Using GIS Analysis to Better Define Local Hydrology and Geospatial Derivatives in the Cashie River Watershed – A

Northern Coastal Plain River Drainage of North Carolina.

Jamie Dunbar – GIS 521 Final Project Paper (Fall 2014)

Abstract:

Current US Geological Survey Topographic Maps and National Hydrology Datasets derived from the USGS maps
at the 1:24,000 Scale were initially created using aerial photography interpretation and have been revised multiple times
over the past 60 plus years. These 1:24,000 USGS scale stream maps and derived stream and elevation data provide
limited use in determining actual headwater stream locations (Colson, Gregory and others, 2008); especially so in the
northern coastal plain of North Carolina where topographic differences are subtle. Individual adjacent quadrangles were
initially delineated by different cartographers and as a result some quads may have many or no smaller channels drawn,
sometimes ending abruptly at the edge of quad sheets. Any further extrapolation from data created off of the maps
also have the same issues and problems can cascade as you build an analysis project. High resolution digital elevation
model (DEM) bare earth LIDAR data from the NC Floodmap Program has become readily available over the past few
years, which can be used to build better hydrology networks, especially when using only aerial photo interpretation
along smaller and harder to see channels. I would like to use these high resolution DEM data sets to derive a more
useful hydrological network for the Cashie River; the goal being to produce outputs such as weighted overlay raster
outputs and other data to help guide local forestry staff that work with private landowners in the area related to water
quality and forest planning.

Introduction:

This analysis project is designed to use skills learned from GIS 521 Class to produce a set of locally developed
hydrology data for a specific outlet point on the Cashie River, in Bertie County, North Carolina. Existing data from the
National Hydrology Dataset is very useful but has significant limitations when you take into account how the data was
developed and has been subsequently edited over the past 60 plus years. Blue lines depicted on USGS 1:24,000 scale
topographic maps are typically under or over represented (Colson and others, 2006). State forestry staff at county and
district offices are charged with implementing forest water quality laws and checking for compliance during forestry
operations such as harvesting, reforestation and intermediate timber stand practices. Staff are also responsible for
developing preharvest, afforestation and forest regeneration plans for private landowners. They are often limited in
time available for various aspects of their jobs, especially in periods of high fire danger. The data sets that are used to
help prioritize and plan water quality inspections, create forest units and harvest layouts in GIS are based at least
partially on the derived information from USGS 1:24,000 quads. The data often show non-existent or misplaced blue line
features in the coastal plain which reduces our planning, outreach and project scoping efficiency.

Coastal Plain stream locations and stream-side riparian areas are difficult to interpret from aerial photography
alone - relating to determining headwater stream channel locations or areas that function as distinct riparian transitions
from “upland” or “flatwoods” to channels. I intend to create a more functional hydrology network for my area of
interest that can be used as another tool relating to forest planning and prioritization. The analysis is basic and has
obvious limitations but does enhance local staff capability to better answer local questions capable of being analyzed
through GIS. The overarching goal of these questions are to provide more science based analysis to common forestry
issues that we deal with every day. The hydrology of low-relief landscapes is fundamentally different from high-relief
areas with subtle differences in elevation gradients influencing ecological and hydrologic dynamics (Jones and others,
2008).

Page 1 of 21
Research Questions
I will attempt to “answer” the following questions in this project:

1. More clearly define potential Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial Stream Locations; quantify their lengths and
make a general comparison with “NHD” stream data within the study area.

2. More clearly define potential riparian areas within the watershed by creating a raster output to map areas based on
defined local thresholds using the following data: CCAP 2010 Land Cover, NRCS Soil Series Polygons with Characteristics,
Derived Slope and Created Stream Network.

3. Create a raster output to define target areas of agricultural land for forest restoration of native tree species to help
improve water quality within the watershed. Data used for the analysis include Derived Slope, NRCS Soil Series Polygons
with Characteristics, CCAP 2010 Land Cover, and Created Stream Network features.

4. Define the location and general statistics of catchments and the associated hydrologic framework in the study area.

Study Site

The study site is approximately 78,982 hectares in total size and falls within almost entirely Bertie County, North
Carolina. The centroid coordinates of the watershed are -76.992449ᵒ and 36.05948ᵒ with a very small portion of the
upper watershed located in Northampton County, being 9 hectares. The study area is in the middle coastal plain and has
elevations ranging from slightly below sea-level to 52 meters above with the mean elevation being around 13 meters
(based on digital elevation data analysis). There are 38 mapped soil series within the study area ranging from well
drained to very poorly drained and frequently flooded (NRCS, 1990). Calculated slopes range from 0 – 85% with a mean
slope of 2%. Most natural landscape features (96%) have slopes less than or equal to 5% with the highest natural slope
being found along bluffs that are the transition between upland and flatwoods, swamp or river. Bertie County had an
estimated population of 20,344 people in 2013 with total land area of 181,110 ha with 10,878 ha listed as water area
(Census Bureau, 2014). The county is heavily utilized for forest management and timber production with an estimated
$7,934,531 being paid for stumpage within the county in 2013 (Bardon and Jeuck, 2013). About 76% of the county’s
land area is in timberland with about 133,500 ha in the private, non-reserved, timber category (Forest Service, 2014).
There are also a variety of large volume mills located within 80 km; including sawmills for hardwood and pine, pulp mills
and energy pellet producers - all of which influence harvesting in the watershed. These basic statistics show that
forestry and agriculture have a real impact on the landscape relating to the local economy, ecosystem health and water
quality.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map of Study Area (NC DOT 80 ft. Statewide Elev. DEM Background)

Page 2 of 21
Methods

Data:
Base Vector: NCDOT County Boundaries (Shoreline and Polygon)
NRCS County Soil Data (Bertie County SSURGO 2.2 Data)
NHD – Hydro Lines (Bertie County)
Bertie County Ponds and Lakes Polygon Shapefile
NED 1/9 Arc Second Metadata Polygon Shapefile – shows LIDAR Data used for DEM Tiles

Base Raster: NED 1/9 Arc Second (3-M) Best Available DEM Tiles from NRCS Geospatial Gateway (Bertie Co. Extent)
C-CAP Southeast Region 2010-Era Land Cover (Bertie County)
NC-DOT 80 ft. Statewide DEM
2012 True Color High Resolution Aerial Photography (Web Based) NC CGIA
Output Data:
Clipped Preprocessed DEM (3 x 3 m grid)
Slope Grid (3 x 3 m)
Stream Network Data (Catchments, Watershed, Outlet Point, Hydro Lines & Junctions)
Clipped Existing Land Cover Raster and Table (2010)
Reclassified Raster Data for Weighted Analysis on 1-3 by 1 Scale (1 Least & 3 Most Impacted)
Final Raster Outputs for 1. Riparian Areas with Forest Cover Types, 2. Forest Restoration Target Areas.

There are many factors to take into account when producing a DEM derived hydrologic network, each factor
altering the eventual final product for better or worse. There is a wide variety of publicly available DEM datasets at
varying resolutions from 3 x 3 meter (m) horizontal grid to 30 m x 30 m or larger along with vertical resolutions in feet,
meters or centimeters. Each of these resolution levels have their place in analysis depending upon research scope
relating to land area and processes being examined. I decided to use the highest resolution data available for my project
for several reasons including expected benefit from using processed LIDAR returns and potential to better show real
topographic features within low relief landscapes of the coastal plain. But, a research paper reviewed during GIS 521 did
note that more artificial depressions tend to be generated at higher resolutions due in part to the larger part that small
vertical error plays on low landscape positions (Zandbergen, 2006). The paper also suggests a larger grid size may be
better in some cases because there were fewer false features derived on the landscape in terms of surface and volume
area. However, I felt that the newer LIDAR data was better than contour derived DEMs from older USGS data in our
area because I wanted to try to more correctly model natural flats and low areas that coarser resolution levels can
resample out of existence.

Once I selected the DEM dataset to use I then had to determine further raw DEM preprocessing methods, thresholds for
flow accumulation before going any further with my analysis. Constraints on time and computer processing power were
the biggest limiting factors and challenges that influenced my research project and results. I attempted to use several
DEM pre-processing methods in Whitebox GAT Version 3.2.1 including “Breach Depressions” and “Fill Depressions” for
initially filling the raw combined NED 3-meter DEM but had multiple memory overflow failures or timeouts. As a
consequence I focused my efforts on the ArcHydro Method (D8) because it worked correctly within the amount of time I
had for the project.

The overall process began with downloading the appropriate 3 m x 3 m NED DEM tiles from the USDA NRCS Geospatial
Gateway, combining them into 1 large mosaic image, then clipping them to a smaller size that would not overwhelm the
computer I was using while still keeping an adequate area to allow for proper evaluation. I used ArcGIS Desktop Version
10.2.2 Advanced with ArcHydro Version 10.2.0.85 on a 4 Year Old Windows 7 HP Desktop with an AMD Athlon II 630

Page 3 of 21
Quad-Core Processor with 6 gigs of System Memory and a 1 Terabyte Hard Drive. I then burned in larger river features
and leveled lakes and ponds prior to using ArcHydro to fill the DEM mosaic. The resulting filled DEM was filled one more
time and then processed using the standard ArcHydro workflow (ESRI, 2011). Several stream initiation thresholds were
used and evaluated by overlaying the created stream network over 2012 high resolution true color aerial photography.
Several iterations yielded the following thresholds which were used in this study.

Table 1: Stream Initiation Thresholds

Stream Initiation Thresholds

Flow Accumulation (# Associated Area
Type Assigned Code #
3x3 m Cells) (ha)
Ephemeral 40,000 36 1
Intermittent 101,000 91 2
Perennial 244,000 220 3

The stream network was then further processed to yield a network “coded” with each segment being one of the type
shown in Figure 1, using the “Erase” tool in Arc Toolbox. After base analysis and processing an outlet point was then
selected near the mouth of the Cashie River for which the rest of the analysis was based. All other base data layers were
then clipped to the extent of the created watershed including C-CAP 2010 land cover, SSURGO soils and the processed
DEM. Slope was derived using the Spatial Analyst Extension in percent slope. NRCS soils data was processed to include
site index for loblolly pine, drainage class, flooding class and hydric soil classification using table joins and intersections
from data created by the SSURGO Soil Data Viewer Tool Version 6.1. The created stream network was then buffered by
using the Euclidean Distance Tool for later use in the analysis project.

I chose to use the C-CAP 2010 Land Cover Classification data for my project extent – which is an enhanced/more current
version of the 2006 National Land Cover Data. The “Extract by Attributes” tool was used to pull particular classifications
out of the dataset to be used for weighted overlay analysis.

Table 2: Forest Land Cover Classes

2010 C-CAP Land Cover Classification Extracts: Forests
Associated Area
Type Grid Code #
(ha)
Grassland/Herbaceous 8 4,826
Deciduous Forest 9 3,665
Evergreen Forest 10 16,476
Mixed Forest 11 1,725
Scrub/Shrub 12 16,120
Palustrine Forested Wetland 13 14,464

Table 3: Agricultural Land Cover Classes

2010 C-CAP Land Cover Classification Extracts: Agricultural Lands
Associated Area
Type Grid Code #
(ha)
Cultivated Crops 6 12,330
Pasture/Hay 7 2,276

Page 4 of 21
For weighted overlay analysis I used Bertie County as the output extent to keep consistent with administrative
boundaries (Northampton County is in another district).

I used the inputs shown in Figure 2 to create a “1 by 3 by 1” Weighted Overlay Analysis for the creation of a “Riparian
Area” raster output. Soils information was based on NRCS County Soil Survey data (SSURGO tables) by soil series, 38
series in the project area. The purpose of this output is to generate a layer to be used to help staff when developing
management plans or when prioritizing what harvest sites to visit.

Figure 2: Riparian Area Analysis Process

Soils None = 1
Flooding Rare = 2
Frequency Frequent = 3

Soils Well to Somewhat Poorly = 1

Drainage Poorly = 2
Class Very Poorly = 3

Weight %:
≥ 100 Meters = 1 Flood Code = 5%
Stream Riparian
30 – 100 Meters = 2 Drain Code = 15%
Euclidean Area Raster
0 - 30 Meters = 3 Stream Dist. = 40%
Distance Output
Land Cover = 30%
Slope Code = 10%

(Grid Code #’s)

Land Cover #10 & 12 = 1
Types #8, 9, 11 = 2
# 13 = 3

≥8%=1
% Slope 2-8 % = 2
0-2 % = 3

I used the inputs shown in Figure 3 to create a “1 by 3 by 1” Weighted Overlay Analysis for the creation of a “Forest
Restoration Area” raster output. Soils information was based on NRCS County Soil Survey data (SSURGO tables)
intersected with the “agricultural” lands. The Site Index value was for loblolly pine at a base age of 50 – loblolly pine
being used as a good rule of thumb for site quality related to tree planting for most coastal flatwoods species (not
flooded swamp). The target for this output being a raster showing agricultural land that could be taken out of
production reducing sedimentation and rutting with the goal of improving water quality, while still being productive

Page 5 of 21
financially through fiber & log production. Emphasis being agricultural land with slope, poor drainage and close
proximity to stream features.

Figure 3: Forest Restoration Analysis Process

Stream 250 - 1,000 m = 1

Distance 100 - 250 m = 2
0 - 100 m = 3

Agricultural Well to Somewhat Poorly = 1

Land Cover Poorly = 2
Drainage Very Poorly = 3
Class
Weight %:
Forest
Stream Distance = 25% Restoration
Drainage Class = 25% Target
Soil ≤80 = 1 SI Code = 20% Areas
Suitability 80 – 90 = 2 Slope Code = 30%
(SI) ≥ 90 = 3

0-5%=1
% Slope 5 - 10 % = 2
≥ 10 % = 3

Results

The 3 Meter NED downloaded through USDA Geospatial Data Portal provided for an easily obtained complete
coverage for Bertie County (see Map 1) using NC Flood Mapping Program data from 2003 – based on metadata
downloaded from the NED website. I was able to generate a filled DEM and subsequent data and map products to help
me answer the questions posed earlier. The created stream network using the thresholds discussed earlier produced the
following statistics and are also shown on Map 1, 2 and 3 below for comparison with the NHD network.

Table 4: Derived Stream Outputs

Derived Stream Outputs

Type # of Segments Total Length (m)
Ephemeral 612 394,538
Intermittent 240 208,715
Perennial 185 392,184
Total: 1,037 995,437
Page 6 of 21
 Map 1: Project Extent shown in Black Outline

The following table and images show the differences in stream networks in both length and location. The larger order
sections are very similar while the smaller order streams do show differences. The graphic below shows the created
hydro network.
Graphic 1: Network Snip

Page 7 of 21
 Table 5: NHD Stream Layer Summary
NHD Stream Layer Summary
Type # of Segments Total Length (m)
All in Clipped Watershed 840 607,369
Map 2: Comparison of the NHD and Created Stream network

Map 3: NHD Flowlines

The resulting created stream network

appears to more closely mimic actual
drainage patterns in the landscape. This
general observation comes from viewing the
stream network over recent high resolution
aerial photography where harvest Stream
Side Management Zones have been left
(SMZ’s).

Page 8 of 21
 Map 3: Stream Segmentation of Derived Network

The weighted overlay to create a raster output of potential riparian areas within the watershed were based on best-
guess local knowledge using the following data: CCAP 2010 Land Cover, NRCS Soil Series Polygons with Characteristics,
Derived Slope and Created Stream Network. Supporting map outputs of the land cover classification extracts and soils
overlay are in the appendix.

This raster output was targeted for forest cover types within the calculated watershed. The data output seems
reasonable based on the summary table and actual locations on the landscape. The end result providing a more
quantifiable expression of where and how much riparian forest areas are within the research area.

Table 6: Weighted Overlay Output (Riparian Forest Areas)

Riparian Area Output: Forest Cover Types

Expectation of
Area (ha) % of Total Forest Area
Occurrence
Low (1) 29,349 51.3%
Medium( (2) 24,226 42.4%
High (3) 3,618 6.3%
Page 9 of 21
 Map 4: Weighted Overlay Raster – Likely Riparian Areas within Forest Classified Areas

The next weighted overlay output builds further upon the created hydro network. The output being both numerical and
visual allowing for staff to better help guide agricultural landowners with forest restoration decisions. As with the
Riparian Area calculations, the thresholds were determined from best-guess local knowledge and general forestry
principles on water quality, forest economics and tree growth. It is imperative to be able to grow a financially
productive stand of timber while also promoting and protecting the natural resources of the area to make non-cost-
share driven restoration possible of agricultural lands. The output gives staff a clearer picture of potential restoration
target areas, with a scientifically based approach.

Table 7: Weighted Overlay Output (Forest Restoration Target Areas)

Forest Restoration Target Areas: Agricultural Lands

Target Rankings Area (ha) % of Total "Ag" Area

Low (1) 11,117 76.8%

Medium( (2) 3,334 23.0%
High (3) 25 0.2%
Page 10 of 21
 Map 5: Weighted Overlay Output (Forest Restoration Target Areas)

The final question that I wanted to answer during this project related to the location and general statistics of the derived
catchments for my study area. I wanted to provide staff with a way to show landowners and local decision makers
where the water actually goes (figuratively) when it leaves their property. More often than not people are disconnected
from the larger picture and do not see the interconnected nature of a potential sedimentation problem or other water
quality related issue.
Table 8: Catchment Statistics

Created Catchment Statistics

# of Catchments Mean Area (ha) Total Watershed Area (ha)

185 427 78,982

Continue to Next Page

Page 11 of 21
 Map 6: Catchments within the Cashie River Research Area

Discussion

This research project was developed to help local forestry staff better answer questions relating to quantifying
the “where” and “how much” of the water resources within the Cashie River watershed. The project used processes
outlined in ArcHydro literature to take raw bare earth digital elevation models and build an entire series of data sets
from these. I was able to use some of the newest data available from the Coastal Change Analysis Program relating to
land cover (2010), 3-Meter resolution DEMs from the NED using NC Flood mapping LIDAR data, and NRCS SSURGO 2.2
soils data for the area of interest. I believe that the digital and numerical outputs enhance, but don’t replace, what is
already in place and helps generate further thought at the local level about water quality. The generated stream
network is far from perfect but does give staff a better snapshot of where headwater (meaning ephemeral and
intermittent) drainage confluences may occur. These data can then be used to guide landowner recommendations and
work scheduling of compliance checks during times of high fire danger when finding adequate time for water quality
inspections is hard to do.

Future research I would like to carry out includes fine tuning the stream output layer by reprocessing the accumulation
thresholds and also using other “fill” methods for DEM preprocessing, as well as field checking created “streams”. I

Page 12 of 21
would also like to relate PRISM rainfall data, soil runoff rates based on land use and using stream flow data (if any are
available) do develop a better picture of the watershed.

Bibliography

Robert Bardon, James Jeuck. 2013. Income of North Carolina Timber Harvested and Delivered to Mills. NC Cooperative
Extension Service. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/forestry/pdf/income12.pdf

Colson, Thomas P., et al. "Comparison of stream extraction models using LIDAR DEMs." AWRA SPRING CONFERENCE.
Vol. 4. 2006.

Colson, Thomas; Gregory, James; Dorney, John; Russell, Periann. Topographic and Soil Maps Do Not Accurately Depict
Headwater Stream Networks. National Wetlands Newsletter, Volume 30, Issue 3, p25, May-June 2008.

ESRI, “ArcHydro—Tools and Tutorial Version 2.0,” ESRI, New York, 2011.

Krista L. Jones, Geoffrey C. Poole, Scott J. O'Daniel, Leal A.K. Mertes, Jack A. Stanford. Surface hydrology of low-relief
landscapes: Assessing surface water flow impedance using LIDAR-derived digital elevation models, Remote Sensing of
Environment, Volume 112, Issue 11, 15 November 2008, Pages 4148-4158, ISSN 0034-4257,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.01.024.

U.S. Census Bureau; generated by Jamie Dunbar; using American FactFinder; <http://factfinder2.census.gov>; (14
December 2014)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Bertie County, North Carolina
Version Year 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; generated by Jamie Dunbar; using FIA Forest Inventory Data Online
(FIDO); <apps.fs.fed.us/fia/fido/index.html>. (14 December 2014)

Zandbergen, Paul. The effect of cell resolution on depressions in digital elevation models. Applied GIS, Volume 2,
Number 1, 2006. Pages d4.1 – d4.35.

Continue to Next Page

Page 13 of 21
Appendix

The following graphics and map images show the processing steps used and intermediate inputs and outputs
used for the weighted overlay process.

Graphic 2: Workflow for DEM Processing and Hydro Network Creation

Continue to Next Page

Page 14 of 21
 Graphic 3: Workflow for Riparian Area Processing

Graphic 4: Workflow for Forest Restoration Analysis

Page 15 of 21
 Map 7: NRCS Soil Series

Continue to Next Page

Page 16 of 21
Map 8: C-CAP Land Cover 2010 Data

Page 17 of 21
Continue to Next Page

Map 9: Extracted Forest Land Area

Continue to Next Page

Page 18 of 21
Map 10: Extracted Agricultural Land Area

Page 19 of 21
Continue to Next Page

Map 11: Vicinity Map showing Downloaded DEM Tiles

Page 20 of 21
Continue to Next Page

Map 12: Slope Map (%) of Research Area

Page 21 of 21