Environmental Management

, Volume 34, Supplement 1, pp S71–S88 | Cite as

Delineation and Evaluation of Hydrologic-Landscape Regions in the United States Using Geographic Information System Tools and Multivariate Statistical Analyses

  • David M. Wolock
  • Thomas C. Winter
  • Gerard McMahon


Hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States were delineated by using geographic information system (GIS) tools combined with principal components and cluster analyses. The GIS and statistical analyses were applied to land-surface form, geologic texture (permeability of the soil and bedrock), and climate variables that describe the physical and climatic setting of 43,931 small (approximately 200 km2) watersheds in the United States. (The term “watersheds” is defined in this paper as the drainage areas of tributary streams, headwater streams, and stream segments lying between two confluences.) The analyses grouped the watersheds into 20 noncontiguous regions based on similarities in land-surface form, geologic texture, and climate characteristics. The percentage of explained variance (R-squared value) in an analysis of variance was used to compare the hydrologic-landscape regions to 19 square geometric regions and the 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency level-II ecoregions. Hydrologic-landscape regions generally were better than ecoregions at delineating regions of distinct land-surface form and geologic texture. Hydrologic-landscape regions and ecoregions were equally effective at defining regions in terms of climate, land cover, and water-quality characteristics. For about half of the landscape, climate, and water-quality characteristics, the R-squared values of square geometric regions were as high as hydrologic-landscape regions or ecoregions.

Hydrologic landscapes Hydrologic regions Cluster analysis Network design 


  1. 1.
    Gilliom, R. G., W. M. Alley, and M. E. Gurtz. 1995. Design of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program—Occurrence and distribution of water-quality conditions. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112, Reston, Virginia, 33 pp.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hammond, E. H. 1964. Classes of land-surface form in the 48 states, USA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54, no. 1964, map supplement no. 4, 1:5,000,000 scale.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamon, W. R. 1961Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Journal of the Hydraulics DivisionProceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers87107120Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hargrove, W. W., Hoffman, F. M., Law, B. E. 2003. New analysis reveals representativeness of the Ameriflux network. Eos 84:529, 535.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hargrove, W. W., Hoffman, F. M. 1999Using multivariate clustering to characterize ecoregion bordersComputing in Science and Engineering11825Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helsel, D. R., and R. M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Book 4, Chapter A3 (http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuchler, A. W. 1964Manual to accompany the map, potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United StatesAmerican Geographical Society, Special Publication No. 36New York143Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meador, M. R., T. F. Cuffney, and M. E. Gurtz. 1993. Methods for sampling fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–104, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murtagh, F. 1985Multidimensional clustering algorithmsPhysica-VerlagViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Omernik, J. M. 1987Ecoregions of the conterminous United StatesAnnals of the Association of American Geographers77118125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Omernik, J. M., Griffith, G. E. 1991Ecological regions versus hydrologic units: frameworks for managing water qualityJournal of Soil and Water Conservation46334340Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Owensby, J. R., and D. S. Ezell. 1992. Climatography of the United States No. 81—monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days, 1961–90. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Ashville, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preston, S. D. 2000. Statistical identification of hydrochemical response units for hydrologic monitoring and modeling in Maryland. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4232. Reston, Virginia, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data base: data use information. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492, 35 pp.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik 1987). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Map M-1, various scales.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Land use and land cover digital data from 1:250,000- and 1:100,000-scale maps: Data users guide 4 (US GeoData—National Mapping Program Technical Instructions). U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia, 33 pp.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Strategic directions for the U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources Program: A Report to Congress, 30 November 1998. (http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/stratdir/stratdir.html).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. National atlas of the United States maps. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 086-01 (http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs08601.html).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verdin, K. L., and S. K. Greenlee. 1996. Development of continental scale digital elevation models and extraction of hydrographic features. In Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 21–26 January 1996. Santa Barbara, California. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winter, T. C. 2001The concept of hydrologic landscapesJournal of the American Water Resources Association37335349Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Wolock
    • 1
  • Thomas C. Winter
    • 2
  • Gerard McMahon
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyLawrence, Kansas 66049USA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyLakewood, Colorado 80225USA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyRaleigh, North Carolina 27607USA

Personalised recommendations