Ongoing advancements in geospatial data collection has drastically increased the amount of hydrologic/environmental data available. Parallel development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and web-based data acquisition from big data repositories provides modelers with an unprecedented opportunity to integrate data collected from various sources (e.g., traditional hydrogeological field studies, remote sensing products, etc.) within a common spatial framework. Table 2 presents examples various types of big datasets related to hydrological modeling, including: Digital Elevation Models (DEIMS); climate forcing data (e.g., precipitation or air temperature); hydrography (lakes, streams, watersheds), and groundwater level and lithology records from massive water well datasets.
Generally speaking, the various big datasets can be categorized as 1) remote sensing products (e.g., DEMs, hydrography, land use/land cover, or even GRACE land water storage and MODIS evapotranspiration estimates), which tend to provide seamless spatial information with excellent spatial coverage but varying degrees of quality; 2) in-situ sensors and field instrumentation (monitoring wells, stream gages, etc.), which provide accurate historical and present-day observations needed for modeling and analysis but are scattered across distinct locations; and 3) high-density compilations of point-base information (water quality and water level measurements, borehole lithology, etc.), which often provide excellent spatial coverage but are noisy (i.e., they have significant sources of error and uncertainty that should be addressed); and 4) data layers of landscape characteristics (e.g., soil type and permeability maps, aquifer extents and landforms, etc.) derived from various sources of traditional or site-specific local data, which offer statewide/provincial, national or even global spatial coverage, but may be of provide little information for local studies because of low quality/resolution or incompleteness (spatial ‘gaps’ or clearly wrong estimates based on limited input data).
Problem: Use MAGNET to explore and experiment. For a specific watershed, or site determine what is the most important dataset that controls prevailing patterns of natural groundwater systems.
Table: Example big datasets useful for modeling watershed water systems. *MWs = monitoring wells, SW=surface water
Parameter /
Data Type
|
Example Dataset,
Source
|
Spatial Coverage
|
Resolution / Sizes / # of Samples
|
Digital Elevation Models
|
National Elevation Dataset, NED USGS (2006)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
30, 10 m
|
LiDAR-based
(various sources – see discussion)
|
Statewide / Local
|
3, 1, <1 m
|
ASTER Global DEM, NASA LP DAAC (2015)
|
Global
|
90 m
|
Lakes / Wetlands
|
National Hydrography Dataset, NHD USGS (2010)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
Size 1 (< 3,000 m2) - Size 5 (> 500,000 m2)
|
HydroLAKES,
Messager et al. (2016)
|
Global
|
>10,000 m2
|
Streams / Rivers
|
NHD USGS (2010)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
Order 1 (small) – Order 10 (large)
|
Watersheds
|
NHD USGS (2010)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
2 digit (large) - 12 digit (small)
|
HydoBASINS, Lehner (2013)
|
Global
|
> 100 km2
|
Static Water Levels (SWLs)
|
Wellogic (MDEQ)
WIZARD (KGS 2002)
Geosam (IGS)
|
Statewide
|
~600,000 wells
|
Surficial geology, depths, aquifers
|
ORNL DAAC Soil Collections archive, Pelletier et al. (2016)
|
Global
|
1 km
|
Shangguan et al. (2016)
|
Global
|
250 m (depth only)
|
Lithology
|
GLiM, Hartmann
and Moosdorf (2012)
|
Global
|
> 1.2 million polygons
|
GWIM, State of
Michigan (2006)
|
Michigan
|
≈500 million data points
|
Bedrock geology, depths, aquifers
|
GWIM, State of
Michigan (2006),
Pelletier et al. (2016)
|
Michigan
Global
|
500 m
1000m
|
Permeability / Conductivity
|
GLJYMPS, Huscroft et al. (2018) and Gleeson et al. (2011)
|
Global
|
10 km
(sediment layers)
|
Climate Data
|
PRISM Climate Group, PRISM (2004)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
8000 m (Daily/Monthly), 400 m (35-year Normal)
|
Land Use /
Land cover
|
USGS LULC Dataset
(Fry et al. 2011)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
30 m
|
Soil Type / Root Zone Depth
|
USDA SSURGO,
SSS NRCS (2016)
|
National (U.S.A)
|
60 m
|
Harmonized World Soil Database, Fischer et al. (2008)
|
Global
|
1 km
|
Recharge
|
NHDPlus,
Wieczorek and LaMotte (2010), Reitz et al. (2017)
WHYMAP, Richts et al. (2011)
|
National (U.S.A)
Global
|
1 km Mean Annual ε, 800 m Mean Annual ε
1:25000000 equivalent scale
|
ET
|
MODIS, ORNL DAAC (2018)
|
Global
|
1 km2 at 8-day, monthly, annual intervals
|
Groundwater storage
|
GRACE, Swenson (2012)
|
Global
|
100 km, monthly
|
Sensor Data (MWs and SW*)
|
USGS Water Data, USGS (2016).
|
National (U.S.A)
|
Variable spatial density and temporal coverage
|
Freshwater quality
|
WaterBase, EEA (2014)
WaterCHEM, MDEQ (2010)
|
Continental (Europe)
Michigan
|
17,160 point measurements (SW)
>1 M point measurements (GW)
|
Figure: The map shows the network of streams and rivers in the 48 contiguous states of the US. The largest, shown in pink, reveals basins for the Mississippi, Missouri, and Arkansas rivers. Other basins, including Pacific Northwest, Upper and Lower Colorado, and Great Lakes are shown. Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/N4cUA
Figure: Watershed maps, showing the flow of tributary streams into main rivers, and of those water courses into the sea (or final destinations inland). The streams are shown in the Strahler Stream Order Classification, which uses width to indicate the hierarchy of streams. Watersheds (a.k.a. drainage basins or catchment areas) are grouped together by color. Source: https://www.grasshoppergeography.com/