Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 103, Issue 1–3, pp 59–81 | Cite as

Watershed-Based Survey Designs

  • Naomi E. Detenbeck
  • Dan Cincotta
  • Judith M. Denver
  • Susan K. Greenlee
  • Anthony R. Olsen
  • Ann M. Pitchford


Watershed-based sampling design and assessment tools help serve the multiple goals for water quality monitoring required under the Clean Water Act, including assessment of regional conditions to meet Section 305(b), identification of impaired water bodies or watersheds to meet Section 303(d), and development of empirical relationships between causes or sources of impairment and biological responses. Creation of GIS databases for hydrography, hydrologically corrected digital elevation models, and hydrologic derivatives such as watershed boundaries and upstream–downstream topology of subcatchments would provide a consistent seamless nationwide framework for these designs. The elements of a watershed-based sample framework can be represented either as a continuous infinite set defined by points along a linear stream network, or as a discrete set of watershed polygons. Watershed-based designs can be developed with existing probabilistic survey methods, including the use of unequal probability weighting, stratification, and two-stage frames for sampling. Case studies for monitoring of Atlantic Coastal Plain streams, West Virginia wadeable streams, and coastal Oregon streams illustrate three different approaches for selecting sites for watershed-based survey designs.


delineation probability survey designs watershed classification watersheds 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ator, S.A., Denver, J.M. and Hancock, T.C.: 2000, ‘Relating Shallow Ground-water Quality to Surficial Hydrogeology in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain’, in: Proceedings of the National Water-Qaulity Monitoring Council Conference, 25–27 April 2002, Austin, TX, pp. 409–423.Google Scholar
  2. Ator, S.W., Denver, J.M., Krantz, D.E., Newell, W.L. and Martucci, S.K.: in press, A Surficial Hydrogeologic Framework for the Mid-atlantic Coastal Plain, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1680, U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  3. Ator, S.W., Olson, A.R., Pitchford, A.M. and Denver, J.M.: 2003, ‘Application of a multipurpose unequal-probability stream survey in the mid-atlantic Coastal Plain’, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 39, 873–886.Google Scholar
  4. Bachman, L.J., Lindsey, B., Brakebill, J.W. and Powars, D.S.: 1998, Ground-water Discharge and Base-flow Nitrate Loads to Nontidal Streams, and Their Relation to a Hydrogeomorphic Classification of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Middle Atlantic Coast, U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 98-4059, 71 p.Google Scholar
  5. Berelson, W.L., Caffrey, P.A. and Hamerlinck, J.D.: 2001, ‘Creating Hydrologic Unit Boundaries for Wyoming: A Semi-automated Approach’, Paper 707 in: Proceedings, 2001 ESRI International User’s Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Boward, D.M., Kazyak, P.F., Stranko, S.A., Hurd, M.K. and Prochaska, T.P.: 1999, From the Mountain to the Sea: The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams, EPA 903-R-99-023. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  7. Detenbeck, N.E., Batterman, S.L., Brady, V.J., Brazner, J.C., Snarski, V.M., Taylor, D.L. and Thompson, J.A.: 2000, ‘A test of watershed classification systems for ecological risk assessment’, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19, 1174–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutta, D., Das Gupta, A. and Ramnarong, V.: 1998, ‘Design and optimization of a ground water monitoring system using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis’, Ground Water Monit. Remediat. 18, 139–147.Google Scholar
  9. Franken, S.K., Tyler, D.J. and Verdin, K.L.: 2001, ‘Development of a National Seamless Database of Topography and Hydrologic Derivatives’, Paper 730 in: Proceedings 2001 ESRI International User’s Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Frye, P.M. and Runner, G.S.:1970, A Proposed Streamflow Data Program for West Virginia, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey Water Resources Division, Open-file report, Charleston, WV.Google Scholar
  11. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S. and Rubin, D.B.: 1995, Bayesian Data Analysis, Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Gerhart, J.G., and Brakebill, J.W.: 1996, Design and Implementation of a Sampling Strategy for a Water-quality Assessment of the Potomac River Basin, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4034, 31 p.Google Scholar
  13. Gesch, D., Oimoen, M., Greenlee, S., Nelson, C., Steuck, M. and Tyler, D.: 2002, ‘The national elevation dataset’, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing, 68, 5–11.Google Scholar
  14. Gilliom, R.J., Alley, W.M. and Gurtz, M.E.: 1995, Design of the National Water-quality Assessment Program: Occurrence and Distribution of Water-quality Conditions, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112, 33 p.Google Scholar
  15. Handcock, M.S., Sedransk, J. and Olsen, A.R.: 2002, ‘Statistical Methods for Ecological Assessment of Riverine Systems by Combining Information from Multiple Sources’, in: Proceedings Section on Statistics and the Environment, American Statistical Association, Arlington, VA. 1134–1149.Google Scholar
  16. Herlihy, A.T., Larsen, D.P., Paulsen, S.G., Urquhart, N.S. and Rosenbaum, B.J.: 2000, ‘Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: The EMAP mid-atlantic pilot study’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 63, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hey, D.L. and Wickenkamp, J.A.: 1996, ‘Some hydrologic effects of wetlands in nine watersheds of Southeastern Wisconsin’, Great Lakes Wetlands 7, 4–9.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, R.C. and Grayman, W.M.: 1993, ‘Water-quality modeling with EPA reach file system,’ J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 119, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, R.M. and Larsen, D.P.: 1988, ‘Ecoregions: An approach to surface water protection,’ J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 60, 486–493.Google Scholar
  20. Jennings M.E., Thomas, W.O., Jr. and Riggs, H.C.: 1993, Nationwide Summary of U.S. Geological Survey Regional Regression Equations for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods for Ungaged Sites, Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4002. United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  21. Legleiter, K.J.: 2001, ‘Interagency Development of National Watershed and Subwatershed Hydrologic Units’, Paper 492 in: Proceedings, 2001 ESRI International User’s Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  22. McCormick, F.H., Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Peck, D.V. and Stoddard, J.L.: 2001, ‘Development of an index of biotic integrity for the mid-atlantic highlands region’, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 130, 857–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKay, L., Hanson, S., Horn, S., Dulaney, R., Cahoon, A., Olsen, M. and Dewald, T.: 1994, The US EPA Reach File Version 3.0 Alpha Release – Technical Reference, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council: 2001, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Olsen, A.R., Sedransk, J., Edwards, D., Gotway, C.A., Liggett, W., et al.: 1999, ‘Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 54, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pitchford, A.M., Denver, J.M., Olsen, A.R., Ator, S.W., Cormier, S., Nash, M.S. and Mehaffey, M.H.: 2000, Testing Landscape Indicators for Stream Condition Related to Pesticides and Nutrients – Landscape Indicators for Pesticides Study for Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-00/087. 87 p.Google Scholar
  27. Rea, A.: 2001, ‘Status Report on the National Watershed Boundaries Dataset’, Paper 661 in: Proceedings, 2001 ESRI International User’s Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Richards, R.P.: 1990, ‘Measures of flow variability and a new flow-based classification of Great Lakes Tributaries’, J. Great Lakes Res. 16, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Runner, G.S., 1980: Hydrologic Data for Runoff Studies on Small Drainage Areas, West Virginia Department of Highways, Research Project 16, Open-File Report 80-560, Charleston, WV.Google Scholar
  30. SAS: 1990, SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Vol. 2, GLM-VARCOMP, Version 6, 4th ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  31. Schueler, T.: 1994, ‘The importance of imperviousness’, Watershed Prot. Tech. 1, 100–111.Google Scholar
  32. Scott, A.G.: 1984, Analysis of Characteristics of Simulated Flows from Small Surface-Mined and Undisturbed Appalachian Watersheds in the Tug Fork Basin of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4151.Google Scholar
  33. Stevens, D.L., Jr.: 1997, ‘Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations’, Environmetrics 8, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, D.L., Jr. and Olsen, A.R.: 1999, ‘Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources’, J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 4, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens, D.L., Jr. and Olsen, A.R.: 2003, ‘Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of environmental resources’, Environmetrics 14, 593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strahler, A.N.: 1964, ‘Quantitative Geomorphology of Drainage Basins and Channel Networks’, in: V.T. Chow (ed), Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  37. SYSTAT, 1998: Version 9, SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Tasker, G.D. and Stedinger, J.R.: 1989, ‘An operational Gls model for hydrologic regression’, J. Hydrol. 3, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. USEPA: 1998, National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 822-R-98-002.Google Scholar
  40. USFWS: 1998–92, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) West Virginia, US Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
  41. Verdin, K.L. and Verdin, J.P.: 1999, ‘A topological system for delineation and codification of the earth’s river basins,’ J. Hydrol. 218, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verry, E.S.: 1976, Estimating Water Yield Differences Between Hardwood and Pine Forests: An Application of Net Precipitation Data, Research Note NC-128, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  43. Vogelmann, J.E., Howard, S.M., Yang, L., Larson, C.R., Wylie, B.K. and Van Driel, N.: 2001, ‘Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States from landsat thematic mapper data and ancillary data sources’, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 67, 650–662.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi E. Detenbeck
    • 1
  • Dan Cincotta
    • 2
  • Judith M. Denver
    • 3
  • Susan K. Greenlee
    • 4
  • Anthony R. Olsen
    • 5
  • Ann M. Pitchford
    • 6
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentDuluthUSA
  2. 2.WV Department of Natural ResourcesElkinsUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyDoverUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Geological SurveyEROS Data CenterSouth DakotaUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentCorvallisUSA
  6. 6.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations