1. Copied WAU coverage to project directory and dissolved out WRIA
polygons by WRIA_NR. 2. Overlaid WRIA100K and dissolved WAU coverage to
create discrepancy polygons. 3. Created point discrepancy coverage. 4.
Applied selection criteria (polys > 35 acres, points > 750 feet) to
discrepancy coverages. 5. Intersected 24K quadrangle and
section-township-range coverage with polygon and point discrepancy
coverages. 6. Attached attributes of intersected coverages and performed
ranking procedure to prioritize the results. 7. Mapped each polygon
discrepancy by quadrangle and grouped each map by its associated WRIA
basin. 8. All WRIA maps were assembled into books representing each WRIA
and its discrepancies. 9. Microsoft Access database developed to help
manage and report project data (editing, analysis decisions, comments).
10. Visual analysis of each discrepancy performed using the map books
(stage 1). 11. Additional analysis performed using USGS DRGs at 1:24,000
scale as well as, in house hydrology and administrative boundary data
sets (stage 2). 12. Project edits carried out based on the two stages of
analysis.
The project was revisited in March of 2000 using two additional
methods of analysis. First, the WRIA24K boundaries were overlaid with
statewide 24K scale hydrology coverage to check for stream crossings. A
10 foot buffer was used on either side of the WRIA boundary to limit the
size of the output data set. Stream crossings were then evaluated for
relevance. Additionally, a general overview of the WRIA boundaries as
done by examining each WRIA again the 24K scale USGS DRGs. This was done
as an additional check for unnecessary stream crossings and drainage
errors.
