13

impacts of natural and human-caused events. A complex web of U.S. water policy charges Federal agencies with 14

monitoring, regulating, managing, allocating, and protecting our surface waters. Modernizing America’s Water 15

Resource Management and Water Infrastructure (Executive Order 13956 2020) establishes an Interagency 16

Water Subcabinet and directs, among other actions, that improvements be made to water data management, 17

research, modeling, and forecasting. As resources become limited or compromised in other ways, technologies 18

must evolve to respond to the needs of the 21st century. Comprehensive, detailed, and accurate mapping, as 19

well as an information infrastructure for sharing and discovering water-related information, are essential to 20

meeting these requirements. 21

The 3D National Topography Model Call for Action Part 1: 3D Hydrography Program makes recommendations 22

for modernizing hydrography mapping nationwide by establishing the 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP). The 23

3DHP will build on more than 20 years of experience developing and managing the National Hydrography 24

Datasets which have been integral to a wide range of mission-critical activities undertaken and managed by 25

government entities at all levels, nonprofit organizations, Tribes, and private companies. 26

To determine the optimal path forward, the USGS examined three possible future 3DHP scenarios and assessed 27

the potential benefits that could be achieved. Scenarios were based on the 2016 National Hydrography 28

Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS) that documented current and emerging requirements for hydrography 29

data across a diverse group of stakeholders. The USGS recommends implementing a scenario that will 30

potentially produce $509 million in new annual benefits in addition to the current hydrography data annual user 31

benefits estimated in HRBS to be $538 million, totaling more than an estimated $1 billion in benefits every year 32

in addition to unquantified societal benefits. More importantly, decisions that directly affect water quality, 33

water availability, and the livelihood of all living things will be better informed through the development of the 34

3D Hydrography Program. 35

The new 3DHP Datasets will include a 3D stream network derived from 3DEP data including waterbodies, 36

hydrologic units, hydrologically conditioned digital elevation models, and related attributes that bring a new 37

level of consistency and accuracy. The stream network will include elevation values to enable 3D analysis of the 38

data. The 3DHP will update and improve the consistency of the geospatial features and vastly improve the ability 39

to connect to other data such as wetlands, engineered hydrologic systems, and groundwater. 3DHP will develop 40

and implement a modernized operational system and schema for the stream network and hydrologic unit data 41

using open standards. 42



While vast amounts of water-related data, such as stream temperature, water quality, and fisheries data, exist 43

across the country, the Nation lacks a means of efficiently sharing that information. The 3DHP Infostructure, an 44

information infrastructure for water-related data, will underpin the Internet of Water by providing the means to 45

share and discover water-related data within the context of the 3DHP Datasets. The 3DHP Infostructure will be 46

designed as a web-based collaborative and open system. It will include tools to enable users to share water-47

related data as web-based map services, and search and discovery tools that can be implemented in web portals 48

to discover that data by searching throughout the 3DHP stream network. 49

The recommended 3DHP scenario represents a nine-year effort starting in FY2022 with moderate growth for 50

FY2023 and accelerated growth in subsequent years. For the proposed operational program to be fully realized, 51

a $676 million investment across all partners will be required between FY2022 and FY2030, including one year of 52

program preparation, six years of active data acquisition, and two additional years to complete data inspection 53

and processing after the acquisition period. 54

The 3DHP will be guided by an executive level committee and through a working group of subject matter experts 55

and managers from partner agencies. Outreach will be a primary aspect of the program, which is dependent on 56

a broad base of support and participation from Federal agencies, State, local and Tribal governments, and other 57

stakeholders. Outreach will be directed toward building support and a funding base to move the program 58

forward. As with 3DEP, data will be acquired through contracting with the private sector and funding for 3DHP 59

will rely heavily on partnership contributions. A key component of the strategy is to increase funding to a level 60

that allows the program partners to implement a directed national acquisition strategy without compromising 61

the mission needs of individual partners. 62

This report is a “Call for Action”. The public and private sectors that depend on high-quality water data have 63

expressed the need for better, more accessible information to answer the most demanding water resource 64

management questions. USGS proposes to work with partners to share the costs of a new program that will 65

address these needs in as little as nine years, assuming the funds are available to complete the work. The 3D 66

National Hydrography Program marks the beginning of a new era to perform the first comprehensive update for 67

all hydrography features in the United States and U.S. Territories since they were transferred from paper 68

topographic maps to digital form. The program also proposes to implement a common Infostructure for 69

managing and easily accessing water information across the community. The return on investment is significant. 70

The need to implement the 3D National Hydrography Program to support better water resources decisions 71

cannot be overstated. 72



Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................3 73

Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................6 74

Tables ..........................................................................................................................................................................6 75

Conversion Factors .....................................................................................................................................................6 76

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................7 77

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................8 78

3D National Topography Model – An Overview .........................................................................................................8 79

3DNTM Development Tracks..................................................................................................................................9 80

Track 1 | Complete Nationwide Elevation and Hydrography Baseline Datasets .............................................................. 10 81

Track 2 | Pilot Integration of Hydrography and Elevation ................................................................................................ 12 82

Track 3 | Design and Implement the Next Generation Integrated Data ........................................................................... 13 83

Track 4 | Research and Implement 3D Data Model .......................................................................................................... 14 84

The Next Generation of the Hydrography Program – A Call for Action .................................................................. 14 85

Current National Hydrography Products and Services ........................................................................................ 15 86

Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study ................................................................................................. 17 87

Potential Program Scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 21 88

3D Hydrography Program ........................................................................................................................................ 24 89

A New Approach to Water Data .......................................................................................................................... 25 90

Building the Program ........................................................................................................................................... 26 91

Project Schedule and Milestones ...................................................................................................................................... 26 92

Leadership ......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 93

Planning and Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................ 28 94

Outreach and Communications ........................................................................................................................................ 32 95

Growth .............................................................................................................................................................................. 33 96

Building the 3DHP Datasets and Infostructure.................................................................................................... 35 97

3DHP Datasets Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 35 98

3DHP Infostructure Conceptualization ............................................................................................................................. 40 99

Data Acquisition Contracts and Specifications .................................................................................................................. 42 100

Data Validation and Acceptance ....................................................................................................................................... 43 101

Operations and Production Planning and Development .................................................................................................. 43 102

Research Requirements .................................................................................................................................................... 44 103

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 45 104

References Cited ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 105

Appendix 1. Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study Summary Tables ..................................................... 49 106



Figures Figure 1. The 3D National Topography Model (3DNTM)......................................................................................... 10 107

Figure 2. Map of status of 3DEP data collections .................................................................................................... 11 108

Figure 3. Map of status of NHDPlus HR datasets .................................................................................................... 12 109

Figure 4. Comparison of three possible implementation scenarios of 3DHP ......................................................... 22 110

Figure 5. Comparison of annual costs and benefits possible 3DHP implementation scenarios ............................. 24 111

Figure 6. Hydrologic Units showing total annual benefits per square mile for Scenario 2 ..................................... 29 112

Figure 7. Overview of 3DHP roles ............................................................................................................................ 31 113

Figure 8. Potential cost of a nine-year 3DHP program-of-work .............................................................................. 34 114

Figure 9. Graph of one possible funding model for the 3DHP ................................................................................ 35 115

Figure 10. 3DHP Infostructure conceptual model ................................................................................................... 41 116

Figure 11. Overview of the proposed 3DHP data acquisition process .................................................................... 42 117

Tables Table 1. Annual benefits of elevation and water data ...............................................................................................9 118

Table 2. Mission Critical Activities and dollar benefits ............................................................................................ 17 119

Table 3. Estimated current and future benefits ...................................................................................................... 19 120

Table 4. Requirements for improved hydrography ................................................................................................. 19 121

Table 5. Basic requirements for improved hydrography......................................................................................... 20 122

Table 6. Data integration between USGS hydrography and other data types ........................................................ 21 123

Table 7. Implementation milestones for 3DHP ....................................................................................................... 27 124

Table 8. Target audiences for outreach and communications ................................................................................ 33 125

Table 9. Key content and capabilities to be supported by 3DHP Datasets ............................................................. 37 126

Table 10. Research requirements for 3DHP ............................................................................................................ 45 127

Conversion Factors International System of Units to U.S. customary units 128

Multiply By To obtain Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) meter (m) 1/0.3048 International foot (ft) meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

hectare 2.471 acre square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2)



Abbreviations 129

3DEP 3D Elevation Program 130

3DHP 3D Hydrography Program 131

3DNTM 3D National Topography Model 132

API Application Programming Interface 133

BAA Broad Agency Announcement 134

BU Business Use 135

CE Circular Error statistic 136

CWA Clean Water Act 137

DEM Digital Elevation Model 138

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 139

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee 140

GIS Geographic Information System 141

GPSC Geospatial Product and Service Contracts 142

HEM Hydrography Event Management 143

HRBS Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study 144

IfSAR Interferometric synthetic aperture radar 145

IoW Internet of Water 146

MCA Mission Critical Activity 147

NEEA National Enhanced Elevation Assessment 148

NGDA National Geospatial Data Asset 149

NGP National Geospatial Program 150

NHD National Hydrography Dataset 151

NHDPlus National Hydrography Dataset Plus 152

NHDPlus HR National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution 153

NHI National Hydrography Infrastructure 154

NLDI Network-Linked Data Index 155

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 156

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 157

NSGIC National States Geographic Information Council 158

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 159

NWIS National Water Information System 160

OGC Open Geospatial Consortium 161

OMB Office of Management and Budget 162

TNM The National Map 163

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 164

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 165

USFS U.S. Forest Service 166

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 167

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 168

USIEI U.S. Interagency Elevation Inventory 169

USIHI U.S. Interagency Hydrography Inventory 170

WBD Watershed Boundary Dataset 171



Introduction 172

Topography is defined by terrain and water, each influencing and shaping the other. The 3D National 173

Topography Model (3DNTM) is a new initiative that updates and integrates USGS elevation and hydrography 174

data and encodes these co-dependent topographic relationships into an integrated 3D model to deliver higher-175

quality data and support improved geospatial analysis. The USGS is responsible for the topographic mapping of 176

the United States and fulfills this in part by co-leading both the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 177

Circular A-16 Elevation and Inland Water themes and managing the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) and National 178

Hydrography Datasets. 179

3DNTM development is based on an outgrowth of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA; 180

Dewberry 2012), Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS; Dewberry 2016), and the 3D Nation 181

Elevation Requirements and Benefits Study (in progress) that call for a more integrated approach for managing 182

data and provisioning information to support business requirements at all levels of government, the private 183

sector, and by Tribes. The 3DNTM will provide the foundation for critical applications and underpin Clean Water 184

Act implementation and emerging water management information needs. It will better support the National 185

Water Model, National Water Census, drought forecasts, and water availability. It will also enhance natural 186

resource management, wildfire mitigation, infrastructure development, and other applications of mapped 3D 187

features. 3DNTM will enable analysis and visualization for the Nation’s day-to-day management needs and will 188

inform a broad range of applications and emerging U.S. policies such as environmental, climate, and 189

infrastructure applications. 190

The 3D National Topography Model Call for Action Part 1: 3D Hydrography Program lays out a new vision for the 191

Nation’s topographic data, with a focus on its inland waters. U.S. water policy seeks a more integrated approach 192

to support the complex relationships that make up the hydrologic cycle while understanding water use, quality, 193

and quantity available for a healthy environment. Within this context, the 3D National Topography Model Call 194

for Action Part 1: 3D Hydrography Program makes recommendations for modernizing hydrography mapping 195

nationwide by establishing the 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP). 196

The 3DHP will build on more than 20 years of experience developing and managing the National Hydrography 197

Datasets which have been integral to a wide range of mission-critical activities undertaken and managed by 198

government entities at all levels, nonprofit organizations, Tribes, and private companies. 3DHP aims to 199

significantly improve the level of detail, currency, and accuracy of hydrography data across the Nation; to better 200

account for the hydrologic cycle by linking to engineered hydrologic systems, wetlands, and groundwater 201

information; and to establish an information infrastructure, or infostructure, to support sharing and discovering 202

water-related information in the context of the improved hydrography data. 203

The 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP) and 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) are key components of the 3DNTM 204

vision. 3DEP and 3DHP will be managed as companion programs where the co-dependent components of terrain 205

and water data will be integrated to support the production of higher-quality data and improved geospatial 206

analysis. This document is the first report to address the advancement of the 3DNTM and will be followed by a 207

next generation 3DEP report to address the need to keep terrain data current and to extend the surface model 208

to include bathymetry. 209

3D National Topography Model – An Overview 210

The requirements for an integrated approach for managing elevation and hydrography data became apparent 211

when the NEEA and HRBS revealed common requirements for high-quality elevation and hydrography data 212



across multiple disciplines. Elevation and hydrography requirements were assessed for 27 Business Uses (BUs) in 213

the NEEA and 25 BUs in the HRBS and summarized for eight broad user communities. When the information 214

requirements are merged, the potential benefits for an integrated hydrography and elevation program are 215

$2.322 billion per year (Table 1) if all documented needs are met. 216

The 3DNTM will provide foundational data to meet the most demanding scientific requirements and enable 217

data-driven decisions across user communities. The information requirements or products needed for each of 218

the user communities vary significantly by content, positional accuracy, and geography; however, when 420 219

mission critical activities (MCAs) from the HRBS and 600 MCAs from the NEEA were examined from these user 220

communities, there was a clear set of core requirements that can be most cost-effectively met with high-quality 221

nationwide elevation and hydrography data. While specialized products will support each of the user 222

communities, sound decisions are best supported by hydrography and elevation data of common lineage. 223

Primary Business Drivers for a 3D National Topography Model (3DNTM), consolidated from the NEEA and the HRBS

Estimated Total Elevation and Hydrography Current and

Future Annual Benefits in US $ millions

Water quality, supply, planning, management, and stream flow $949.5

Flood risk and coastal zone management, sea level rise $473.4

Natural resources conservation, wildlife, and ecosystem management $278.5

Agriculture, forest, rangeland, and wildfire $254.8

Regional planning, infrastructure, and construction management $226.4

Geologic resources, hazard mitigation, oil, and gas $65.9

Homeland security, aviation safety, disaster response $50.6

Renewable energy $13.5

Other $9.4

Total Current and Potential Annual Benefits $2,322.0

Table 1. Annual benefits from the use of elevation and water data as identified by participants in the National Enhanced Elevation 224 Assessment (NEEA) and the Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS) for Mission Critical Activities (MCAs). 225

[For benefits identified as a range, the lower end of estimated current and future benefits is represented. The Primary Business Drivers are 226 a result of consolidating 27 Business Uses (BU) from NEEA and 25 BUs from HRBS. The monetary benefits are associated with specific 227 MCAs and represent the benefits quantified by study participants. In addition, other societal benefits were identified in the study and are 228 not represented in this summary table. Note that the benefits were merged from independent assessments for elevation data and for 229 hydrography data. While the authors have made every attempt to validate these results, some benefits may have been included in both 230 studies. Definitions: dollars, constant 2012 dollars (NEEA) and constant 2016 dollars (HRBS). Table modified from Sugarbaker and others 231 (2014, p. 7, Table 2) and Dewberry (2016, p. 16, Table 6] 232

3DNTM Development Tracks 233

There are four overlapping 3DNTM development tracks. Key elements of the 3DNTM are in place or under 234

development. The 3DNTM includes the new 3DHP, and the current and next generation of 3DEP. Later 235

development phases of the 3DNTM will include a transition to a 3D data model and additional topographic 236

datasets of The National Map (TNM) managed by the USGS National Geospatial Program (NGP). 237



238

Figure 1. The 3D National Topography Model (3DNTM) is a vision for an integrated 3D model of elevation and hydrography data that will 239 support environmental, climate change, and infrastructure applications. It responds to changing U.S. policy and will support Federal, 240 State, local, and other stakeholder needs. 241

Track 1 | Complete Nationwide Elevation and Hydrography Baseline Datasets 242

The first development track of the 3DNTM is to complete baseline elevation and hydrography datasets. The 3D 243

Elevation Program (3DEP) planning began in 2014, and the first full year of 3DEP production began in 2016 with 244

a goal to complete nationwide collections of lidar (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, or IfSAR, in Alaska) 245

over an eight-year period. While the plan was bold, the program has been highly successful. At the end of 246

Federal Fiscal Year 2020, 3DEP data was available or in progress for 78% of the Nation. 3DEP is nearing its 247

original goal to complete nationwide acquisition in 2023. However, based on current funding, the program is on 248

track to meet the national acquisition goal by 2026 (Figure 2). Aside from the USGS commitment to complete 249

the 3DEP baseline, success can be attributed to the importance of the data to the broader community, and the 250

resulting partnerships with Federal agencies, 50 States, Tribes, and the private sector. The program is yielding 251

many benefits through a wide range of applications that rely on lidar and elevation-derived products. 252



253

Figure 2. Map of the United States showing the status of 3DEP data collections. The dark green areas have initial coverage of Quality Level 254 2 (QL2) or better lidar. The light green areas are planned and in progress in Fiscal Year 2021. The cream-colored areas represent areas 255 that will be acquired in ensuing years. 256

[Map shows geographic extent of existing and in-progress 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) data acquisition projects. FY20 projects are the 257 result of partnership projects awarded through the FY20 3DEP Broad Area Announcement (BAA) and through ongoing Federal 258 coordination via the 3DEP Working Group. 3DEP specifications include Quality Level 2 (QL2) or better lidar data (IfSAR in Alaska) that are 259 publicly available. Lidar QL2 data must adhere to the USGS Lidar Base Specification 1.2 or better to be included in 3DEP data holdings.] 260 Source: 3DEP. U.S. Interagency Elevation Inventory (USIEI) data from 2020.] 261

The second component of the 3DNTM baseline data track is to complete the National Hydrography Dataset Plus 262

High Resolution (NHDPlus HR) for the Nation. NHDPlus HR provides a national geospatial model of the water 263

flowing across the landscape and through the stream network. The NHDPlus HR is built using inputs from the 264

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), and 10-meter resolution (1/3 Arc-265

second) 3DEP data (5-meter in Alaska). The NHDPlus HR framework links the hydrologic network to the 266

landscape by including streams and the associated elevation-derived catchment areas that drain to each stream 267

segment. This association allows information such as slope or land cover, to be related to characteristics of the 268

stream network such as water quality samples, stream gage measurements, or fish distribution. The result is 269

that causes and effects may be studied using a single hydrography data framework. NHDPlus HR was completed 270



in 2020 for the conterminous U.S., Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and 271

American Samoa. Work began in FY21 to update NHDPlus HR in areas for which improved input data are 272

available. Continued updates are planned to incorporate data improvements over time. NHDPlus HR production 273

is underway in Alaska, with an estimated completion in FY31 (Figure 3). 274

275

Figure 3. Map of the United States showing the status of the NHDPlus HR development activity. Areas in Canada and Mexico are included 276 in NHDPlus HR production to cover entire drainage areas to create a complete information framework for analysis. 277

Track 2 | Pilot Integration of Hydrography and Elevation 278

High-resolution elevation models derived from 3DEP lidar or IfSAR that more accurately depict the terrain can be 279

used to produce high quality hydrography that aligns to the elevation data and is encoded with elevation values. 280

This approach to creating new hydrography features improves level of detail from the region to the 281

neighborhood and farm-level. Pilot projects to update the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) using elevation 282

data have been highly successful, and new hydrography features are now being developed from IfSAR-derived 5-283

meter digital elevation models (DEMs) in Alaska. Through the pilots, USGS has developed specifications (Terziotti 284

and others, 2018; Terziotti and Archuleta, 2020; Archuleta and Terziotti, 2020) for deriving surface water 285

features from 3DEP data. The process uses a 1-meter bare-earth DEM derived from lidar to create new 286

hydrography features. 287



A second set of pilots focused on integrating hydrography and elevation is being undertaken to understand the 288

collection, integration, and publication of inland bathymetry data. 3DEP is using airborne topobathymetric lidar, 289

where appropriate, to map submerged topography in rivers and has begun commercially contracting a small 290

number of topobathymetric lidar surveys. The lidar survey areas have been chosen where there are immediate 291

science applications for the data (i.e. endangered species habitat restoration, dam removal studies, etc.), and to 292

represent a diversity of riverine environments. The results of lidar surveys of rivers are helping USGS develop 293

recommendations on collection parameters for inland water bodies related to river bottom type, albedo, water 294

turbidity, and depth. USGS is also integrating topographic lidar, topobathymetric lidar, and sonar data (to fill 295

gaps where the water is too deep or turbid to detect the river bottom) to create merged, continuous 296

topobathymetric digital elevation models for a small number of rivers and lakes. 297

USGS and partners from several universities and State and local governments are building a prototype system to 298

mitigate flood risk in southeast Texas (Figure 5). A stream network and hydrologic units are being created from 299

1-meter lidar derived DEMs, and new methods are being used to integrate bathymetric data with terrestrial 300

DEMs to also enhance the collection and analysis of water data. Existing topographic lidar data are being merged 301

with topobathymetric lidar and bathymetric sonar data to create a seamless terrain model above and below the 302

water. The resulting model will be used to improve flood inundation and timing predictions. This research serves 303

as a more comprehensive pilot of the 3DNTM concept of integrating elevation and hydrography, and will be 304

used to advance the 3DNTM concept of a fully integrated 3D model in the future. 305

Track 3 | Design and Implement the Next Generation Integrated Data 306

As the 3DEP goal to produce a consistent baseline dataset nears completion, plans have begun for the next 307

generation of 3DEP. USGS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been working 308

toward a vision to map a 3D Nation from the peaks of the mountains to the depths of our waters. A forthcoming 309

3D Nation Elevation Requirements and Benefits Study report from NOAA and USGS will update user 310

requirements for topographic, coastal, and bathymetric 3D elevation data for all areas of the U.S., including 311

offshore. The goal is to complete the study by the end of Fiscal Year 2021, and by the end of Fiscal Year 2022 312

produce the 3DNTM Call for Action Part 2 to lay out the design for the next generation of 3DEP. The report will 313

inform strategies to: 314

• Provide a continuous elevation surface that includes bathymetry; 315

• Collect new data based on landscape change; and 316

• Adopt new data collection technologies. 317

The 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP) will operationalize the production of a new generation of hydrography 318

data derived from lidar (IfSAR in Alaska). 3DHP products will enable better accounting of the hydrologic cycle by 319

enabling 3DHP connections to groundwater modeling, engineered hydrologic systems, and wetlands data. The 320

USGS has been prototyping the National Hydrography Infrastructure (NHI) to improve water information 321

management, accessibility, and analysis by enabling the management and discovery of water-related data in the 322

context of the stream network. Under the 3DHP, the NHI will become the 3DHP Infostructure, an information 323

infrastructure an information, to provide an authoritative mechanism for sharing and discovering water 324

information nationwide in the context of the 3DHP Datasets stream network. The majority of this document is 325

focused on explaining the development of the 3DHP. 326



Track 4 | Research and Implement 3D Data Model 327

A new 3D data model will integrate the interrelated elements of terrain and surface water data. The 3D data 328

model development track has two goals: 1) research and develop an integrated 3D model for future 329

implementation, and 2) integrate additional layers of TNM into the 3D model. Research related to integrated 3D 330

models is needed to address several key elements: 331

• 3D representation models to include links to subsurface and atmospheric features and models. 332

• Data model design to support temporal change analysis. 333

• Improvements to 3D visualization of TNM products and services (e.g., 3D Topo, street view, and 3D 334

features like overpasses, bridges, tunnels, etc.). 335

• Technologies to enable integration of TNM layers in near real time. 336

• Generalization and multi-scale mapping techniques that preserve terrain features including surface 337

water, landforms, and infrastructure. 338

• High-performance computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning techniques to handle large 339

data volume analysis and feature extraction. 340

• Defining uncertainty for areas with multiple data sources, collection technologies, and geospatial 341

accuracies. 342

The Next Generation of the Hydrography Program – A Call for Action 343

Fresh water is a vital natural resource, essential for the health of communities and ecosystems and critical for 344

agriculture, industry, and commerce. As the climate changes, so does the effect of storms and resulting floods 345

on human existence. Human populations are increasing, and the water needed to support us is compromised. 346

Availability of fresh water is increasingly strained by the demands and impacts of natural and human-caused 347

events. Too much water in the wrong place is also a problem. In 2019 348

alone, the combined cost of flooding in the Missouri, Arkansas, and 349

Mississippi River basins was $20 billion (Smith, 2020). Information about 350

water is fundamental to national and local economic well-being, protection 351

of life and property, and effective management of the Nation’s water 352

resources (U.S. Geological Survey, 2020). 353

Today, water information is comprised of a collection of datasets that are 354

managed by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with State and local 355

governments. While the datasets have evolved over time (Dewald, 2017), 356

the requirements for water information have changed such that water data 357

need to be improved and made more readily available. Reliable and 358

accurate high-resolution maps of the Nation’s waters are critical inputs to 359

models and decision support systems used to predict risk and enable 360

response to water resource impacts. It is important to know where the 361

water is and how it relates to features beyond the stream network such as 362

forests, cities, and infrastructure. An up-to-date, high-resolution national 363

hydrography framework is required to support these needs, and a 364

standardized system for managing and discovering water-related 365

information is essential. 366

What is an

Infostructure?

An “infostructure” is a technical

infrastructure supporting an

information system.

They are systems and processes

of how information is consumed,

managed, and shared

The 3DHP Infostructure is an

information infrastructure

specific to data about to water

that supports searching in the

context of the stream network.



A complex web of U.S. water policy charges Federal agencies with monitoring, regulating, managing, allocating, 367

and protecting our waters whether they exist in aquifers, in our rivers and lakes, in the atmosphere and oceans, 368

in our fresh water drinking systems, or as a part of our network of protected areas. The Clean Water Act (CWA) 369

establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and 370

regulating quality standards for surface waters. Modernizing America’s Water Resource Management and Water 371

Infrastructure (Executive Order 13956 2020) establishes an Interagency Water Subcabinet and directs, among 372

other actions, that improvements be made to water data management, research, modeling, and forecasting. As 373

resources become limited or compromised in other ways, technologies must evolve to respond to the needs of 374

the 21st century. 375

The USGS and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conducted 376

the Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS; Dewberry, 2016) to document the needs of 21 377

Federal agencies, 50 States and Washington, DC, many local governments, Tribes, and select private entities for 378

improved water information. This report documents the results of that study and makes specific 379

recommendations to modernize hydrography mapping nationwide by establishing the 3D Hydrography Program. 380

This includes improving on the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), 381

and the National Hydrography Dataset Plus High Resolution (NHDPlus HR). In addition, the data need to be 382

linked to and interoperable with other national datasets such as the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), 383

National Water Information System (NWIS), groundwater models, and other important datasets. 384

When implemented, it is estimated that the 3DHP would enable more than $1 billion in benefits every year, in 385

addition to unquantified societal benefits. More importantly, decisions that directly affect water quality, water 386

availability, and the livelihood of all living things would be better informed. The next generation of surface water 387

mapping under the new 3DHP will incorporate the most relevant and impactful components of the existing 388

hydrography data and accomplish major spatial accuracy improvements. The program will not only focus on 389

hydrography mapping; it will also expand functionality to support the Nation’s most pressing water resource 390

needs by implementing the 3DHP Infostructure, an information infrastructure to share and discover water-391

related data in the context of the 3DHP Datasets stream network. 392

The HRBS provided a comprehensive assessment of Federal and State government needs for improved 393

hydrography that are directly informing 3DHP development. It identified requirements to link to other water 394

datasets such as the National Wetlands Inventory and also signaled that hydrography data need to be more 395

spatially accurate, better aligned to elevation data, and kept more current. Current hydrography datasets have 396

already begun to evolve in response to the user needs identified in the HRBS, and USGS initiated the National 397

Hydrography Infrastructure (NHI) to improve sharing, searching, and discovery of water data to support the user 398

requirements identified in the HRBS, as well as through partner channels such as the NHI Working Group. USGS 399

and partners will take the concepts and previous efforts developed through the NHI and further develop them 400

to implement the 3DHP Infostructure. 401

Current National Hydrography Products and Services 402

USGS National Hydrography Datasets, including NHD, WBD, and NHDPlus HR, have for many years been integral 403

to a wide range of mission-critical activities undertaken and managed by government entities at all levels, 404

nonprofit organizations, Tribes, and private companies. Hydrography data make it possible for users to 405

efficiently: 406

• Manage water such as stream flow and stormwater 407



• Monitor, manage, and report water quality 408

• Assess water availability and water rights 409

• Model and map flood risk 410

• Conserve terrestrial and aquatic habitats 411

• Manage fisheries, rangeland, timberlands, and agricultural lands 412

• Assess coastal hazards 413

• Plan for future land development activities and infrastructure development 414

• Manage riverine and coastal navigation and safety 415

• Provide recreational opportunities for citizens 416

417

The NHD and WBD map the Nation’s surface water network and hydrologic drainage areas. The NHD, generally 418

mapped at 1:24,000 scale or more detailed (1:63,360 or more detailed in Alaska), represents the Nation’s rivers, 419

streams, canals, lakes, ponds, and related features. The WBD represents drainage areas of the country as six 420

nested levels of hydrologic units. These data are designed to be used in general mapping and in the analysis of 421

surface water systems. They are combined with other data themes such as elevation, boundaries, and 422

transportation to produce the USGS US Topo map series and other general-purpose maps. In addition to 423

providing water information for mapping, the NHD and WBD are used in scientific analysis and research, and the 424

WBD is often used as the reporting unit for environmental studies and compliance reporting The NHD provides a 425

network that supports routing analysis for contaminant transport and dispersion models, sediment transport, 426

and other types of analyses in which the flow network configuration is important. The WBD is often used as the 427

reporting unit for environmental studies and compliance reporting. Related data, such as water quality 428

information and fish observations, can be referenced to locations on this network in a manner similar to street 429

addresses, with the WBD providing areas similar to ZIP codes for water information. 430

The NHD and WBD are updated and maintained through a community of data stewards who have local 431

knowledge about the streams where they live and work. Currently, forty-one states and the District of Columbia 432

have signed stewardship Memorandums of Agreement, with both Federal and state agencies participating. 433

While stewardship has been a highly effective means to engage users with local knowledge, the disparate needs 434

of stewards have resulted in the NHD becoming nationally inconsistent. 435

The NHD and WBD have been recognized as Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) National Geospatial 436

Data Assets (NGDA) of the Inland Water Theme based on the qualifications established by the OMB Circular A-16 437

and are critical components of the U.S. National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), (OMB, 2002). USGS and the 438

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) co-lead the FGDC NGDA Water-Inland Theme, which enhances 439

coordination between geospatial datasets that pertain to inland hydrologic features and related infrastructure, 440

including the NHD, WBD, NWI, National Inventory of Dams, and National Levee Database. The agencies who 441

manage these datasets work to identify opportunities to strengthen their partnership, including those that 442

optimize dataset development and cost-sharing efficiencies. 443

USGS began producing NHDPlus HR datasets in 2017 using 3DEP 10-meter (5-meter in Alaska) DEMs, the 444

1:24,000-scale or more detailed NHD, and the WBD as input datasets. Modeled after the medium-resolution 445

NHDPlus at 1:100,000-scale created in 2012, this product supports hydrologic modeling across landscapes and 446

through the stream network. In addition to leveraging the surface water network and addressing capabilities of 447

the NHD and the WBD hydrologic unit reporting system, NHDPlus HR includes continuous local drainage areas 448

known as catchments (Buto and Anderson, 2020). These catchments are used to associate landscape 449



characteristics such as precipitation, temperature, and runoff data with each stream segment. This association 450

enables the calculation of streamflow estimates, evaluation of landscape effects on aquatic habitats, prediction 451

of flood events, and estimation of water quality in un-gaged streams. 452

NHDPlus HR supports scientific research by enabling hydrologic modeling and connecting information from the 453

surrounding landscape to the stream network. It also provides a consistent modeling framework to gain a better 454

understanding of water quality and contaminant transport in the Nation’s streams. NHDPlus HR is currently 455

available for 86 percent of the U.S. with completion of the conterminous U.S., Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 456

Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa in 2020 and updates starting in FY21. NHDPlus 457

HR production has begun in Alaska and will continue throughout the 2020s. 458

Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study 459

The National Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS; Dewberry, 2016) was conducted to 460

understand current and emerging requirements and future potential benefits for hydrography data, to assess 461

how well existing hydrography data were meeting those needs, and to understand how hydrography data are 462

used with other water-related data. The study gathered basic information about the water information needs of 463

21 Federal agencies, all 50 States, Washington, DC, and American Samoa. In addition, a sample of 53 local and 464

regional government organizations, eight Tribal governments, 14 private companies, four associations, and 20 465

other non-profit organizations were included in the study. The study was conducted in two major phases. First, 466

participating organizations invited individuals representing various programs within their organization to take a 467

survey to identify Mission Critical Activities (MCAs) and associated water information requirements, and benefits 468

(Table 2) that might be achieved if all their needs could be met. The survey results were then compiled, and 469

workshops for each organization vetted and consolidated MCAs into a set of organization-wide requirements. 470

Organization Type

Total Number

of MCAs

Estimated Annual

Program Budget in US

$ millions

Estimated Current Annual

Benefits in US $ millions

Estimated Future Annual Benefits in US

$ millions

Federal Agencies and Commissions (21 agencies) 54 $11,584.65 $212.35 $308.48

State Government (50 States, Washington, DC, American Samoa)

237 $6,523.41 $184.62 $244.73

Regional, County, City, or Other Local Government (sample size 53)

80 $282.70 $137.03 $19.74

Not-for-Profit (sample size 20) 25 $73.68 $3.02 $27.23

Private or Commercial (sample size 14) 16 $7.47 $1.28 $2.13

Tribal Government (sample size 8) 8 $1.11 $0.21 $0.24

Total 420 $18,473.01 $538.50 $602.55

Table 2. Total number of Mission Critical Activities (MCAs) in the HRBS in 2016 and associated dollar benefits that could be realized if all 471 requirements for water information could be met. The results are summarized by organization type. 472

[Each surveyed organization may have one or many MCAs that through a survey and vetting process, resulted in 420 MCAs across all 473 organizations. For water information, both current and estimated future benefits were identified. In addition, not represented here, 474 societal benefits were identified by the survey participants. These estimates are conservative as many MCAs do not have identified dollar 475 benefits. All benefits are in 2016 constant dollars. Table modified from Dewberry (2016, p. 14, Table 5)] 476



The participants estimated the benefits currently realized from existing hydrography data for each MCA and the 477

potential benefits that could be realized if all hydrography data requirements were met. Study participants 478

documented program budgets to provide context for dollar investments that are made in each MCA. The 420 479

MCAs identified in the study were categorized into 25 broad Business Uses (BUs), with benefits identified for 24 480

total BUs. In addition to dollar benefits, qualitative benefits were documented for education and public safety, 481

the environment, and the potential to save human lives. A summary of the current and potential future benefits 482

categorized by BUs (Table 3) documents the value of available water information. The estimated future benefits 483

are contingent upon addressing needs that are not being met by existing hydrography data. 484

While dollar benefits were identified in all but one BU, 94 percent of current dollar benefits and 89 percent of all 485

future potential benefits were concentrated in the top five BUs. The qualitative value of water information for 486

education or public safety, the environment, and human lives saved generally followed this same pattern. While 487

most of the benefits are concentrated in the top five BUs, it is noted that other BUs have needs to be considered 488

when creating the next generation water system. 489

Business Use Sorted by Total Estimated Current and Future Benefits from Improved Hydrography Data and Services

(HRBS) MCAs

Current Annual


Estimated Future Annual


Estimated Current and

Future Annual


River and Stream Flow Management 44 $220.07 $154.73 $374.80

Water Quality 79 $115.46 $121.48 $236.94

Water Resource Planning and Management 69 $98.11 $115.88 $213.99

Flood Risk Management 54 $56.12 $75.86 $131.98

River and Stream Ecosystem Management 34 $13.96 $67.00 $80.96

Natural Resources Conservation 34 $10.17 $17.76 $27.93

Coastal Zone Management 8 $10.71 $5.55 $16.26

Infrastructure and Construction Management 18 $1.65 $8.73 $10.38

Wildlife and Habitat Management 8 $0.18 $10.08 $10.26

Forest Resources Management 5 $1.76 $6.01 $7.77

Education K-12 and Beyond 9 $0.53 $5.36 $5.89

Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, and Disaster Response 7 $0.10 $5.50 $5.60

Urban and Regional Planning 17 $2.17 $3.42 $5.59

Agriculture and Precision Farming 9 $1.25 $2.15 $3.40

Renewable Energy Resources 3 $2.80 $0.58 $3.38

Resource Mining 2 $1.03 $1.10 $2.13

Recreation 3 $1.41 $0.17 $1.58

Health and Human Services 4 $0.50 $0.50 $1.00

Sea Level Rise and Subsidence 2 $0.35 $0.35 $0.70

Oil and Gas Resources 3 $0.10 $0.10 $0.20

Marine and Riverine Navigation Safety 3 $0.03 $0.10 $0.13

Rangeland Management 1 $0.00 $0.10 $0.10

Geologic Resource Assessment and Hazard Mitigation 3 $0.04 $0.05 $0.09

Wildfire Management, Planning, and Response 1 $0.01 $0.01 $$0.02

Totals 420 $538.51 $602.57 $1141.08



Table 3. Estimated current and future benefits by Business Use (BU) as identified by participants in the National Hydrography 490 Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS). Table is sorted by total annual and future benefits. 491

[For benefits that were identified as a range, the smaller, more conservative value was used in this table. In addition to the identified 492 dollar benefits, all Mission Critical Activities (MCAs) identified societal benefits that are not represented here. Many survey participants 493 were unable to quantify dollar benefits even though they have MCAs requiring access to water information. All dollar values are in 494 constant 2016 U.S. dollars. Note that one BU (banking, real estate, mortgage, and insurance) had no identified MCAs and is therefore not 495 represented in this table. Table modified from Dewberry (2016, p. 16, Table 6)] 496 497

Survey respondents were asked about information requirements for each identified MCA. The questions 498

covered a range of topics including data content, spatial accuracies and completeness, sensitivity to error, 499

update frequency, analysis, connections to other data types, and methods of data access. The study results 500

show that the NHD, WBD, and medium-resolution NHDPlus are widely used today. Data users identified $538.5 501

million in annual benefits from existing information resources and the potential for an additional $602.4 million 502

annually if all unmet needs could be satisfied, for a total of over US $1.14 billion potential annual benefits (Table 503

3. 504

The HRBS shows that while a significant number of requirements are addressed with current data, there are key 505

areas where improvements are needed to gain wider usage of the NHD and WBD (Table 4). For NHD accuracy, 506

and update frequency characteristics, survey respondents identified requirements that often exceeded the 507

specifications of current products. 508

Hydrography Feature Specification

Low Requirement Moderate

Requirement High Requirement

Feature Specification

Percent Needs Met


Percent Needs Met


Percent Needs Met

Positional accuracy (horizontal) 40 Ft 22% 7 ft 63% 3 ft 100%

Minimum water body size 2 acres 37% 1 acre 65% < 1 acre 100%

Smallest contributing watershed area 640 acres 34% 60 acres 70% 6 acres 100%

Stream density 1.0 mile per

sq. mi. 9%

2.5 miles per sq. mi.

46% 5 miles per

sq. mi. 85%

General update frequency (review and update all features)

6-10 years 15% 4-5 years 41% 2-3 years 68%

Error correction (from time of reporting) 1-2 years 18% 3-6 months 30% 1-2 months 61%

Table 4. Requirements for highly accurate and up to date hydrography data often exceed the specifications for existing data. To address 509 these needs, the basic hydrography data components would need to be upgraded on a broad scale. 510

[The HRBS documented accuracy and update requirements for several key hydrography feature and attribute types. For horizontal 511 positional accuracy, minimum water body size, smallest contributing watershed area, stream density, and general update, the 512 requirements were identified for every Mission Critical Activity (MCA). For requirements related to error corrections, the HRBS question 513 was about general organizational-level requirements. For percent needs met, the percent was based on the number of MCAs requiring a 514 specified level of accuracy compared to 420 total MCAs and number of organizations (for error correction) as compared to 76 total 515 organizations. Table created from HRBS (Dewberry, 2016) vetted survey results dataset, HRBS questions 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 71.] 516



A series of questions were asked about hydrography content needed to support the identified MCAs (Table 5). 517

The documented requirements provide valuable information about priorities for the next generation 518

hydrography. The approach for designing a new hydrography program will necessarily vary for each data type 519

depending on whether it is within the scope of the USGS mission as it relates to water information. For example, 520

floodplain boundaries are not within the USGS mission, but user requirements for them could instead be 521

addressed by linking other agency data to the USGS hydrography data through closer collaboration with States 522

and other Federal agencies. 523

HRBS Question 46 For the Mission Critical Activity that you specified,

which of the following characteristics or features are required?

Ranked by total MCAs for a response of "Required" All

MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

Linkages to observations associated with stream gages 282 43 239

Wetlands 269 47 222

Streamflow permanence (flow periodicity: perennial, ephemeral, intermittent) 267 43 224

Floodplain boundary 258 40 218

Culverts and bridges 229 37 192

Bankfull and/or flood stage 215 38 177

Built diversion lines (pipelines, canals, channels, conveyances) 213 38 175

Linkages to cross-sectional geometry of hydrologic features (i.e. elevation profile)

207 39 168

Lake and channel bathymetry 201 36 165

Left and right bank delineation (geometry that shows two banks instead of a centerline)

200 41 159

Velocity estimates and/or time of travel 200 40 160

Built diversion points (gates) 175 37 138

Coastlines 160 35 125

Estuaries 143 36 107

Leakage/seepage at natural points (sinks, springs) 118 32 86

Leakage/seepage along natural lines (for example, sandy-bottomed streams) 109 31 78

Coastal bathymetry 104 26 78

Other (please specify) 83 15 68

Deltas 83 31 52

Badlands 35 14 21

Table 5. Geospatial water data content requirements were identified by participants in the HRBS. Participants were asked to identify the 524 level of need for each data type. Table is sorted by total number of Mission Critical Activities (MCAs) indicating the need as “required”. 525

[The table summaries are based on the number of MCAs requiring a data type. There were 420 MCAs identified in the survey, of which 54 526 came from Federal agencies and 366 came from other organization types (237 State government, 80 regional and local government, 25 527 not-for-profit, 16 private or commercial, and 8 Tribal) (Dewberry, 2016, p. 3-4, Table 1). Table created from HRBS (2016) vetted survey 528 results dataset, HRBS question 46.] 529

Water information needs are often addressed by merging or comparing multiple geospatial data and performing 530

some type of analysis to answer a question or to understand a policy or regulation. Further, the data needed 531

often come from different government agencies; however, to be compatible, data may need to be modified to 532



allow for valid comparisons. To understand the importance of this type of data integration, HRBS survey 533

participants were asked to identify which data types they analyze together in order to address the needs 534

identified in the MCAs (Table 6). 535

Table 6. Data integration between USGS water data and other data types required to satisfy the needs of Mission Critical Activities (MCAs) 536 identified by HRBS participants. 537

[Table is sorted by all MCAs indicating the highest data integration needs. There were 420 MCAs identified in the survey, of which 54 came 538 from Federal agencies and 366 came from other organization types (237 State government, 80 regional and local government, 25 not for 539 profit, 16 private or commercial, and 8 Tribal) (Dewberry, 2016, p. 3-4, Table 1). Table created from HRBS vetted survey results dataset, 540 HRBS question 48.] 541

The HRBS study asked a wide range of questions to better understand user requirements for water information. 542

These questions go well beyond the summary level of detail that has been provided here. Expanded tables and 543

additional requirements identified in the HRBS can be found in Appendix A. 544

Potential Program Scenarios 545

While the NHD, WBD, and medium-resolution NHDPlus have a rich legacy and continue to meet substantial user 546

needs for water-related information, the HRBS documented the need for more accurate, timely, and content-547

HRBS Question 48 Please describe the level of hydrographic data integration with other datasets required for your Mission Critical

Activity. For each data type, identify how important the analysis is and the highest level of analysis required.

Ranked by total MCAs for a response of "Required" for any level of analysis. The highest level of analysis (“Perform geospatial analysis”) was indicated for 87

percent of all possible responses.

All MCAs

Federal Non-

Federal

Elevation 274 40 234

Streamflow 231 37 194

Land Cover 197 30 167

Wetlands 169 35 134

Soils 156 33 123

Point Discharges 139 23 116

Water Use: Diversions 126 24 102

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) 124 30 94

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 117 27 90

USACE National Inventory of Dams (NID) 107 23 84

EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 99 11 88

Surficial Geology 92 20 72

Aquifers 89 16 73

Bathymetry 83 16 67

Climate 79 24 55

Contaminant Sources 79 12 67

USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 62 22 40

EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data Warehouse (STORET) 55 9 46

Census (Population Statistics) 50 4 46

USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) 39 12 27



rich data to address current and emerging needs. If all needs could be addressed, over $1.14 billion in annual 548

benefits are possible, including some major unquantified societal benefits. The USGS examined three possible 549

future program scenarios to assess the potential related benefits. Estimates of potential program costs were 550

determined for each scenario. These estimates were made based on known legacy program costs, results of 551

pilot data acquisition studies to improve the NHD by deriving hydrography from elevation, and through the 552

experience gained developing the successful 3DEP. The actual program cost could be higher or lower depending 553

on technology advancements and efficiencies that might be gained through larger projects and advancing 554

technology. 555

556

Figure 4. Comparison of data approaches for three possible implementation scenarios of 3DHP. Scenario 1 is a continuation of the current 557 program; Scenario 2 is a new program based on existing QL2 lidar derived elevation data; and Scenario 3 is a new program based on QL1 558 lidar-derived elevation data. 559

Scenario 1 is the status quo in which minimal incremental gains are made in the hydrography datasets. While 560

USGS would make progress in this scenario through current Alaska mapping funding by remapping surface water 561

in Alaska over the next nine years, other hydrography datasets would continue to age. The stewardship activities 562

would continue to make select area updates and fix errors yet would also continue to decrease national 563

consistency of the datasets over time. Some emerging needs could be addressed by the existing program. An 564

analysis of benefits in the HRBS indicate that new annual benefits would be about $120 million. Current data 565

could not support requirements to address flooding, clean water, aquatic resources, agriculture, and other 566

business needs; or support regional and national applications due to inconsistencies in the data. For example, 567

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army found that the NHD and NWI, as currently 568

mapped and managed, do not provide the consistency, accuracy, and completeness necessary for mapping 569

under the Clean Water Act. Also, the overall lack of national consistency in the NHD, coupled with labor-570



intensive manual editing of the data, are already making it very difficult to keep pace with user needs for 571

updated products. New funding needs to maintain the status quo are small relative to Scenarios 2 and 3, but the 572

opportunities missed to address critical applications are large. 573

Scenario 2 strives to replace all existing hydrography over a nine-year period with new data derived from 3DEP 574

data. The horizontal positional accuracy of hydrography would be improved from +/- 40 feet to +/- 2-meters 575

(90% CE). This can be achieved from 3DEP QL2 lidar 1-meter DEMs created from the existing (and currently 576

being collected) QL2 or better lidar data. A new data model would be developed to support advanced analyses 577

and connections to other data such as wetlands, groundwater, and engineered hydrologic systems to more fully 578

account for the hydrologic cycle. This scenario will meet the needs of most MCAs identified in the HRBS and 579

achieve more than $509 million in annual benefits. 580

Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 2 except the horizontal positional accuracy of hydrography would be improved 581

to +/- 1-meter (90% CE). New lidar data collected at QL1 or better used to create 0.5-meter DEMs would be 582

necessary, resulting in significantly higher costs. While the majority of current 3DEP data is collected at QL2 to 583

produce a consistent 1-meter DEM, if the next generation of 3DEP data moves to higher quality levels that 584

support production of 0.5-meter DEMs, it will be advantageous to reassess the use of that data. In the future, it 585

may be beneficial to consider a program where hydrography data are derived from either 1-meter or 0.5-meter 586

DEMs depending on the physiography and climate of the area. The benefit of Scenario 3 over the other 587

scenarios is that nearly all the requirements in the HRBS could be met, achieving about $588 million in additional 588

annual benefits. The higher positional accuracy of hydrography data would drive the collection of lidar data that 589

are of higher quality than currently available in 3DEP. This requirement would push out the timeframe for new 590

hydrography data until QL1 3DEP data are available, which does not currently have a national plan. Also, it 591

would nearly double the program costs and the funding challenges would be even greater. 592

Scenario 2 is the recommended approach for building the new 3D Hydrography Program. A comparison of the 593

three implementation scenarios (Figure 4) shows that the new benefits compared with program costs provide 594

the greatest value in Scenario 2. Scenario 1 fails to achieve a high level of future benefits but more importantly, 595

it will not be possible to meet the mission-critical needs identified in the HRBS or those that are newly emerging 596

through changing national priorities. While Scenario 3 is desirable in that it supports most of the needs 597

identified, it carries implementation challenges because the higher quality source elevation data do not exist 598

and are not yet planned for the majority of the Nation and collecting them would require a significant additional 599

investment. Also, the benefits are lower relative to costs. 600



601 Figure 5. Comparison of annual costs and benefits for three possible implementation scenarios of 3DHP with different levels of investment. 602 Scenario 1 is a continuation of the current program; Scenario 2 is a new program based on existing QL2 lidar derived elevation data; and 603 Scenario 3 is a new program based on QL1 lidar-derived elevation data. Average annual costs are shown for a nine-year production cycle. 604 Benefits are annual benefits once the Nation is fully updated with 3DHP quality data. Annual cost would be expected to decline after 605 production year seven when 3DHP data acquisition is completed. 606

3D Hydrography Program 607

USGS has a rich history of producing and managing hydrography data to support a wide range of topographic 608

mapping and geospatial analyses, and the 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP) builds on activities and investments 609

in hydrography mapping over the last 20 years. A robust water information and science framework will support 610

21st century water resource information needs. This can be accomplished through the 3DHP Datasets and 611

Infostructure, which have a goal to create a new, elevation-derived mapping of the surface water network and a 612

companion system for managing and discovering water information in the context of that network. The 613

requirements identified in the HRBS lay the foundation for production of the first NHDPlus HR data in 2017, the 614

first prototype work on the National Hydrography Infrastructure in 2018, and the development and initial pilot 615

testing of deriving hydrography data from lidar and IfSAR elevation data to improve NHD in 2017. 616

The 3DHP will respond to the documented need for high-quality hydrography data derived from lidar and IfSAR 617

data. The primary goal of the program is to systematically acquire 3D hydrography data for the United States 618

and the territories, while also vastly improving the ability to search and discover water-related data in the 619

context of the stream network. The private sector, under government contract, will provide data-collection and 620

related services to respond to these needs for 3D hydrography derived from lidar and IfSAR data. The resulting 621

products and services will be freely accessible to all levels of government and the public. 622

As proposed, the 3DHP effort would begin providing products and services to partners and the public in 2025. 623

The strategy is to leverage funding from partners and to increase contributions from all sources. Because 3DHP 624

depends on private sector mapping firms to collect data, jobs will be created as the funding increases. Additional 625

jobs will result when the 3DHP data drive the implementation and development of applications, as documented 626



in the HRBS (Dewberry, 2016). At the full funding level, 627

3DHP could return more than $1 billion annually in benefits 628

directly to the private sector and indirectly to citizens 629

through improved government program services 630

(Dewberry, 2016). 631

3DHP data and capabilities will allow scientists to more fully 632

model the hydrologic cycle, engineers to make better 633

development decisions, water suppliers to improve water 634

quality and availability, disaster response planners to 635

mitigate natural disasters, and natural resource managers 636

to better protect the environment. When 3DHP data are 637

widely available, further private sector and government 638

innovations will follow for years to come. This program 639

scenario is very ambitious and requires careful planning and 640

support from partners to be successful. 641

The HRBS documented needs from these and other 642

constituent user communities and identified requirements 643

that, for the recommended 3DHP scenario, could result in 644

$1.14 billion annual benefits and substantial societal 645

benefits. 646

A New Approach to Water Data 647

3DHP Datasets will include a 3D hydrography network 648

generated from 3DEP data including waterbodies, 649

hydrologic units, hydrologically conditioned DEMs, and 650

related attributes that bring a new level of consistency and accuracy. The stream network will include elevation 651

values on each vertex to enable 3D analysis of the data. The 3DHP will update and improve the positional 652

accuracy of the geospatial features and vastly improve connectivity. 3DEP data will be used as the base to 653

spatially and temporally integrate all 3DHP Datasets as a cohesive set of hydrographic information, increasing its 654

usability for applications like flood modeling and prediction, culvert and bridge engineering design, and 655

stormwater management. 3DHP Datasets will inherit many of the attributes of the NHD, WBD, and NHDPlus HR, 656

preserving the components of those datasets that have evolved and improved throughout their history. 3DHP 657

Datasets will include new attributes and connections to other data such as the NWI, groundwater, and 658

engineered hydrologic systems. Improved spatial accuracy will also make the new hydrography data more 659

compatible with other data such as surficial geology, soils, landcover, transportation networks, and other 660

infrastructure. 661

In addition, the Nation lacks a common data architecture for managing and easily accessing water information. 662

Water-related data, valuable to a host of applications, are often difficult to access from the multitude of 663

agencies and information systems involved. As stated in the report from the Aspen Institute dialog series on 664

water data, the U.S. is currently not able to answer basic questions about water such as how much water is 665

there, what is its quality, and how is it used (Aspen Institute, 2017). 666

From Internet of Water: Sharing and

Integrating Water Data for Sustainability

(Aspen Institute, 2017):

“Currently, we are unable to answer

fundamental questions about our water systems

in a timely way:

- How much water is there?

- What is its quality?

- How is it used (i.e., withdrawn,

consumed or returned for different

purposes)?

The data needed to answer these questions

often exist, although collected by multiple

agencies across different scales of government

and non-government organizations for

different purposes. Since data are scattered

across multiple platforms with different

standards, much of it cannot be re-used beyond

the primary purpose for which it was collected

and is not used or ever transformed into

information that supports real-time decision-

making, identifying trends and patterns, or

forecasting future conditions at a larger scale.”



3DHP Infostructure, with development led by USGS, will address this problem by improving the way water data 667

can be shared, searched, and discovered. An “infostructure” is a technical infrastructure supporting an 668

information system. Infostructures are systems and processes of how information is consumed, managed, and 669

shared. The 3DHP Infostructure is an information infrastructure specific to data related to water. 670

The 3DHP Infostructure will provide the geospatial underpinning for the Internet of Water (IoW) 671

(https://internetofwater.org/). The IoW seeks to advance the transformation and modernization of water data 672

infostructure in the U.S. by developing affordable, open-source technologies for sharing and integrating water 673

data, and to demonstrate, through a national network of partners, the power of those technologies to improve 674

equitable and resilient water outcomes. 675

Building the Program 676

Project Schedule and Milestones 677

The project milestones in Table 7 represent major and time-sensitive accomplishments leading to the successful 678

implementation of the 3DHP. The schedule is based on assumptions of successfully securing funding, as outlined 679

in the Growth section of this report, and additional assumptions of products and services as described in the 3D 680

Hydrography Program Datasets and 3DHP Infostructure. While every attempt has been made to accurately 681

represent the current status and direction of 3DHP, the designers expect that the products, product 682

development plans, and operational capabilities will evolve over time and the budget will likely differ from what 683

is projected in this report. 684

3DHP Implementation Milestones Initiate Activity

Planned Completion

Governance and Communications

3DNTM Executive Forum FY21 Ongoing

3DHP coordinating committee FY21 Ongoing

Communications and Outreach to key partners FY21 Ongoing

Dataset Pilot Studies Pilots for hydrography updated from elevation FY17 FY23

Pilots for integration with National Wetlands Inventory, other data

FY21 FY25

Baseline Dataset Completion

NHDPlus HR production for CONUS, Hawaii, and major territories

FY15 FY25

NHDPlus HR production for Alaska FY17 FY31

Data Acquisition

3DHP specification - hydrography updated from elevation

FY19 FY20

3DHP specification – hydrologic units FY22 FY24

3DHP specification – hydrologically conditioned DEM

FY22 FY24

Data acquisition – establish BAA process FY22 FY24

Data acquisition – call for three-year acquisition priorities and partnerships

FY22 FY23

Data acquisition – contracting for 3DHP data FY23 FY28

Data validation, management, and product generation

FY24 FY30

3DHP Dataset Operations

3DHP operations – research and development for modernized data model and systems

FY22 FY23

3DHP operations – operational plan development FY22 FY22

https://internetofwater.org/



685 686

687 688 689 690

691

692

Table 7. Implementation milestones for the 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP). 693

Leadership 694 [This section will be revised as governance discussions related to the National Landslide Preparedness Act progress.] 695

The 3DHP governance will be led by senior executives from cooperating agencies through various forums. The 696

3DHP operations will be guided by groups at the executive level and coordinated by groups at the managerial 697

and technical level. Outreach will be a primary aspect of the program, which is dependent on a broad base of 698

support and participation from Federal agencies and State and Tribal governments. Outreach will continue to be 699

directed toward building support and a funding base to move the program forward. Equally important is the 700

need to reach out to a growing user base to ensure that the 3DHP is responsive to government and private 701

sector needs. As with 3DEP, funding for 3DHP will rely heavily on partnership contributions. A key component of 702

the strategy is to increase funding to a level that allows the program partners to implement a directed national 703

acquisition strategy without compromising the mission needs of individual partners. 704

The 3DNTM Executive Forum will be composed of senior officials from Federal partner agencies. The Executive 705

Forum will formulate new policies and review and approve policies and priorities as may be recommended by 706

the coordinating committees for 3DEP and 3DHP. The Executive Forum members will develop and champion 707

funding initiatives to advance the 3DNTM and seek opportunities to coordinate Federal programs at the 708

executive level. The 3DEP Executive Forum will sunset on the formation of the 3DNTM Executive Forum. 709

The National Landslide Preparedness Act (2020) establishes a National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program at 710

USGS and directs the 3D Elevation Program to update and coordinate the collection of elevation data across the 711

country using high-resolution surveys. A 3D Elevation Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee will provide 712

guidance to the program. The 3DNTM Executive Forum may serve as the primary coordinating body for 3DEP 713

under the National Landslide Preparedness Act and may also coordinate with the Water Subcabinet as defined 714

in the Executive Order on “Modernizing America’s Water Resource Management and Water Infrastructure” on 715

matters related to the 3DHP. Additionally, it is anticipated that there will be coordination with the Alaska 716

Mapping Executive Committee, the FGDC NGDA inland water and elevation themes, and the 3D Nation Elevation 717

Subcommittee. 718

The NHI Working Group, created in 2018 as a forum for Federal agencies will become the 3DHP coordinating 719

committee. The committee will continue to provide input and collaboration for the 3DHP Infostructure and take 720

on new responsibilities for data acquisition prioritization and coordination under 3DHP. The current Working 721

Group includes the following member agencies: 722

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 723

• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 724

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 725

3DHP operations – production systems development

FY22 FY24

3DHP operations – production systems are in use FY24 Ongoing

3DHP Infostructure

Pilot 3DHP Infostructure FY18 FY23

Development of primary 3DHP Infostructure systems

FY22 FY24

Development of advanced 3DHP Infostructure systems

FY24 Ongoing



• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 726

• National Park Service (NPS) 727

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 728

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 729

• U.S. Census Bureau 730

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 731

• U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 732

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 733

734

Additional agencies, such as FEMA, will be engaged for participation. 735

736

The 3DHP coordinating committee will be composed of partner agencies and potentially other organizations. It 737

will develop joint strategies that meet the needs of the participating Federal agencies, States, and Tribal 738

governments. The primary responsibilities of the Coordinating Committee will be to provide Federal input to the 739

3DHP data acquisition plan, prioritize projects to collect hydrography data, and advance the 3DHP Infostructure. 740

The committee will provide critical input on 3DHP products and services needed by member organizations. The 741

committee will also oversee the development of the 3DHP Infostructure including technical direction, 742

coordination with initiatives such as the IoW, seeking funding opportunities, and providing outreach regarding 743

the use of the 3DHP Infostructure. In addition, the Coordinating Committee will provide technical guidance 744

related to the collection of source data and provisioning of products and services. 745

Planning and Partnerships 746

Production and maintenance of hydrography has long relied on coordination and partnerships between Federal, 747

State, local, and Tribal organizations. The NHD and WBD Stewardship Programs have supported States and 748

Federal agencies and their partners in editing and improving the NHD and WBD. Among the States, there is a 749

wide range of involvement in managing and editing hydrography data. To achieve national coverage on a nine-750

year timeline, the 3DHP must build on existing relationships to establish a systematic and more unified process 751

for data acquisition and maintenance partnerships. USGS will collaborate with Federal, State, and other partners 752

to define a process that will begin to be implemented in FY2022 and will evolve as the program matures. 753

A critical first step in developing the acquisition process is to document and communicate the data needs of the 754

participating partners. USGS will solicit priorities and plans from Federal and State agencies with a goal of 755

forming a three-year acquisition strategy. This information will be published and maintained on the 3DHP 756

website to increase the potential for identifying common interests and leveraging funds. More comprehensive 757

Federal plans and information about State plans will be sought and refined in subsequent years to update the 758

three-year acquisition strategy. The 3DHP coordinating committee will review and refine the three-year strategy 759

annually, or more frequently as needed. The acquisition strategy will call for expanded data coverage in areas 760

where there are multiple requirements, a high potential for leveraging funds, and where high benefits (Figure 8) 761

were indicated in the HRBS study. Areas subject to hazards such as flooding may receive priority among 762

participating partners. Finally, to achieve economies of scale, the strategy will seek to identify areas where 763

combined partner areas of interest cover an entire 4-digit hydrologic unit. 764



765

Figure 6. Hydrologic Units, level 4, showing total annual benefits per square mile from HRBS for Scenario 2, QL2 based 3DHP data. The 766 expected future benefits would be considered, among other priorities, when developing the acquisition schedule for 3DHP. 767

An integral part of planning and monitoring the 3DHP production effort will be the U.S. Interagency 768

Hydrography Inventory (USIHI). The USIHI will provide a mechanism to document the evolving status and 769

availability of hydrography data in the U.S. The inventory will contain information on areas where hydrography 770

has been derived from recent high-resolution elevation data and may also include information on local and State 771

stream network mapping and municipalities with interest in contributing storm water system data. The 772

inventory will be stored in a format ready for use in a geographic information system (GIS) and available to 773

download for use in desktop GIS software, and will be available as an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Web 774

Feature Service (WFS). 775

Federal Roles and Responsibilities 776

Federal agencies will be asked to participate on a flexible but unified plan—mission objectives of the partner 777

agencies for data acquisition will be honored and will drive the acquisition process as funding and priorities 778

permit. Funding from partner agencies will continue to be focused on their specific mission needs, while USGS 779

funding will be used to increase coverage areas around partner projects and, where necessary, additional data 780

enhancements, to meet 3DHP objectives. Mission needs are not a barrier but are central to developing a unified 781

plan that is flexible as budgets and mission needs develop and change over time. 782



Success of the 3DHP depends on the active support of Federal agencies to fulfill the following roles and 783

responsibilities: 784

• Federal agencies will coordinate and facilitate development of annual and multiyear plans for their 785

agencies nationally. 786

• Federal agencies will provide spokespeople and support the 3DHP goals to achieve nationwide 3DHP 787

data coverage and a robust 3DHP Infostructure. 788

• Federal agencies will be members of and participate in 3DNTM Executive coordinating committee and 789

the 3DHP coordinating committee planning activities. 790

• Federal agencies will work in partnership and provide financial contributions to data acquisition projects 791

or acquire and contribute data that meet 3DHP specifications. 792

State Roles and Responsibilities 793

Today, States are major contributors of data and often lead statewide acquisition and maintenance programs. 794

Under the 3DHP, the NHD and WBD stewardship programs would evolve but continue to be essential to the 795

production and maintenance of 3DHP data. The 3DHP planning approach is intended to encourage expansion of 796

state partnerships. As a 3DHP participant, each state will have agreed-upon roles and responsibilities. State roles 797

and structures will vary across the country, and USGS has embarked on a project with the National States 798

Geospatial Information Council (NSGIC) to help coordinate communications and information with the many 799

States interested in updating the NHD with hydrography derived from elevation. Characteristics of a successful 800

State partnership would likely include: 801

• A statewide funding strategy to jointly fund 3DHP data collection with the USGS and other Federal 802

partners and funding to participate in partnership activities. 803

• An outreach strategy supporting the goal of nationwide coverage. 804

• A program to coordinate and facilitate the development of local and regional partnerships. 805

• A commitment to meet or exceed 3DHP data acquisition specifications. 806

States will be encouraged to coordinate with local and other entities to build funding coalitions and plans that 807

feed into the national process. The 3DHP planning approach is intended to provide the lead time that States 808

need to enable funding initiatives to be passed in their respective jurisdictions. Active participation by the States 809

will result in higher-quality data overall and will help achieve the objectives of a national strategy. USGS National 810

Map Liaisons and Partner Support will provide States with technical assistance when needed and coordination 811

support to facilitate participation in 3DHP data acquisition activities. 812

3DHP will move from the current process where stewards check out 813

and edit data, to a tiered model where corrections to data would be 814

communicated to USGS through the USGS Markup Application 815

(https://www.usgs.gov/NHD/Tools). USGS will encourage partners and 816

users to leverage the Markup Application to suggest correct 817

positioning, attribution, network connectivity, or other changes. 818

Anyone with local knowledge of hydrology will be encouraged to 819

submit suggestions for updates to the data. Review of markups will be 820

conducted by 3DHP stewards or USGS in places where no stewards are 821

established. After review and validation of the markups, edits will be 822

completed by USGS. 823

Overview of Tiered Model

Tier 1 - Error identification and

propose changes via Markup

Application: Partners, general users

Tier 2 - Review markups and provide

feedback and approval to USGS:

Stewards AND/OR USGS

Tier 3 - Editing of features: USGS

https://www.usgs.gov/NHD/Tools



824

Figure 7. Overview of 3DHP roles for the USGS, Federal partners, state and local partners, the private sector, and users. 825

Partnership Benefits 826

The 3DHP data acquisition partnerships are designed to yield the following benefits: 827

• The level of investments may increase, improving cost efficiency and providing a greater return on 828

individual agency investments for data coverage and quality. 829

• Greater economic benefits directly attributable to high-quality 3DHP data can be realized sooner. 830

• Common and standard data-collection specifications will be implemented to ensure that data are 831

compatible and support geographic analysis across state lines and project boundaries. 832

• The most consistent and efficient contract mechanism to contribute elevation-derived hydrography to 833

the 3DHP data collection will be achieved using the USGS Geospatial Product and Service Contracts 834

(GPSC). 835

• Through coordinated planning, large area data acquisition projects will be consistent with most state 836

plans that call for statewide coverage to be achieved in three to five years. 837

• The patchwork-quilt effect will be minimized through larger area data-collection projects, which 838

accelerate the rate of coverage. 839

• The data acquisition specification under 3DHP provides a path for Federal, State, Tribal, and other 840

partners that need more accurate or higher-resolution data. 841

The 3DHP Infostructure will provide valuable benefits to partners by providing tools to reference their water-842

related information to the 3DHP’s authoritative national stream network while maintaining control of their data. 843

The 3DHP Infostructure partnerships are designed to yield many benefits, including: 844

• Increased ability to share data efficiently and effectively. 845

• Ability to discover data needed for analyses, science, policy, and every-day uses. 846



• Co-development of application programming interfaces (APIs) that can be implemented on a partner’s 847

websites and data portals to tailor searches of referenced datasets. 848

Outreach and Communications 849

A communications plan will be developed for 3DHP to set a schedule and milestones for communicating across 850

3DHP audiences (Table 8) about the initiation of the program. Outreach is critically important to the success of 851

3DHP and the development of an active outreach strategy is an early program milestone. USGS began outreach 852

in FY2020 to partners and stakeholders, including the community of private sector mapping contractors, to 853

ensure they have the information necessary to participate in the 3DHP. The communications plan will include a 854

timeline, a definition of communication roles, and a list of materials needed to initiate outreach activities for a 855

successful launch of 3DHP products and services in 2023. 856

Audience Description Examples of Key Audience Groups

Federal executives

Decisionmakers and overseers of Federal programs and budgets

3DNTM Executive Forum Federal budget planning process (DOI, OMB, other Federal departments) Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

Partners

Organizations that partner with USGS to collect data or provide programmatic advice

Federal, State, local, Tribal, and other partners 3DHP coordinating committee Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) DOI Geospatial Advisory Committee (DOI GAC)

Geospatial user community

Organizations that use hydrography data to meet mission objectives

Federal, State, local, Tribal, and other users American Water Resources Association (AWRA) Conferences National States Geospatial Information Council (NSGIC) Conferences Esri International and Federal User Conferences Outreach events related to business uses with significant benefits from a national 3D Hydrography Program

Industry users

Current and potential Industries that would benefit from hydrography data

Architecture and Engineering Agriculture Forestry and Forest Products Fisheries Management Mining Oil and Gas Planning (transportation, land use) Hydropower and Renewable Energy Insurance and Financial Services



Professional community

Groups that provide a venue for communicating opportunities and issues associated with a given professional field or user community

National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) American Water Resources Association (AWRA) Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) MAPPS American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) Association of American State Geologists (AASG) Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO) 3DEP Coalition Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI) North American Lake Management Society (NALMS)

Legislative

Congressional members and staff and organizations that determine or influence Federal and State budgets

USGS, DOI informational visits to Congress members and staff Outreach by 3DHP stakeholders

Media and public

Media and those who could raise 3DHP awareness across user communities and the general public

Trade publications (for example, AWRA Impact Magazine, Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA), Directions Magazine, ArcNews) Social Media (for example, Facebook, Twitter) Online Platforms (for example, YouTube, Vimeo) Newspaper Television 3DHP Website and factsheets

Table 8. Target audiences for outreach and communications for the 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP). 857

[The communications and outreach strategy for 3DHP includes a wide range of partners and other constituents. Outreach is needed to gain 858 community support and to successfully implement the partnership approach for data acquisition. Definitions: 3D, three dimensional; DOI, 859 U.S. Department of the Interior; OMB, Office of Management and Budget; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] 860

Growth 861

The 3DHP program of work is predicated on the assumption of the effort starting in FY2022 with moderate 862

growth for FY2023 and accelerated growth in subsequent years. Investments in lidar and IfSAR data collections 863

through 3DEP have made it possible to derive 3DHP features from elevation data for a significant portion of the 864

Nation. For the proposed operational program to be fully realized, a $676 million investment (Figure 5) will be 865

required between FY2022 and FY2030, including one year of preparation, six years of active data acquisition, 866

and two additional years to complete data inspection and processing after the acquisition period. Numerous 867

assumptions went into the investment model and will likely change over time. 868

The key assumptions are: 869

• QL2 or better lidar data will be available for the conterminous United States under 3DEP, and elevation 870

data costs are not included in estimated 3DHP costs. 871

• Acquisition costs may be reduced from the program estimates based on pilot costs for a variety of 872

reasons including larger data acquisition projects, new technologies, methodologies, and processes that 873

become commercially available or developed. 874

• Any hydrography features currently in the NHD that meet USGS elevation-derived hydrography 875

specifications and pass inspection processes will be included in the 3DHP Datasets. 876



• While data in Alaska will be included as a part of the 3DHP, it is not included in the funding calculations 877

as hydrography in Alaska is currently being updated under the Alaska Mapping initiative. If the Alaska 878

Mapping initiative were discontinued, 3DHP would have to assume costs to create 3DHP Datasets for 879

Alaska. 880

• Lifecycle management costs during the nine-year production cycle include 3D Hydrography Program 881

management; research and development; data maintenance, management, and delivery; and 882

information technology systems and support. 883

• Data acquisition costs include derivation of new 3DHP features, hydrologically conditioned DEM 884

development, transition of legacy attributes to a new data model, and all acquisition inspection costs. 885

• All costs and budget estimates are based on constant 2021 dollars. 886

• There will continue to be growth in hydrography investments by partner institutions, and a consortium 887

of Federal agencies committed to 3DHP will participate in initial acquisition investments in Year 2 with 888

accelerated growth thereafter. 889

• Data acquisition will increase over the first three years and steady-state operational funding levels will 890

be achieved by Year 4. 891

• The planned schedule assumes that the program will be fully funded through data and financial 892

contributions from participating government agencies and Tribes. If full funding is not achieved, the 893

completion date of the 3DHP will be extended. 894

895

Figure 8. Potential cost of a nine-year program that includes a six-year data acquisition period and associated startup and other lifecycle 896 management cost to develop new hydrography data from DEMS and extend content to include connections to wetlands, groundwater 897 models, engineered hydrologic systems, and other select data types. Program costs would decline after initial six-year data acquisition 898 period. 899

[Year 1 has continued legacy operations and is a planning year for 3DHP operations, oversight committee creation, research, and 900 outreach. Systems development is initiated, and first data collection contracts are let in Year 2 with increases until a steady state 901 production rate is achieved in Year 5. Budgets are based on pilot program contract costs and estimates for lifecycle management costs. 902 Actual costs may be higher or lower.] 903

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

Mill

ion

s

3DHP Potential Nine-Year Costs

Legacy Program Lifecycle Management Data Content Development Extended Features



3DEP was successful in building partnerships with Federal and State agencies and Tribal governments to fund 904

data acquisition. The 3DHP will follow a similar funding model which anticipates significant investments by 905

partner organizations. USGS will continue to partner with these organizations on shared data acquisition costs. 906

Lifecycle costs and data contracting, validation and processing expenses would be included in the core USGS 907

3DHP. The cost share model (Figure 6) is one potential model and is not intended to allocate cost shares to any 908

organization or to individual government sectors. The actual funding model is expected to evolve and change in 909

the program operations plan. 910

911

Figure 9. Graph showing one possible funding model (in constant 2021 U.S. dollars) for the 3DHP. The projected growth model is based on 912 the assumptions that USGS investments will see moderate growth and that investments from partners will show corresponding growth. 913 Total investments from all sources are estimated to be $676 million. The estimates are based on a nine-year project lifecycle and a six-year 914 acquisition period and include associated management costs and a phase out of legacy program activities. The graph excludes lidar or 915 IfSAR acquisition costs, which are included in 3DEP. 916

Building the 3DHP Datasets and Infostructure 917

3DHP Datasets and Infostructure will work together as integrated pieces of the same technology, and therefore 918

must be co-designed and developed. 3DHP Datasets will be designed to support the needs of hydrologic 919

modeling, GIS analyses, and cartography, as well as the 3DHP Infostructure. The 3DHP Infostructure will be built 920

to support the sharing and discovery of water-related data, including to underpin the Internet of Water. While 921

work in this arena over the last 20 years has created a solid foundation upon which to chart this future path, 922

primary research and design work will be vital to support successful implementation of the 3DHP Datasets and 923

Infostructure next generation of hydrography. 924

3DHP Datasets Overview 925

3DHP Datasets will be a vertically integrated data stack that includes: 926

• A stream network including waterbodies derived from elevation data; 927

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

Mill

ion

s

3DHP Partnership Cost Share Model

Legacy Program (USGS) Lifecycle management (USGS)

Data Content Development (USGS) Data Content Development (Partner)



• Multiple levels of nested hydrologic units including catchments for each stream segment produced using 928

the stream network and elevation data; 929

• Hydrologically conditioned DEMs with flow direction and routing that matches the stream network and 930

hydrologic units; 931

• Additional attributes related to those features that assist with hydrologic and stream network routing 932

and analysis; and 933

• Additional datasets such as flow accumulation and flow direction surfaces. 934

The quality of the 3DHP Datasets will be improved significantly from the currently available NHD, WBD, and 935

NHDPlus HR. When HRBS customer requirements are compared with 3DHP design, many of the core 936

hydrography content requirements can be met (see Table 9). 937

HRBS content requirements met by 3DHP Percent of MCAs required*

or addressed** by HRBS content requirement

Best available data Highest level of detail available maintained, build generalization functionality such that products support analysis where consistency is required

100%**

Spatial accuracy Spatial features horizontal positional accuracy - +/- 2 meters, 90 percent CE (1:2,400-scale)

64%**

Elevation data integration

Elevation and hydrography integrated – 3DHP Datasets derived from 3DEP data

65%*

More complete hydrologic cycle

Groundwater models linked to 3DHP Datasets 21%*

NWI wetland features data spatially aligned with 3DHP Datasets

64%*

Built diversion lines, including stormwater systems, integrated as spatial features (potentially generalized)

51%*

Culverts included or linked to 3DHP Datasets, bridges spatially aligned with 3DHP Datasets

55%*

Streamflow permanence Streamflow permanence attributed as modeled values that can be classed by users

51%*

Network connectivity

On-network discovery – Find features, events or addresses on network

68%*

Network analysis – Navigate up or downstream on network supported

66%*

Network analysis – Calculate stream distance to any point on the network

59%*

On-network discovery – Find upstream or downstream points

51%*

On-network discovery – Calculate distance between points or other attributes on network

47%*

Maintenance

General hydrographic features reviewed and updated on a 4-5 year schedule (dependent on 3DEP data availability)

41%**

Known errors corrected within 1-2 months from reporting

64%**



Table 9. Key content and capabilities to be supported by 3DHP data. The HRBS assessment was used to identify high priority needs best 938 suited for inclusion in 3DHP data or to be supported through the 3DHP Infostructure. The proposed 3DHP will support all the features and 939 capabilities shown within this table. Benefits analysis for 3DHP implementation options were based on criteria shown in the shaded cells. 940

[Three scenarios are based on required features as identified in the HRBS. Analysis of each scenario was based on weighted values as 941 follows: Positional accuracy – 25 percent, elevation integration – 25 percent, wetlands connections – 10 percent, built diversion lines – 10 942 percent, culverts and bridges – 10 percent, flow periodicity – 10 percent, general update frequency – 10 percent. Definitions: QL2 Based 943 Program – 1-m DEM from QL2 or better lidar; QL1 Based Program – 0.5-m DEM from QL1 or better lidar; Source: Dewberry 2016 survey 944 results questions 49 (spatial accuracy), 48 (elevation integration), 46 (wetlands), 48 (point discharges), 46 (built diversion lines), 46 945 (culverts and bridges), 46 (flow periodicity), 44 (general update).] 946

Best available data 947

Similar to the NHD, 3DHP Datasets will store the highest level of detail available for derived stream network 948

features. Generalization processes or tools will be developed such that the stream network and hydrologic units 949

can be generalized to a homogeneous or less detailed product for analyses such as national-level modeling and 950

reporting. 951

Spatial accuracy 952

The new 3DHP features will have a horizontal accuracy of +/- 2 meters (90% CE), which will meet 64 percent of 953

the overall reported user requirements for horizontal positional accuracy (see Table 9). The dataset will map 954

waterbodies that are one acre or larger (two acres in Alaska). The actual minimum water body size to be 955

retained will be determined during pilot tests and operations planning. 956

Elevation Data Integration 957

HRBS survey respondents identified the alignment of hydrography data with elevation data as the most required 958

data integration type. The success of the 3DEP and resulting rapid increase in highly detailed and accurate lidar 959

(IfSAR in Alaska) make it possible to derive hydrography data from elevation data at a fine resolution nationally. 960

Deriving hydrography features from 3DEP data enhances the vertical and horizontal spatial integration between 961

terrain and the stream network, providing the level of accuracy and detail required for regional and local 962

applications. The integration of elevation and hydrography also provides the terrain basis for modeling the flow 963

of water across landscapes. The stream network and hydrologic units will undergo a complete revision to 964

improve the mapping by deriving hydrography from elevation, including the addition of elevation values to each 965

linear feature vertex in the stream network. 966

The stream network will be connected such that flow models will work correctly across the entire network. The 967

horizontal and vertical positional accuracy will be improved, greatly enhancing the ability to perform analysis of 968

the water data, especially when combined with other datasets such as land cover, soils, surficial geology, and 969

elevation via the 3DHP Infostructure. In aligning the hydrography to the elevation, the data will also have the 970

correct placement to be used with bathymetric data where available. Key attributes from the NHD will be 971

conflated to the new 3DHP spatial features. Data derived in pilot projects in Alaska using a 5-meter DEM from 972

IfSAR and in CONUS using 1-meter DEMs have been highly successful. 973

Hydrologic units will be hydrologically defined according to the elevation data and will accurately match the 974

corresponding stream network. They will be mapped using one of two methods – either derived directly from 975

the elevation data or created by producing catchment areas for each hydrographic network segment and 976

accumulating those catchment areas into larger, nested hydrologic unit areas using defined rules. Additional 977

testing and research are needed to determine the most accurate and correct method, and specifications will be 978

necessary to define the rules for these data. 979



Hydrologically conditioned DEMs will be created as a part of the stream network derivation process. Hydro-980

conditioned DEMs will have bridges, culverts, and other impediments to flow removed from the dataset, and the 981

derived stream network will be enforced into the hydro-conditioned DEM such that water flows across the 982

surface is represented accurately. Hydro-conditioned DEMs will be highly valuable for flood inundation modeling 983

and land use planning for applications such as agriculture. Other surfaces that will be created during the stream 984

network derivation process and will be distributed as a part of 3DHP Datasets are flow accumulation and flow 985

direction surfaces. 986

3DEP 1-meter standard product DEMs created from QL2 or better lidar (5-meter DEMs in Alaska) will be used as 987

the source data for all elevation-derived products. The source elevation data from 3DEP will generally be less 988

than ten years old, and where major events have occurred, it is likely newer data will be available to create 989

3DHP features. The new stream network and hydrologic unit features will align with the hydrologically 990

conditioned DEMs by virtue of them being derived from the same source. This will create a unified model of the 991

flow of water across the landscape and through the stream network. It is instrumental that 3DHP Datasets be 992

built from a standardized data source across the country to ensure consistency in derived products for reporting, 993

modeling, and scientific research. 994

As part of the steps towards building the 3DNTM, the USGS is researching how to create a continuous 995

topobathymetric surface derived from high-resolution elevation and bathymetry. These data, combined with 996

the stream network derived from elevation data, will be incredibly useful for applications such as flood risk 997

mapping and prediction and inundation modeling. 3DEP plans to use airborne topobathymetric lidar, where 998

appropriate and in conjunction with other technologies such as multibeam sonar, to map submerged 999

topography in rivers and lakes and has begun piloting a small number of topobathymetric lidar surveys. Planning 1000

to operationalize inland bathymetry will be addressed in the Call for Action plan that will focus on the next 1001

generation of 3DEP. 1002

More complete hydrologic cycle 1003

Research will be undertaken to understand how to connect surface and groundwater features, including to 1004

understand how groundwater models might be linked to the 3DHP Infostructure through the use of addressed 1005

data, for example, by linking aquifers or even groundwater model cells to surface-water features such as 1006

streams and lakes, and making such linkages provide useful interoperability. Additionally, groundwater 1007

catchment areas might also be developed showing where shallow unconfined aquifers may contribute flow to 1008

streams, and where streams may be losing flow to a shallow aquifer. While such linkages are conceptually 1009

possible, research is needed to determine how this could be implemented. 1010

To provide hydrologic modelers and ecologists a clear picture of the inland waters of the United States, the 1011

3DHP stream network and NWI wetland features must be spatially aligned such that the two datasets function 1012

together as a whole. Research to support this will include investigating how to collaboratively map the stream 1013

network and wetlands to create interoperable data layers depicting the inland waters of the U.S. Discussions 1014

have already begun regarding how to better align the datasets. For example, a pilot project is underway in 1015

FY2021 in Alaska to test how the NWI can use the NHD as a primary base and starting place for wetland 1016

mapping. If issues are found in the process, they could potentially be solved, for example, through changes to 1017

data specifications resulting in data acquisitions that better meet the needs of both datasets, or through 1018

changes to the database schemas of the datasets. Research and pilot studies to improve functionality between 1019

the datasets will continue into the foreseeable future. 1020



3DHP will include engineered hydrologic systems, with a concerted effort to integrate generalized 1021

representations of stormwater systems in urban areas. This is an area of research focus as the condition of 1022

stormwater system data, as well as the required level of detail of stormwater systems, is unknown. Engineered 1023

hydrology systems, including irrigation systems as well as agricultural and urban drainage systems are important 1024

parts of the hydrologic system, and therefore need to be represented at some level of detail in the 3DHP 1025

hydrographic network. However, these systems often include underground features that are not directly 1026

observable through remote sensing means and that are built and maintained by a plethora of local governments 1027

and/or private entities. Additionally, the finer details of such systems may change frequently. These 1028

characteristics make these systems more difficult to map and maintain as digital hydrographic data. For 1029

example, research is needed to determine what level of detail and network connectivity of urban stormwater 1030

systems is necessary to meet the requirements for flood inundation mapping, and how to acquire and maintain 1031

such data. Research also is needed to determine the level of detail needed to adequately represent agricultural 1032

irrigation and drainage networks for soil and water conservation planning, while avoiding inclusion of features 1033

that may change from year to year, and thus be impossible to maintain. 1034

Culverts are critical to accurately deriving hydrography from elevation as well as understanding hydrologic 1035

systems. Culverts that are acquired as a part of projects deriving hydrography from elevation will be made 1036

available, with future research determining if they will be a core part of the 3DHP schema or provided as 1037

hydrographically addressed data available through the 3DHP Infostructure. Bridges are available in the National 1038

Bridge Inventory, but further coordination the U.S. Department of Transportation would be beneficial to ensure 1039

they meet the needs of 3DHP users. 1040

Periodicity 1041

Streamflow permanence information will be improved by providing flow probability information from 1042

hydrologic models rather than classifying streams into permanence classes. 3DHP data users and stewards will 1043

then be able to use that information to categorize probable streamflow into permanence classes, such as 1044

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral, according to their own definitions to fulfill their own needs. Currently, 1045

USGS is engaged in research to support the development of streamflow permanence information. USGS is 1046

researching models that provide streamflow permanence probabilities (probabilistic predictions) of a stream 1047

channel having year-round flow for any unregulated and minimally impaired stream channel (USGS, 2021). USGS 1048

is also partnered with NASA and the Frontier Development Lab to research the use of high-resolution satellite 1049

imagery and 3DEP lidar to map stream wetness in near real-time (Frontier Development Lab, 2021). 1050

Network connectivity 1051

3DHP will develop and implement a modernized data management system and schema for the stream network 1052

and hydrologic units with an emphasis on stream network connectivity that will be important both to users of 1053

the data, and in the 3DHP Infostructure. This will enable on-network discovery analyses such as: 1054

• Finding features, events or addresses on the stream network, 1055

• Finding upstream or downstream points, and 1056

• Calculating distance between points or other attributes on the stream network, 1057

and network analyses such as: 1058

• Navigating up or downstream on the stream network, and 1059

• Calculating stream distance to any point on the stream network. 1060



In line with the Geospatial Data Act’s focus on using open and interoperable international standards when 1061

possible, USGS will review Hydrologic Features (HY_Features), an Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) surface 1062

water conceptual model standard. USGS will also work with other countries, including Canada and Australia, 1063

who have implemented this standard to understand and learn from their experiences. The 3DHP schema will be 1064

modernized from the NHD’s existing schema. The schema will include both the stream network and hydrologic 1065

units with topological rules enforcing their geometries. Research will also investigate new methods for 1066

hydrographically addressing data, including changes to the data model to support it. The data will be managed 1067

in an enterprise geospatial database in a server or cloud structure. 1068

Maintenance and Availability 1069

3DHP maintenance goals include correcting errors in 1-2 months after they are reported and fully updating the 1070

stream network on approximately a 4-5 year schedule, dependent on 3DEP data availability. The primary focus 1071

will be to complete national coverage in nine years. During that time, limited areas may be considered for full 1072

data revision to address changes to hydrology due to natural hazard events or other high priority situations. 1073

A snapshot of all 3DHP data will be available annually as a national dataset release with a digital object identifier 1074

to support citations in scientific research (https://www.doi.org/). The most current data will be available as 1075

individual data layer downloads and accessible as map services between annual data releases. USGS will 1076

research additional methods to provide data in harvestable, machine-readable formats. 1077

3DHP Infostructure Conceptualization 1078 [Additional details will be added describing the 3DHP Infostructure, including USGS’s technical and leadership role, technical 1079 development, relationship to the Internet of Water and plans for implementation.] 1080

The 3DHP Infostructure (Figure 9) will provide the means to 1081

share and discover water-related data in the context of the 1082

3DHP Datasets. It will be a set of open and interoperable web-1083

based tools, maps, and catalogs housed at USGS, that when 1084

taken together, create a robust system to reference and access 1085

information about water – everything from stream gages to 1086

temperature to water quality. The 3DHP Infostructure will be 1087

collaborative, open, and available to everyone. 1088

The 3DHP Infostructure will provide the geospatial 1089

underpinning for the Internet of Water. The Internet of Water, 1090

led through a project at Duke University, is focused on better 1091

data for better water management. The Internet of Water will 1092

support water data management by providing tools that 1093

improve the discoverability, accessibility, and usability of water 1094

data, educational programs for data users and decision-makers, 1095

and access to a nationwide community of practice. Through 1096

close collaboration and engagement between 3DHP and IoW, 1097

we will help connect partners and users with the information they need to make more effective water 1098

management decisions. 1099

Community is a core component of the 3DHP Infostructure concept and the Internet of Water. While USGS and 1100

partner agencies will provide the overarching structure and functionality of the 3DHP Infostructure, the data 1101

An Example of the Need for the 3DHP

Infostructure and Internet of Water

The USFS compiled more than 300 million

stream temperature observations from

more than 100 agencies for the NorWeST

Stream Temperature Model. These data are

useful to a multitude of applications.

The work took nearly 25,000 hours to

collect the information, and it was out-of-

date as soon as it was compiled. The USGS

and partners are developing the 3DHP

Infostructure as a part of the Internet of

Water to make water-related data like this

easy to create, search, and discover.

https://www.doi.org/



searchable through it will be managed by the datasets’ authoritative producers. These data producers will make 1102

the information available to the 3DHP Infostructure by publishing it through standardized web-based services. 1103

This gives data producers control over their information while sharing it with the broader community. In turn, 1104

the community of users can efficiently search and access the most authoritative data. 1105

1106

Figure 10. The 3DHP Infostructure conceptual model illustrates the relationship between the major components of the 3DHP Infostructure. 1107 3DHP datasets are accessed through an Application Programmer Interface. Specific Linked Data may be accessed, or users may link their 1108 own dataset to perform analysis of linked data. 1109

Hydrographic Addressing Tools - Hydrographic addressing tools will enable users to georeference water-related 1110

information to the 3DHP Datasets and create authoritatively managed web-based services. These tools give 1111

water-related data reference locations, similar to street addresses, on the stream network. Several hydrographic 1112

addressing tools have been developed, with more currently in development. Currently available tools include 1113

the Hydrography Event Management (HEM) Tool and HydroLink Tool. A web-based version of the HEM Tool, 1114

known as HydroAdd Tool, is in development and testing. 1115

Search and Discovery Tools - Tools for the search and discovery of hydrographically addressed data continue to 1116

be developed by USGS. The Network-Linked Data Index (NLDI), which currently uses the medium-resolution 1117

NHDPlus as its hydrography framework, supports search and discovery and is currently implemented on several 1118

websites. For example, the USGS Water Data for the Nation development team uses the NLDI to show gages 1119

that are upstream and downstream of an existing gage. The NLDI is also used in the Water Quality Portal where 1120

it is possible to download data by using upstream and downstream queries. NLDI can be used via the Python 1121



programming language in statistical software packages such as R and is also available as a web API. NLDI code is 1122

currently being updated to use the NHDPlus HR as its hydrography network. 1123

To address emerging needs and to test leading technologies, the development strategy for the 3DHP 1124

Infostructure calls for an evolution of products and services. Development teams will advance a core 1125

functionality, and through feedback from the community the 3DHP Infostructure will be improved. User 1126

community input and collaboration will also be provided by the 3DHP coordinating committee as described in 1127

the Leadership section of this report. Over time, the 3DHP Infostructure will evolve to improve functionality and 1128

grow additional partnerships through the community. 1129

Data Acquisition Contracts and Specifications 1130

It is anticipated that much of this work will be completed by the private sector, with derived data produced and, 1131

for some datasets, conflated to 3DHP Datasets by contractors for the USGS or partner organizations. USGS will 1132

be responsible for data inspection, management, and delivery of data to the public. 1133

All data must meet specifications published by 1134

USGS to support derivation of hydrography features 1135

from 3DEP 1-meter standard product lidar-derived 1136

DEMS, or a 5-meter elevation grid created from 1137

IfSAR in Alaska, including “Elevation-Derived 1138

Hydrography Acquisition Specifications” (Terziotti 1139

and Archuleta, 2020) and “Elevation-Derived 1140

Hydrography—Representation, Extraction, 1141

Attribution, and Delineation Rules” (Archuleta and 1142

Terziotti, 2020). After the dataset is accepted into 1143

USGS holdings, corrections will be accomplished by 1144

data stewards and USGS staff using the web-based 1145

Markup Application as the mechanism to collect 1146

and review improvements. In the future, change 1147

detection based on either the elevation data or 1148

hydrography may trigger updates to 3DHP data. 1149

Data-acquisition projects managed by the USGS use 1150

a suite of qualifications-based selection (QBS), 1151

indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) 1152

contracts collectively referred to as the Geospatial 1153

Product and Service Contracts (GPSC). There are ten 1154

prime contractors under the GPSC, which has a 1155

combined delegated procurement authority of $750 1156

million over five years. Each prime contractor has 1157

multiple subcontractors on its GPSC team. The 1158

contracts include acquisition, processing, and 1159

quality assurance of lidar and other source 1160

geographic data. The GPSC will be recompeted in 1161

2021-2022 to expand the scope of services and 1162

increase acquisition capacity for 3DNTM. To ensure data quality and standardized product and service 1163

Figure 11. Overview of the proposed 3DHP data acquisition process from partnerships and project development to delivery to the public.



development, the USGS prefers that partners use the GPSC to acquire data when possible and practical. While 1164

funding partners will be encouraged to utilize the services of the USGS GPSC, they may elect to use their own 1165

contracting capabilities. When 3DHP acquisitions are managed through contracts other than the GPSC, the 1166

acquiring partner agency will require that the contracted project deliverables meet the minimum 3DHP 1167

acquisition specifications and that all mandatory deliverables are provided to the USGS. 1168

USGS issues an annual Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) to solicit partnership proposals for 3DEP lidar data 1169

acquisitions. USGS is planning to use a similar mechanism for partnering on 3DHP data acquisition. Depending 1170

on their needs, partners may propose acquisition projects that use the USGS GPSC or their own authorities and 1171

contracts to acquire data that meet the 3DHP specification. To ensure data quality and efficient development of 1172

standard products and services, USGS encourages partners to use the GPSC when possible and practical. The 1173

BAA, issued annually, will provide detailed instructions for submitting partnership proposals and describes the 1174

specific criteria for project selection. 1175

Organizations may contribute data that meet 3DHP specifications to the national database that were acquired 1176

outside of the BAA process. These data may be acquired through the USGS GPSC or by partner contracts or 1177

other mechanisms. USGS will implement a standard procedure for reviewing and accepting the contributed 1178

datasets and will provide feedback to contributors on 3DHP review schedules for including in 3DHP datasets. 1179

Data Validation and Acceptance 1180

USGS performs inspections for data validation of all 3DEP data to ensure compliance with contract 1181

specifications. USGS is developing a similar process to inspect and validate 3DHP data against specifications. All 1182

data that USGS receives from contractors or other organizations will undergo an assessment to determine if 1183

they meet the minimum specifications. Data validation includes: 1184

• Inspection of all delivered files (hydrography data, metadata, raster files, imagery, and other required 1185

files) to identify corrupt or missing data and improper formats. 1186

• Automated and visual assessment of project and file metadata for completeness and accuracy. 1187

• Automated and visual inspection of vector and raster data for completeness and accuracy. 1188

• Documentation of any issues. 1189

It is anticipated that the 3DHP data validation procedures will require: 1190

• Additional storage, high-performance workstations, and efficient data validation software. 1191

• Design and implementation of statistically-sound sampling methods. 1192

• Increased automation and use of machine learning for inspection. 1193

Projects with missing, inaccurate, or improperly processed data will be returned to the contractor or 1194

contributing organization with an inspection report identifying and describing the problems (or examples of the 1195

problems). Subsequent deliveries will be rechecked and accepted when problems are corrected to specification. 1196

Hydrography data that are contributed from other organizations will be inspected by USGS as resources are 1197

available and may require editing by USGS to resolve anomalies in the data. 1198

Operations and Production Planning and Development 1199

The 3DHP operational system will be established to meet acquisition, processing, information management, and 1200

product delivery requirements. The 3DHP concept of operations includes acquisition; inspection, validation, and 1201

acceptance; conflation; storage; data processing; product creation; and delivery. Product and data delivery 1202



services will be defined during the development of the operations plan. The specific products will be refined and 1203

finalized according to the assessment of user product needs and according to continued product research. The 1204

3DHP operations planning activity will be initiated in early FY2022. It is anticipated that several operational 1205

phases will be included in the operations plan. The general phases for 3DHP data that must be taken to 1206

successfully move from current hydrography datasets to 3DHP are: 1207

• Complete current product updates while data acquisition begins. 1208

• Develop and implement a modernized production and delivery system. 1209

• Fully operationalize the production and delivery system. 1210

• Complete data acquisition and production. 1211

• Maintain data and begin updates as needed. 1212

Throughout these phases, the 3DHP Infostructure must be developed, tested, and operationalized to use the 1213

3DHP Datasets as the geospatial foundation. These actions will be addressed fully in 3DHP Operational Plans. It 1214

is expected this work will overlap depending on the sequencing of specific activities and funding levels for each 1215

of the major components. 1216

Research Requirements 1217

The 3DHP planning process identified numerous issues or questions for which additional assessments, 1218

evaluations, or research is required. For the purposes of this report, the term “research” has been broadly 1219

defined to cover issues and questions that need resolution. The acquisition, processing, archiving, and 1220

distribution of data for 3DHP require operational developments and some foundational and applied research. 1221

The 3DHP research needs are being addressed across several venues and organizations. 1222

Research will be undertaken by the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center (NGTOC) for operational 1223

development activities, the USGS Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS) for primary 1224

GIS and hydrography-related research, and USGS Water Resources Mission Area and broader community of 1225

researchers for basic hydrology-related research. 1226

Research requirements have been identified throughout this Call for Action. The research agenda will be 1227

managed as a cohesive activity within the NGP. The near-term and immediate requirements have been 1228

identified (Table 10). 1229

Timeframe Research Task

Near-Term Priority

Develop specifications and production processes for hydrologic units and hydrologically conditioned DEMs, and other 3DHP Datasets, including building hydrologic units from 3DEP data and catchments..

Develop accuracy specifications and inspection processes for 3DHP datasets.

Research existing hydrography geospatial schemas, including the OGC HY_Features model and adopt or develop a new 3DHP Datasets schema with a goal to simplify and merge the multiple datasets currently being supported.

Develop data production systems to transition to new 3DHP Datasets.

Research needs and options for mapping culverts directly into 3DHP datasets or using use hydrographic addressing to provide culverts through the 3DHP Infostructure.



Investigate new ways to establish stable hydrographically addressed data including changes to the data model to support it.

Complete 3DHP Infostructure search and discovery tools and related web services.

Mid-Term Priority

Initiate a review of wetlands data, groundwater, and engineered hydrologic systems to determine the best approach to align or connect data with 3DHP Datasets.

Evaluate emerging water coordination and information services contributions to endeavors such as the IoW.

Conduct pilot projects and complete research to determine the best approach(es) to collect inland bathymetry data and to integrate that data with traditional terrestrial datasets.

Evaluate approaches for updating hydrography features based on changes in the terrain.

Long-Term Priority

Research 3D data models and determine suitability for a future integrated topographic data system to support advanced 3D modeling of the hydrologic and other processes. This research element contains several components, including:

• 3D representation models and 3D volumetric mapping including subsurface and atmospheric features.

• Data model organization techniques to effectively support “change over time” analysis.

• Improvement to 3D visualization of TNM layers (3D Topo, street view, and 3D features like overpass, bridge, tunnel, etc.)

• Technologies and knowledge graphs to enable integration of TNM layers in near-real time.

• Generalization (and multi-scale mapping) techniques that preserve important terrain feature attributes, such as surface water, landforms, and infrastructure.

• Use of high-performance computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning techniques to handle large data volume analysis and feature extraction.

Table 10. Research requirements for the 3D Hydrography Program. 1230

Conclusions 1231

In 1884, Congress authorized the U.S. Geological Survey to begin systematic topographic mapping of the United 1232

States. The maps that have been made for more than 135 years have guided explorers, homesteaders, ranchers, 1233

miners, recreationists, natural resource managers, and a host of others. Water, from the beginning, has been 1234

represented on every map series ever produced by USGS. The water features that exist in our modern GIS 1235

databases almost all have roots that go back to the 7.5-minute topographic maps produced as paper maps until 1236

1991. USGS created digital data from these map sources and created GIS-capable datasets like the NHD, WBD, 1237

and NHDPlus HR, which have been managed and improved over time. A robust State-centric data stewardship 1238

program has been updating hydrography data and, in some cases, replacing legacy data with new data for entire 1239

states. Despite these efforts, much of the data in the current water datasets is from the era of paper maps and 1240

the resulting data are nationally inconsistent. 1241

The establishment of 3D National Hydrography Program marks the beginning of a new era to perform the first 1242

general update for all hydrography features in the United States and U.S. Territories since the completion of the 1243

last paper topographic map. The Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study, completed in 2016, is a 1244

comprehensive assessment of needs and potential new benefits that would result from modernizing water 1245



mapping in the U.S. When completed, the availability of new water information will lead to more than $509 1246

million in new benefits every year. 1247

This report is a “Call for Action.” The public and private sectors that depend on high-quality water data have 1248

expressed the need for much better information to answer the most demanding water resource management 1249

questions. USGS proposes to work with partners to share the costs of a new program that will address these 1250

needs in as little as nine years, assuming the funds are available to complete the work. Federal, State, Tribal, and 1251

local governments are making investments to improve their water information, sometimes without the help of 1252

partnership investments. These new data do not always find their way into the national datasets. Government 1253

agencies need to respond to this Call for Action. The private sector will benefit from access to the best 1254

information to guide their activities. Together, the 3D Hydrography Program can be achieved. 1255

Much has changed since the last paper topographic map was made in 1991 and the needs for better water 1256

information have never been more urgent. The geospatial water data at USGS have evolved with changing 1257

technologies and continue to be useful for addressing many water resource management, natural disaster 1258

mitigation, and regulatory needs. Recent policy changes, prompted by climate change, needs for water quality 1259

improvements, and knowledge that water is a limited resource drove USGS to evaluate user needs and to 1260

recommend a new program to update and modernize hydrography and related data. The return on investment 1261

is significant. The need to support better water resources decisions cannot be overstated. 1262



References Cited 1263

Archuleta, C.M., and Terziotti, S., 2020, Elevation-Derived Hydrography—Representation, Extraction, Attribution, 1264

and Delineation Rules: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. B12, 60 p., 1265

https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ tm11B12. 1266

Aspen Institute, 2017, Internet of Water: Sharing and Integrating Water Data for Sustainability: The Aspen 1267

Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Internet-of-Water-Report-May-1268

2017.pdf. 1269

Buto, S.G., and Anderson, R.D., 2020, NHDPlus High Resolution (NHDPlus HR)---A hydrography framework for the 1270

Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2020-3033, 2 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20203033. ISSN: 2327-6932 1271

(online). 1272

Dewald, T., 2017, Making the Digital Water Flow: The Evolution of Geospatial Surfacewater Frameworks. USEPA 1273

Office of Water, Washington, DC. 1274

Dewberry, 2012, Final report of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (revised March 29, 2012): Fairfax, 1275

Va., Dewberry, 84 p. plus appendixes A–J, http://www.dewberry. 1276

com/Consultants/GeospatialMapping/FinalReport-National EnhancedElevationAssessment. 1277

Dewberry, 2016, National Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study―Preliminary results: Fairfax, Va., 1278

Dewberry, May 20, 2016, 139 p. plus appendixes, accessed August 29, 2017, at http:// 1279

https://www.dewberry.com/services/geospatial/national-hydrography-requirements-and-benefits-study 1280

Executive Order 13956 of October 13, 2020 Modernizing America’s Water Resource Management and Water 1281

Infrastructure. [FR Doc. 2020–23116 Filed 10–15–20; 8:45 am] Billing code 3295–F1–P 1282

Frontier Development Lab, EARTH SCIENCE: Waters of the US, https://frontierdevelopmentlab.org/fdl2020, 1283

accessed 4/21/2021 1284

Office of Management and Budget, 2002, Coordination of geographic information and related spatial data 1285

activities (revised 2002): Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16, accessed February 21, 2014, at 1286

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a016_rev/. 1287

Ries, K.G., III, Newson, J.K., Smith, M.J., Guthrie, J.D., Steeves, P.A., Haluska, T.L., Kolb, K.R., Thompson, R.F., 1288

Santoro, R.D., and Vraga, H.W., 2017, StreamStats, version 4: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2017–3046, 4 p. 1289

[Also available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20173046.] 1290

Smith, A.B., 2020, 2010‒2019, a landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: National 1291

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], NOAA Climate.gov, News and Features, Beyond the Data blog, 1292

January 8, 2020, accessed May 22, 2020, at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2010- 1293

2019-landmark-decade-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate. 1294

Snyder, G.I., Sugarbaker, L.J., Jason, A.L., and Maune, D.F., 2014, National requirements for enhanced elevation 1295

data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013 –1237, 371 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1237/. 1296

Sugarbaker, L.J., Constance, E.W., Heidemann, H.K., Jason, A.L., Lukas, Vicki, Saghy, D.L., and Stoker, J.M., 2014, 1297

The 3D Elevation Program initiative—A call for action: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1399, 35 p., accessed 1298

August 24, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1399. 1299

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Internet-of-Water-Report-May-2017.pdf

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Internet-of-Water-Report-May-2017.pdf

https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20203033

https://www.dewberry.com/services/geospatial/national-hydrography-requirements-and-benefits-study

https://frontierdevelopmentlab.org/fdl2020

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/fs20173046



Terziotti, S., Adkins, K., Aichele, S., Anderson, R., and Archuleta, C., 2018, Testing the Waters: Integrating 1300

Hydrography and Elevation in National Hydrography Mapping. Water Resources Impact, Vol 20, No 2, pps 28-29. 1301

Terziotti, S., and Archuleta, C.M., 2020, Elevation-Derived Hydrography Acquisition Specifications: U.S. 1302

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 11, chap. B11, 74 p., https://doi.org/1 0.3133/ tm11B11. 1303

The National Landslide Preparedness Act, 2020, www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8810/text, 1304

accessed 5/5/2021 1305

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule, 2020: Definition of “Waters of the United States” [FR Doc. 2020-02500 1306

Filed 4-20-20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 1307

USGS, PROSPER, https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wy-mt-water/science/probability-streamflow-permanence-1308

prosper, accessed 4/21/2021 1309

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013, 1310

Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (4 ed.): U.S. Geological 1311

Survey Techniques and Methods 11–A3, 63 p. Available on the World Wide Web at 1312

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/. 1313

https://doi.org/1%200.3133/%20tm11B11

http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/



Appendix 1. Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study Summary Tables 1314

The Hydrography Requirements and Benefits Study (HRBS) (Dewberry, 2016), sponsored by the U.S. Geological 1315

Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1316

was conducted to determine the requirements for hydrography information among Federal and State 1317

governments as well as select Tribal, private sector, and not-for-profit entities. Dewberry conducted the study, 1318

which was completed in 2016. The results of the study provided valuable insights to formulate the 1319

recommendation for a new 3D Hydrography Program (3DHP) at USGS that would be more targeted to user 1320

needs. This appendix includes summary results of the technical requirements section of the study and the 1321

summary of current and potential future benefits organized by major business uses. These core requirements 1322

comprised the primary inputs for the three water information program scenarios identified in this 3D National 1323

Topography Model – 3D Hydrography Program Call for Action report. Complete HRBS results and data from the 1324

surveys summarized by multiple criterial can be found in the full HRBS report. 1325

The study included a multi-phased approach to identify organization Mission Critical Activities (MCAs), the 1326

hydrography information needed to support those activities, and the benefits that could be realized if those 1327

needs could be met. The first phase of the study identified MCAs with a survey administered by invitation to 1328

select organization managers responsible for programs identified by each of the participating organizations. 1329

Participants represented 21 Federal agencies and commissions, all 50 states, Washington, DC, and American 1330

Samoa. 53 local and regional government organizations, eight Tribal governments, 14 private companies, four 1331

associations, and 20 other not-for-profit entities. The raw results of the survey were compiled into a 1332

geodatabase. 1333

The second phase of the HRBS was a process to vet identified MCAs. Workshops were conducted for each 1334

participating organization and the survey results were reviewed, consolidated, and edited to create a final set of 1335

MCAs to be endorsed as the water information requirements for each participant organization. Dewberry 1336

conducted the Federal agency workshops and USGS National Map liaisons conducted the State workshops. 1337

When completed, a total of 420 MCAs were documented by 303 responding agencies or entities. 1338

The tables presented in this appendix show the MCA or organization counts for questions 44 through 71. 1339

Questions 1 through 42 were about the surveyed organizations and about geographic distribution of the 1340

identified requirements. Questions 43 through 57 were asked for every identified MCA. The maximum number 1341

of responses possible was 420, but the table results often total less than 420 since some questions were not 1342

answered by every survey respondent. Questions 58 through 71 were general questions about organization 1343

requirements. There were 76 organization entities (21 Federal agencies, 51 States, and four associations) where 1344

this general information was captured. Note that the State, local, and Tribal government agencies as well as the 1345

private and not-for-profit entities (except the four associations) were rolled up into the states’ responses for 1346

these questions. 1347

The results of Question 55 concern non-quantifiable operational and societal benefits that organizations are 1348

currently realizing from hydrographic information and are not included in this appendix. The results of Question 1349

58 are narratives describing the major new benefits identified in Question 57 and are not shown in this table. 1350

Question 60 asked if the respondent had additional MCAs and is omitted from this appendix as it was only used 1351

for survey navigation. Question 61 asks about ideal geographic extents needed to address needs, and Question 1352

62 asked about data types (formats) needed and is not included in this appendix. Most of the survey results 1353

from these omitted questions can be found in the full HRBS report (Dewberry, 2016). Some of the detailed 1354

narrative responses may not be in the report; however, they are available in the survey datasets. 1355



1356

HRBS Question 43. Which hydrography datasets are you currently using to address the water information needs of the Mission Critical Activity?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 346 47 299 209 49 15 23 3

National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) 159 37 122 87 18 7 9 1

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) 288 42 246 181 34 13 15 3

No Hydrography Data are currently being used 16 4 12 4 3 1 2 2

Other dataset 178 20 158 93 46 6 11 2

1357

HRBS Question 44. For the Mission Critical Activity that you specified, how frequently does the hydrographic information need to be updated to satisfy requirements?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Annually 135 19 116 83 23 2 6 2

2-3 years 112 13 99 58 22 6 10 3

4-5 years 110 17 93 64 16 4 8 1

6-10 years 45 4 41 19 18 3 1 0

11+ years 18 1 17 13 1 1 0 2

1358

HRBS Question 45. For the Mission Critical Activity that you specified, how important is it to update the hydrographic information immediately following major events such as a hurricane or flood?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Required 57 14 43 31 6 0 5 1

Highly Desirable 153 21 132 87 33 2 6 4

Nice To Have 156 17 139 90 26 11 12 0

Not Required 54 2 52 29 15 3 2 3

1359

HRBS Question 46. For the Mission Critical Activity that you specified, which of the following characteristics or features are required?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Linkages to observations associated with stream gages 282 43 239 156 48 14 16 5

Wetlands 269 47 222 145 44 11 18 4

Flow periodicity (perennial, ephemeral, intermittent) - monthly EROM not these categories 267 43 224 149 44 10 17 4

Floodplain boundary 258 40 218 125 58 12 18 5

Bridges and culverts 229 37 192 115 51 11 12 3

Bankfull and/or flood stage 215 38 177 109 41 9 14 4

Built diversion lines (pipelines, canals, channels, conveyances) 213 38 175 117 34 7 15 2

Linkages to cross-sectional geometry of hydrologic features (i.e. elevation profile) 207 39 168 112 31 9 13 3

Lake and channel bathymetry 201 36 165 112 30 9 11 3

Left and right bank delineation (geometry that shows two banks instead of a centerline) 200 41 159 105 34 9 9 2

Velocity estimates and/or time of travel 200 40 160 100 35 8 14 3



HRBS Question 46. For the Mission Critical Activity that you specified, which of the following characteristics or features are required?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Built diversion points (gates) 175 37 138 92 24 8 11 3

Coastlines Core feature - copied over from CUSP 160 35 125 91 13 8 12 1

Estuaries 143 36 107 79 10 6 12 0

Leakage/seepage at natural points (sinks, springs) 118 32 86 62 10 5 7 2

Leakage/seepage along natural lines (for example, sandy-bottomed streams) 109 31 78 54 11 4 7 2

Coastal bathymetry 104 26 78 58 7 4 9 0

Other (please specify) 83 15 68 47 14 1 4 2

Deltas 83 31 52 35 4 4 8 1

Badlands 35 14 21 14 3 1 3 0

1360

HRBS Question 47. For the Mission Critical Activity that you specified, which analytical functions are required?

Responses ranked by total MCAs All

MCAs Federal Non-

Federal State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Area analysis - Determine drainage area upstream from a point. 329 44 285 183 64 12 20 6

Area analysis - Find feature upstream or downstream within defined areas (i.e. watershed 284 42 242 157 49 13 15 8

Network analysis Navigate up or downstream on network 276 37 239 162 48 10 17 2

Area analysis – Determine area and boundary on the network of a catchment 273 42 231 146 55 10 16 4

Network analysis – Calculate stream distance to any point on the network 248 39 209 146 35 9 14 5

Area analysis – Determine downstream flood inundation area 210 36 174 106 43 7 15 3

On-network discovery – Find upstream or downstream points 214 38 176 117 34 8 12 5

On-network discovery – Calculate distance between points or other attributes on network 198 37 161 111 29 10 9 2

Visualization – View online hydrography service with my own service (mashups) 190 34 156 106 32 6 11 1

On-network discovery – Find upstream or downstream points 188 35 153 103 28 8 11 3

Visualization – View user defined symbolization for network lines and other features 185 35 150 104 25 6 11 4

Visualization – View preset symbolization for network lines and other features 184 33 151 100 27 10 10 4

Network analysis – Calculate time of travel to another point on the network 182 33 149 95 28 8 14 4

On-network discovery - Find features, events, or addresses (i.e. reach code) on network 173 33 140 93 25 9 11 2

Animations – Render and view time series information 104 23 81 52 11 7 9 2

HRBS Question 48. Please describe the level of hydrographic data integration with other datasets required for your Mission Critical Activity. For each data type, identify how important the analysis is and the highest level of analysis required.



Responses ranked by total MCAs with a response of "Required"

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal Analysis Associate Visual None

Elevation 274 40 234 255 11 7 1

Streamflow 231 37 194 179 41 9 2

Land Cover 197 30 167 182 8 7 0

Wetlands 169 35 134 141 18 9 1

Soils 156 33 123 139 12 5 0

Point Discharges 139 23 116 108 28 2 1

Water Use: Diversions 126 24 102 100 20 5 1

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) 124 30 94 96 24 4 0

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 117 27 90 103 8 6 0

USACE National Inventory of Dams (NID) 107 23 84 74 25 8 0

EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 99 11 88 74 21 4 0

Surficial Geology 92 20 72 79 8 5 0

Aquifers 89 16 73 74 12 3 0

Bathymetry 83 16 67 70 5 8 0

Climate 79 24 55 67 10 2 0

Contaminant Sources 79 12 67 69 8 1 1

USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 62 22 40 49 11 2 0

EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data Warehouse (STORET) 55 9 46 37 18 0 0

Census (Population Statistics) 50 4 46 46 4 0 0

USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) 39 12 27 31 6 2 0

1361

HRBS Question 49. For the Mission Critical Activity that you selected, what positional accuracy is required for geographic features in the hydrography data?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

+/- 3 feet, 90% (1:1,200-scale) 149 13 136 64 54 6 8 4

+/- 7 feet, 90% (1:2,400-scale) 101 12 89 61 15 3 8 2

+/- 33 feet, 90% (1:12,000-scale) 70 10 60 46 6 4 4 0

+/- 40 feet, 90% (1:24,000-scale) 89 17 72 61 5 3 3 0

+/- 170 feet, 90% (1:100,000-scale) 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0

+/- 420 feet, 90% (1:250,000-scale) 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

1362

HRBS Question 50. For the Mission Critical Activity that you selected, we need to understand the level of detail (stream density) that is required in the hydrographic data. Note that the equivalent mapping scale is shown in parenthesis. The number of stream miles per square miles is based on national averages for different mapping scales.

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

1.0 mile of surface water channel per square mile (1:100,000-scale) 39 1 38 17 12 2 5 2

2.5 miles of surface water channel per square mile (1:24,000-scale) 154 32 122 93 11 6 9 3



HRBS Question 50. For the Mission Critical Activity that you selected, we need to understand the level of detail (stream density) that is required in the hydrographic data. Note that the equivalent mapping scale is shown in parenthesis. The number of stream miles per square miles is based on national averages for different mapping scales.

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

5.0 miles of channel per square mile (1:5,000-scale mapping) 165 17 148 92 43 5 7 1

I don't know 55 4 51 31 14 3 2 1

1363

HRBS Question 51. For the Mission Critical Activity that you have identified, what is the smallest contributing area (watershed) for which a watercourse would need to be delineated?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

6 acres 122 11 111 69 33 2 5 2

60 acres 99 18 81 43 24 7 5 2

1 square mile (640 acres) 93 11 82 62 9 3 7 1

10 square miles (6,400 acres) 39 7 32 23 4 1 3 1



I don't know 51 4 47 31 9 3 3 1

1364

HRBS Question 52. For the Mission Critical Activity what is the smallest mapped waterbody needed?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Less than an acre 142 14 128 76 39 4 7 2

1 acre 105 14 91 59 15 4 11 2

2 acres 40 3 37 28 6 2 1 0

5 acres 67 9 58 39 12 3 3 1

10 acres 22 5 17 14 2 0 1 0

20 acres 25 7 18 10 4 2 0 2

Other (please specify) 13 2 11 8 2 1 0 0

1365

HRBS Question 53. For the selected Mission Critical Activity is it more important for hydrographic data to have the "best available" level of detail or is it more important to have a consistent level of detail?

All MCAs Federal

Non-Federal

State Gov’t.

Regional and

Local Private

Not-for-

Profit Tribal

Best Available 280 38 242 157 56 9 16 4

Consistent Level of Detail 134 16 118 77 24 7 7 3



BU Number

Business Uses (BUs) ranked by the greatest estimated average annual future dollar

benefits from enhanced hydrography data. This table also includes estimated annual

program budgets supported by hydrography data and estimated annual dollar benefits provided by the currently

available hydrography data.* Tota

l Nu

mb

er

of

MC

As

Esti

mat

ed

An

nu

al P

rogr

am

Bu

dge

t in

mill

ion

s

Sou

rce

: H

RB

S Q

ue

stio

n 5

4

Esti

mat

ed

Cu

rre

nt

An

nu

al

Be

ne

fits

in m

illio

ns

Sou

rce

: H

RB

S Q

ue

stio

n 5

6

Esti

mat

ed

Fu

ture

An

nu

al B

en

efi

ts in

mill

ion

s So

urc

e:

HR

BS

Qu

est

ion

59

Edu

cati

on

or

Pu

blic

Saf

ety

Futu

re B

en

efi

ts W

eig

hte

d V

alu

e

Sou

rce

: H

RB

S Q

ue

stio

n 5

7

Envi

ron

me

nta

l Fu

ture

Be

ne

fits

We

igh

ted

Val

ue

Sou

rce

HR

BS

Qu

est

ion

57

Hu

man

Liv

es

Save

d F

utu

re

Be

ne

fits

We

igh

ted

Val

ue

Sou

rce

: H

RB

S Q

ue

stio

n5

7

BU 1 River and Stream Flow Management 44 $763.58 $220.07 $154.73 97 107 39

BU 4 Water Quality 79 $1,672.41 $115.46 $121.48 189 254 68

BU 3 Water Resource Planning and Management 69 $988.88 $98.11 $115.88 155 168 70

BU 15 Flood Risk Management 54 $636.11 $56.12 $75.86 168 124 133

BU 5 River and Stream Ecosystem Management 34 $1,000.72 $13.96 $67.00 78 119 17

BU 2 Natural Resources Conservation 34 $6,956.80 $10.17 $17.76 84 111 19

BU 9 Wildlife and Habitat Management 8 $1,041.45 $0.18 $10.08 26 27 5

BU 20 Infrastructure and Construction Management

18 $1,088.72 $1.65 $8.73 53 60 26

BU 7 Forest Resources Management 5 $254.39 $1.76 $6.01 19 19 7

BU 6 Coastal Zone Management 8 $63.30 $10.71 $5.55 29 27 21

BU 18 Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, and Disaster Response

7 $1.75 $0.10 $5.50 18 13 12

BU 24 Education K-12 and Beyond 9 $1.56 $0.53 $5.36 28 26 3

BU 21 Urban and Regional Planning 17 $1,763.51 $2.17 $3.42 36 46 18

BU 10 Agriculture and Precision Farming 9 $21.75 $1.25 $2.15 21 34 7

BU 12 Resource Mining 2 $500.10 $1.03 $1.10 10 10 6

BU 13 Renewable Energy Resources 3 $1,547.85 $2.80 $0.58 1 5 0

BU 22 Health and Human Services 4 $58.45 $0.50 $0.50 11 16 1

BU 16 Sea Level Rise and Subsidence 2 $1.00 $0.35 $0.35 6 6 6

BU 25 Recreation 3 $2.90 $1.41 $0.17 11 11 7

BU 8 Rangeland Management 1 $20.43 $0.00 $0.10 3 5 0

BU 14 Oil and Gas Resources 3 $24.00 $0.10 $0.10 9 11 7

BU 19 Marine and Riverine Navigation Safety 3 $43.00 $0.03 $0.10 5 7 3

BU 11 Geologic Resource Assessment and Hazard Mitigation

3 $0.35 $0.04 $0.05 5 1 3

BU 17 Wildfire Management, Planning, and Response

1 $20.00 $0.01 $0.01 5 5 5

Total 420 $18,473.01 $538.50 $602.55 1067 1212 483

*Table is sorted by highest future annual dollar benefits. Dollar benefits are in constant 2016 U.S. dollars. To account for benefits that could not be quantified in terms of dollars, users were asked about potential qualitative future benefits. Weighted values are included here for the future qualitative benefits for education or public safety, environmental or ecosystems, and human lives saved. Each was quantified as Major, Moderate, or Minor. The weighting was done as follows: Major = 5, Moderate = 3, Minor = 1, Don’t Know, Not Applicable, No response = 0. Note that no dollar values were estimated for qualitative benefits. Question 55 characterized non-quantifiable current (existing) operational and societal benefits for current data and are not shown in this table. Question 58 results are narratives describing the major new benefits identified in Question 57 and are not shown in this table.

1366

1367



HRBS Question 63. For your program, please rate the importance of each data or service access method.

Q63a. Services to discover standard data products. Total Federal State, Regional,

and Local Not-for-

Profit

Required 54 14 38 2

Highly Desirable 21 7 12 2

Nice to Have 1 0 1 0

Not Required 0 0 0 0

Q63b. Services to download standard data products. Total Federal State, Regional,

and Local Not-for-

Profit

Required 72 20 48 4




Q63c. Services to create and download customized data products. Total Federal State, Regional,

and Local Not-for-

Profit

Required 35 9 25 1




Q63d. Services to dynamically use data with client-based software (like a browser, GIS, or to feed other services). Total Federal

State, Regional, and Local

Not-for-Profit

Required 46 10 34 2




Q63e. Services to visualize cartographically rendered and symbolized hydrography data. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 28 3 24 1




Q63f. Services that allow combination of visualizations with other visualization services (mashups). Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 19 3 15 1




Q63g. Services to create generalized versions of hydrography (different scales and level of detail). Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 25 4 20 1




Q63h. Services to support online analysis of hydrography information (such as StreamStats). Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 35 8 25 2




1368

56

HRBS Question 64. For your program the level of hydrographic data integration with elevation data may be important. Please rate each type of elevation- hydrography integration as it relates to your program requirements.

Q64a. Rivers and streams in the hydrography dataset align with channels as defined from the elevation data at 1:12,000 scale or larger (3-meter DEM). Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 47 12 34 1




Q64b. Objects defined by elevation, such as a levee, are linked to a particular river in the hydrography dataset. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 33 7 24 2




Q64c. Hydrography and elevation data are packaged in a single product such as a TIN or a 3D dataset. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 22 6 15 1




Q64d. Hydrography data (streams, stream gages, dams, hydrologic units) along with elevation data (elevations, catchments, levees, floodplains) coexist within a common data model. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 39 6 29 4




Q64e. Perform synthesis such that streamflow can be estimated from elevation-based drainage area and other factors. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 27 5 20 2




Q64f. Produce data derivatives such that gradient can be calculated on a stream using elevation data. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 22 4 17 1




Q64g. Manage hydrography and elevation data as a unified activity always keeping both datasets synchronized with one another. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 28 8 19 1




57

HRBS Question 64. For your program the level of hydrographic data integration with elevation data may be important. Please rate each type of elevation- hydrography integration as it relates to your program requirements.

Q64h. Ensure that hydrography and elevation data represent a similar point in time. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 32 9 22 1


Nice To Have 5 0 3 2


Q64i. Both hydrography and elevation data are delivered in unison rather than two separate operations. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 20 6 14 0




HRBS Question 65. Elevation data is considered an important theme when working with hydrographic data. Specify the level of integration for raster elevation and hydrography data necessary for your work.

Q65a. Determine new flow paths across the land surface into existing stream channels. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 37 8 26 3




Q65b. Determine feature on the hydrographic network to which a point (with elevation value) is connected. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 31 6 23 2




Q65c. Determine the actual point location (within a DEM cell) on the hydrographic network to which a point is connected. Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Required 29 8 19 2




58

HRBS Question 66. The map examples in this question illustrate common errors found in hydrographic datasets. For each map example listed below, please select a response that most closely represents the impact to your organization.

Q66a. In a series of lakes formed at gravel pits, one lake is missing from the NHD. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Critically Impactful 23 4 19 0

Highly Impactful 26 5 20 1

Somewhat Impactful 24 11 11 2

Little or No Impact 3 1 1 1

Q66b. In a series of lakes formed at gravel pits, all lakes are missing from the NHD. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





Q66c. In a series of tributary streams, several streams do not connect with the main river. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





Q66d. A perennial stream is misnamed. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





Q66e. A large reservoir is misnamed. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





59

HRBS Question 66. The map examples in this question illustrate common errors found in hydrographic datasets. For each map example listed below, please select a response that most closely represents the impact to your organization.

Q66f. A first order stream flow direction is reversed. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





Q66g. A second order stream flow direction is reversed. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





Q66h. A third order stream flow direction is reversed. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





Q66i. Two first order streams coded as perennial should be intermittent. Illustrated Total Federal


Not-for-Profit





60

HRBS Question 67. The map examples in this question illustrate common positional accuracy errors found in hydrographic datasets. For each map example listed below, please select a response that most closely represents the impact to your organization.

Q67a. A meandering river represented in the NHD is overlaid over a contemporary image of the river. The position of the meanders has deviated over time with a mean error of 100 feet and a maximum error of 200 feet. Illustrated Total Federal

State, Regional,

and Local

Not-for-Profit





Q67b. An intermittent stream represented in the NHD is portrayed along with contours and shaded terrain. The stream appears to be misaligned with the terrain by a mean of 175 feet. Illustrated Total Federal

State, Regional,

and Local

Not-for-Profit





Q67c. An intermittent stream represented in the NHD is portrayed along with contours and shaded terrain. The stream appears to be misaligned with the terrain by a mean of 75 feet. Illustrated Total Federal

State, Regional,

and Local

Not-for-Profit





Q67d. A ridge line in the WBD is portrayed along with contours and shaded terrain. The ridge line appears to be misaligned with the terrain by a mean of 70 feet. Illustrated Total Federal

State, Regional,

and Local

Not-for-Profit





61

HRBS Question 68. How accurate does the area of elevation derived catchments need to be, relative to their true ground position (reality)? Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Within 1% of actual area 19 6 13 0



HRBS Question 69. Differences in the way the WBD Hydrologic Units and NHDPlus catchments are defined lead to the situation that one cannot simply aggregate whole NHDPlus catchments to create replicas of the hydrologic units. How much of a problem does this situation pose to your program (all specified Mission Critical Activities)? Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Major problem – data cannot be used for Mission Critical Activity 25 6 18 1

Significant problem, but we have workarounds 4 1 2 1

Minor problem, requires some intervention 6 1 3 2

No problem at all 9 3 6 0

I don't know 32 10 22 0

HRBS Question 70. Would your program use a simple web map tool to highlight and report errors in the spatial hydrographic data? Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Yes 40 6 34 0

Probably 23 10 12 1

Maybe 10 4 5 1

No 3 1 0 2

HRBS Question 71. If your program reported an error in the hydrographic data, how quickly would that error need to be resolved? Total Federal


Not-for-Profit

Within 1 day 0 0 0 0

Within 2-30 days 30 12 16 2

Within 1-2 months 23 1 22 0

Within 3-6 months 9 3 6 0

Within 1 year 14 5 7 2

feedback instructions

Documents