Rationales for a reference GIS for Hydrosystems. The ECRINS development
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 22

Philippe Crouzet EEA With support from Walter Simonazzi (ETC/LUSI) and EEA IDS staff PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Rationales for a reference GIS for Hydrosystems. The ECRINS development E uropean C atchments and RI vers N etwork S ystem. Philippe Crouzet EEA With support from Walter Simonazzi (ETC/LUSI) and EEA IDS staff.

Download Presentation

Philippe Crouzet EEA With support from Walter Simonazzi (ETC/LUSI) and EEA IDS staff

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Philippe crouzet eea with support from walter simonazzi etc lusi and eea ids staff

Rationales for a reference GIS for Hydrosystems. The ECRINS developmentEuropean Catchments and RIvers Network System

Philippe Crouzet EEA

With support from Walter Simonazzi (ETC/LUSI) and EEA IDS staff


Philippe crouzet eea with support from walter simonazzi etc lusi and eea ids staff

  • Reference GIS for hydrosystems is prerequisite to producing accurate and representative assessments as well as offering host to legal reporting.

  • To this end, and considering the strong relationships between land, water and economy the system must consist in:

    • Calculable and nested catchments.

    • Drained by relevant, nested and routed rivers,

    • Completed by standing bodies (lakes, dams),

    • Related to monitoring and usage points

  • However rivers lakes, dams and points are geographical objects than can be seen, whereas catchments are concepts that need to be modelled.


River fragmentation sebi component the loire example all known dams

River fragmentation (SEBI component): The Loire example (all known dams)

  • Historical development

  • Why not applying at the EU level?

  • Model exists and is validated,

  • Dams are placed (Eldred2)

  • Because no calculable river system!


Philippe crouzet eea with support from walter simonazzi etc lusi and eea ids staff

WWTP

Sea

Dam

River

Watershed land


Production starts from reality e g rivers from maps

Production starts from reality, e.g. rivers from maps

  • What geographers see and draw is not what is needed for building reference system. Requirements are to:

  • Clarify conceptual model, mitigated by data source affordability

  • Identify objects: give usable and unique IDs

  • Group by logical consistency: set watersheds

  • Select what is important: choose homogeneous levels,

  • Relate what relates to what: connect,

  • Organise dependencies: route

  • Make it understandable and improvable: document


Conceptual modelling

Conceptual modelling

  • Goals:

    • Geometrical accuracy, homogeneous and comprehensive coverage,

    • Complete topology

    • “doable” with existing data sets and free of charges

    • Stepwise model development (foreseeing Inspire implementation)

  • Designed solution

    • Operational scale 1/250k

    • Based on “functional units”: the Functional elementary catchment (FEC)

    • Made from CCM JRC, by post-processing and assimilation of other sources (ERM, Eldred32, etc.)


Concepts and production method data source selection

Concepts and production method: data source selection


Solving ccm intrinsic problems

Solving CCM intrinsic problems

  • CCM is a modelled catchment and network system:

    • Smallest objects possibly inaccurate because DEM resolution and ArcHydro model,

    • Being a model, it is fully connected and calculable, but objects are defined by the model, not by the envisaged uses

    • Being a model it lack gazetting

  • Being calculable, it can be improved by data processing, provided solutions are defined and implemented and recomputed in an improvement cycle

  • Completely free of charges


Solving river basin districts oddness

Solving River Basin Districts oddness

  • Districts are administrative management areas presented as if they were river basins. When used to build a river system

    • They extend over sea,

    • They don’t respect basin watershed

    • They show large “holes” (corrected in further versions)

  • Hence, adjustments are needed-> Functional RBDs


Building the fecs

Building the FECS

  • Elementary CCM catchments are very small, numerous (~2 millions), and not directly usable because the large range of sizes (few ha to 100’s km2)

  • FEC making consisted in implementing rules of aggregation into:

    • Coastal basins and

    • Continental FECS

  • by building and populating adequate envelopes: the algorithm is based on Strahler levels, cumulated size, presence of basins and scoring criteria inside larger catchments

  • Both are then merged into a FEC layer


Aggregation watershedss

Clipped (limited by shoreline) international RBDs

The Functional RBDs contain the large basins

Large basins (the FEC largest envelopes)

Aggregation watershedss

  • Compute  ”Functional RBDs” from the reported RBDs:

    • Collection of FECS belonging to homogeneous basins inside the RBD

    • Difficult process because high heterogeneity of RBD delineations

  • Sub-units not ready enough yet

  • Sub-catchments made to match Functional RBDs where RBDs exist


Aggregation watersheds

Sub-basins (largest aggregation catchments)

FRBDs reported in violet.

Target 10,000 km2, 1470 objects

Aggregation watersheds

  • Target is to cluster FEC (mean size ~100km2) into larger watersheds (~10,000 to 35,000 km2 for example)

    • Being fully consistent with larges basins AND RBDs,

    • Having hydrological relevance

    • Which design and production are affordable

  • Design algorithm derived from FEC envelopes making, adjusted:

    • No natural envelopes,

    • Larger target size makes results more sensitive to tuning


Lakes and dams

Types of relationships exemplified: lake on the main drain, lake out of main drain, endoreic lake

Lakes and dams

  • Lakes pose serious problems because not linked to the rivers or the watersheds:

    • CCM source quite homogeneous, locally inaccurate

    • ERM source extremely heterogeneous and incomplete

  • A single data set created (~180,000 lakes) by merging and connecting to the outlet river

  • Experience suggests high difficulty in relating lakes and rivers by nodes, because conflicts between topology and geometry. River segment preferred since more operational.


Philippe crouzet eea with support from walter simonazzi etc lusi and eea ids staff

Dams

  • Data sources:

    • No CCM data source,

    • ERM source heterogeneity beyond imagination and not documented (only point / multi line, no ID, no name, etc.)

    • Eldred2 data source only for large dams, not totally geolocalised.

  • Very complex processing carried out to sort out ERM dams into a single feature class and merging with Eldred (with priority to Eldred2)

    • Available end May

    • With WFD reporting, source for lake documentation


Documenting and data

Documenting and data

  • Documents are issued with β versions of datasets

    • Report on the principles and the making of FECS, disseminated with FECs v2 β,

    • Report on the main drains disseminated with main drains v1 β

    • Report on aggregation catchments done

    • Report on lakes and dams under preparation

  • Disseminated data bases:

    • CCM Source is 18 databases for catchments, 18 for rivers and nodes, 2 summary databases (40 DB) that require 96 intermediate processing databases (reallocated, export, result and service) plus application.

    • ERM source is 2 lakes layer, 4 for dams, 2 for rivers

    • Eldred2 unique source

    • Results are in 1 database for FECs, 1 for river and nodes and 1 summary (Functional RBDs, aggregation catchments, etc), 1 for lakes and 1 for obstacles (possibly merged if possible), in CIRCA (IG: Water accounts and river fragmentation).


Achievement 16 05 2009

Achievement (16 /05/2009)


Perspectives

Perspectives

  • The β versions are under processing for making the « broad-brush » water accounts,

  • Sorting out the whole set of rivers by FEC minus main drain is data source for « Small rivers » assessment,

  • FECs connectivity and main routing is data source for stratified assessment of water quality, etc.


Immediate applications

Immediate applications

  • WFD “main rivers” are defined as those draining more than 500 km2 (or any other combination).

  • The response is instantaneous:

    • And can be use as selection mask to extract data from other layers, if greater precision is required, or complementary attributes


Applications for the next soer 2010

Applications for the next SoER 2010

  • Populating data

    • Population per catchment / per cities withinn catchments

    • ECVs per catchment (done for summary data ATEAM), on going for MARS data)

  • Applications

    • Water asset accounts / water balances underway

    • Catchment stratification by drivers, altitude, etc. possible -> assessing water quality trends vs. drivers underway, (cf. 2007 methodology)

    • River fragmentation by dams underway for amphibiotic (SEBI, liaising with hydropower)

    • Small rivers issue: risks of dry-out

    • Support for WFD reporting: underway


Envisaged developments

Envisaged developments

  • Currently:

    • Seek for minor errors correction, and process a β3 version end 2009

    • Correct errors related to CCM model (e.g. karstic areas)

  • Planned

    • Integrate WFD reports to feed-back quality and inform on reporting issues

    • Stepwise gazette the rivers names and reprocess routes

    • Prepare a “CCM3” based ECRINS2 in 2011, with systematic input from geographical data at the source of hydro modelling


Pending issues aggregation watersheds

Pending issues (aggregation watersheds)

  • When lowering the area target, too large catchments become a problem,

  • “Too large” catchments are those that cannot be exploded by the simple algorithm used (selecting Strahler levels 6/7)

  • Supplementary algorithm to cluster differentially Strahler level 5 in underway.


Thanks for your attention

Thanks for your attention

Data on CIRCA (ask for IG inscription)

mailto:[email protected]


  • Login