Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

ENCE635, Final Project: General Procedure Description

A brief description of the analysis steps you used to create the results in your
PPT and the complete table (number 2 below).

1. I used the tool ModelBuilder to create a model that automatizes the watershed
delineation process for my two watersheds (See Fig.1 below). My model also
included the masking process for the different NLCD rasters (imperviousness,
canopy, and land cover).

Fig. 1. ModelBuilder Diagram developed for watershed delineation and masking.

Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

2. Drainage Area Comparison: GIS Derivated vs USGS

• For the GIS Derivated Area: I obtained the number of pixels for each watershed
and multiplied them by the pixel area in sq miles.
• I compared the results with the watershed information in the USGS website.
• My GIS Derivated drainage area matched the results from the USGS website.

3. Canopy Cover, Urban Imperviousness, Land Cover Type Timelines

• For Urban Imperviousness

o I exported the data from the Attribute Table to Excel. This data contained
the number of pixels (COUNT) per each percentual category (VALUE).
o I multiplied the values described above in order to obtain the
Imperviousness Area per percentual category for each watershed.
o I was able to estimate the Avg Urban Imperviosness (%) for the years of
2001, 2006 2011, and 2016. I plotted them in a timeline for comparison.

∑(𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏 𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 ∗ (𝟎𝟎%, 𝟏𝟏% … 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗%)

𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏 𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄
𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨. 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 (%) =
𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨

• For Canopy Cover:

o Same steps than Urban Imperviousness. Except that I was just able to
estimate years 2011 and 2016.
• For Land Cover Type:
o The land cover type process was quite different since this NLCD product
is not composed by porcentual categories (0 to 100%) as the Canopy and
Urban Imperviousness. The Land cover product is composed by land type
categories; therefore the process is simplified.
o I selected the 4 largest land cover types and plotted them in a timeline.

𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 𝒐𝒐𝒐𝒐 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷

𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 (%) =
𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾𝑾 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨

4. Land Cover Change Rasters:

o I converted the raster to points to see the pixel-to-pixel Land Cover values.
o In Excel I created a particular code to reflect the land cover change (or not) in
a different class. (See Fig.2 below).
Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

Fig. 2. Land cover change estimation (Spreadsheet)

o I used the unique code described above to categorize my table based on the
NLCD land cover change types legend described in (Homer et al., 2020). See Fig
3.

Fig. 3. NLCD Land Cover Change Types Legend

Source: Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Jin, S., Xian, G., Costello, C., Danielson, P., Gass, L., Funk, M., Wickham, J.,
& Stehman, S. (2020). Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the
2016 National Land Cover Database. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 162, 184–
199.

o I brought back my new table from Excel to ArcGis and created a join based on the unique code
for each point.
o I reconverted the points into a raster. I modify the Simbology to display my new NLCD Land
Cover Change Types category.
Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

2. For each watershed, a complete table of land cover change, using the NLCD
categories, from 2001 to 2016. "From" category, "To" category, Pixel count,
Acreage.

2.1. Sope Creek Watershed

Did
Value
change
from
2001 to NLCD Land Cover Change
Rowid VALUE COUNT Area (Acre) Percentage 2016? Category
0 11 398 88.51 0.45% NO no-change
1 21 31528 7011.67 35.65% NO no-change
2 22 22086 4911.82 24.97% NO no-change
3 23 6389 1420.88 7.22% NO no-change
4 24 3776 839.76 4.27% NO no-change
5 31 38 8.45 0.04% NO no-change
6 41 7097 1578.34 8.02% NO no-change
7 42 6821 1516.96 7.71% NO no-change
8 43 4796 1066.61 5.42% NO no-change
9 52 9 2.00 0.01% NO no-change
10 71 106 23.57 0.12% NO no-change
11 81 713 158.57 0.81% NO no-change
12 90 313 69.61 0.35% NO no-change
13 1121 5 1.11 0.01% YES water change
14 1122 10 2.22 0.01% YES water change
15 1123 2 0.44 0.00% YES water change
16 1124 1 0.22 0.00% YES water change
17 1131 3 0.67 0.00% YES water change
18 1141 1 0.22 0.00% YES water change
19 1142 3 0.67 0.00% YES water change
20 2122 203 45.15 0.23% YES urban change
21 2123 651 144.78 0.74% YES urban change
22 2124 96 21.35 0.11% YES urban change
23 2223 209 46.48 0.24% YES urban change
24 2224 172 38.25 0.19% YES urban change
25 2324 10 2.22 0.01% YES urban change
26 3121 27 6.00 0.03% YES barren change
27 3122 41 9.12 0.05% YES barren change
28 3123 76 16.90 0.09% YES barren change
29 3124 16 3.56 0.02% YES barren change
30 3141 1 0.22 0.00% YES barren change
31 4121 509 113.20 0.58% YES forest-theme change
32 4122 291 64.72 0.33% YES forest-theme change
Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

33 4123 191 42.48 0.22% YES forest-theme change

34 4124 24 5.34 0.03% YES forest-theme change
35 4131 1 0.22 0.00% YES forest-theme change
36 4142 7 1.56 0.01% YES forest-theme change
37 4143 3 0.67 0.00% YES forest-theme change
38 4152 5 1.11 0.01% YES forest-theme change
39 4171 38 8.45 0.04% YES forest-theme change
40 4181 1 0.22 0.00% YES forest-theme change
41 4221 385 85.62 0.44% YES forest-theme change
42 4222 464 103.19 0.52% YES forest-theme change
43 4223 337 74.95 0.38% YES forest-theme change
44 4224 73 16.23 0.08% YES forest-theme change
45 4231 1 0.22 0.00% YES forest-theme change
46 4241 16 3.56 0.02% YES forest-theme change
47 4243 6 1.33 0.01% YES forest-theme change
48 4252 2 0.44 0.00% YES forest-theme change
49 4271 84 18.68 0.09% YES forest-theme change
50 4281 3 0.67 0.00% YES forest-theme change
51 4321 31 6.89 0.04% YES forest-theme change
52 4322 20 4.45 0.02% YES forest-theme change
53 4323 13 2.89 0.01% YES forest-theme change
54 4324 2 0.44 0.00% YES forest-theme change
55 4342 1 0.22 0.00% YES forest-theme change
56 4371 2 0.44 0.00% YES forest-theme change
rangeland grass and shrub
57 7121 22 4.89 0.02% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
58 7122 19 4.23 0.02% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
59 7123 19 4.23 0.02% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
60 7124 37 8.23 0.04% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
61 7141 4 0.89 0.00% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
62 7142 1 0.22 0.00% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
63 7143 1 0.22 0.00% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
64 7152 11 2.45 0.01% YES change
65 8121 65 14.46 0.07% YES hay/pasture change
66 8122 57 12.68 0.06% YES hay/pasture change
67 8123 61 13.57 0.07% YES hay/pasture change
68 8124 20 4.45 0.02% YES hay/pasture change
69 8143 1 0.22 0.00% YES hay/pasture change
Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

70 8171 13 2.89 0.01% YES hay/pasture change

71 9021 2 0.44 0.00% YES woody wetland change
Sum 19668.61 100.00%

2.1. Nancy Creek Watershed

Did
Value
chang
e from
2001
Area to NLCD Land Cover Change
Rowid VALUE COUNT (acre) Percentage 2016? Category
0 11 659 7249 0.05% NO no-change
1 21 22999 482979 3.43% NO no-change
2 22 17264 379808 2.70% NO no-change
3 23 10708 246284 1.75% NO no-change
4 24 7071 169704 1.20% NO no-change
5 31 239 7409 0.05% NO no-change
6 41 3607 147887 1.05% NO no-change
7 42 5242 220164 1.56% NO no-change
8 43 4456 191608 1.36% NO no-change
9 52 13 676 0.00% NO no-change
10 71 36 2556 0.02% NO no-change
11 81 213 17253 0.12% NO no-change
12 90 205 18450 0.13% NO no-change
13 1121 13 14573 0.10% YES water change
14 1122 2 2244 0.02% YES water change
15 1123 3 3369 0.02% YES water change
16 1124 3 3372 0.02% YES water change
17 1131 2 2262 0.02% YES water change
18 1141 3 3423 0.02% YES water change
19 1142 1 1142 0.01% YES water change
20 2122 267 566574 4.02% YES urban change
21 2123 823 1747229 12.40% YES urban change
22 2124 165 350460 2.49% YES urban change
23 2223 348 773604 5.49% YES urban change
24 2224 392 871808 6.19% YES urban change
25 2324 61 141764 1.01% YES urban change
26 3111 1 3111 0.02% YES barren change
27 3121 80 249680 1.77% YES barren change
28 3122 54 168588 1.20% YES barren change
Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

29 3123 126 393498 2.79% YES barren change

30 3124 54 168696 1.20% YES barren change
31 3142 2 6284 0.04% YES barren change
32 4111 5 20555 0.15% YES forest-theme change
33 4121 245 1009645 7.17% YES forest-theme change
34 4122 160 659520 4.68% YES forest-theme change
35 4123 134 552482 3.92% YES forest-theme change
36 4124 25 103100 0.73% YES forest-theme change
37 4131 3 12393 0.09% YES forest-theme change
38 4142 7 28994 0.21% YES forest-theme change
39 4152 16 66432 0.47% YES forest-theme change
40 4171 66 275286 1.95% YES forest-theme change
41 4181 1 4181 0.03% YES forest-theme change
42 4195 2 8390 0.06% YES forest-theme change
43 4211 1 4211 0.03% YES forest-theme change
44 4221 195 823095 5.84% YES forest-theme change
45 4222 128 540416 3.84% YES forest-theme change
46 4223 82 346286 2.46% YES forest-theme change
47 4224 15 63360 0.45% YES forest-theme change
48 4231 1 4231 0.03% YES forest-theme change
49 4241 1 4241 0.03% YES forest-theme change
50 4243 9 38187 0.27% YES forest-theme change
51 4252 5 21260 0.15% YES forest-theme change
52 4271 71 303241 2.15% YES forest-theme change
53 4321 33 142593 1.01% YES forest-theme change
54 4322 26 112372 0.80% YES forest-theme change
55 4323 18 77814 0.55% YES forest-theme change
56 4341 1 4341 0.03% YES forest-theme change
57 4371 7 30597 0.22% YES forest-theme change
rangeland grass and shrub
58 5221 6 31326 0.22% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
59 5222 3 15666 0.11% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
60 5242 6 31452 0.22% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
61 7111 1 7111 0.05% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
62 7121 16 113936 0.81% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
63 7122 9 64098 0.45% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
64 7123 17 121091 0.86% YES change
Sergio García ENCE635 University of Maryland

rangeland grass and shrub

65 7124 4 28496 0.20% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
66 7141 14 99974 0.71% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
67 7142 5 35710 0.25% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
68 7143 1 7143 0.05% YES change
rangeland grass and shrub
69 7181 2 14362 0.10% YES change
70 8121 25 203025 1.44% YES hay/pasture change
71 8122 16 129952 0.92% YES hay/pasture change
72 8123 44 357412 2.54% YES hay/pasture change
73 8124 11 89364 0.63% YES hay/pasture change
74 8171 2 16342 0.12% YES hay/pasture change
75 9021 1 9021 0.06% YES woody wetland change
76 9095 9 81855 0.58% YES woody wetland change
77 9581 1 9581 0.07% YES herbacious wetland change
1408784
8 100.00%

3. A statement that you did all the work yourself (obtaining data from the respective web
sites, analyzing data with ArcGIS and other tools, and writing explanations).
Acknowledge any help/advice that you received from classmates. It would also be
helpful to me if you describe help that you provided to classmates.

STATEMENT:

I did all the work by myself. I did not ask for help to any classmate.

Help that I provided to classmates

My classmate Mani asked for advice on how to solve a small watershed delineation
obstacle related to the “pour point field” in the “Watershed” tool. I considered Mani’s
question as general ArcMap knowledge that was not totally related with the analytical part
of the Final Project. I texted Mani and advised him to be sure that his watershed pour
point field has a different value than “zero”. That was all the help I provided to him. After
this, I did not have more communication with Mani or other classmates.