Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 11, pp 9343–9359 | Cite as

Evaluation of stream chemistry trends in US Geological Survey reference watersheds, 1970–2010



The Hydrologic Benchmark Network (HBN) is a long-term monitoring program established by the US Geological Survey in the 1960s to track changes in the streamflow and stream chemistry in undeveloped watersheds across the USA. Trends in stream chemistry were tested at 15 HBN stations over two periods (1970–2010 and 1990–2010) using the parametric Load Estimator (LOADEST) model and the nonparametric seasonal Kendall test. Trends in annual streamflow and precipitation chemistry also were tested to help identify likely drivers of changes in stream chemistry. At stations in the northeastern USA, there were significant declines in stream sulfate, which were consistent with declines in sulfate deposition resulting from the reductions in SO2 emissions mandated under the Clean Air Act Amendments. Sulfate declines in stream water were smaller than declines in deposition suggesting sulfate may be accumulating in watershed soils and thereby delaying the stream response to improvements in deposition. Trends in stream chemistry at stations in other part of the country generally were attributed to climate variability or land disturbance. Despite declines in sulfate deposition, increasing stream sulfate was observed at several stations and appeared to be linked to periods of drought or declining streamflow. Falling water tables might have enhanced oxidation of organic matter in wetlands or pyrite in mineralized bedrock thereby increasing sulfate export in surface water. Increasing sulfate and nitrate at a station in the western USA were attributed to release of soluble salts and nutrients from soils following a large wildfire in the watershed.


Hydrologic Benchmark Network Trends Stream chemistry Atmospheric deposition Climate 


  1. Aber, J. D., Holmes, R. T., Freuder, R. J., Goodale, C. L., Ollinger, S. V., Driscoll, C. T., et al. (2002). Inorganic nitrogen losses from a forested ecosystem in response to physical, chemical, biotic, and climatic perturbations. Ecosystems, 5, 648–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernal, S., Hedin, L. O., Likens, G. E., Gerber, S., & Buso, D. C. (2012). Complex response of the forest nitrogen cycle to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3406–3411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bureau of Reclamation (2008). Methow subbasin geomorphic assessment, Okanogan County, Washington. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/fcrps/thp/ucao/methow/geomorphicassessment/geomorph2008.pdf. Accessed May 2013.
  4. Burns, D. A., McHale, M. R., Driscoll, C. T., & Roy, K. M. (2006). Response of surface water chemistry to reduced levels of acid precipitation: comparison of trends in two regions of New York. Hydrological Processes, 20, 1611–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, D. A., Lynch, J. A., Cosby, B. J., Fenn, M. E., Baron, J. S., & US EPA Clean Air Markets Div. (2011). National acid precipitation assessment program report to congress 2011: an integrated assessment. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council. 114 p.Google Scholar
  6. Certini, G. (2005). Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia, 143, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, X., Rowe, C., Hu, Q., & Anderson, M. (2003). Geological and climatic controls on streamflows in the Nebraska Sand Hills. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39, 217228.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, G. M., Mueller, D. K., & Mast, M. A. (2000a). Nutrient concentrations and yields in undeveloped basins of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36, 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, M.L., Eddy-Miller, C.A., & Mast, M.A. (2000b). Environmental characteristics and water quality of hydrologic benchmark network stations in the west-central United States, 1963–95. US Geological Survey Circular 1173-C, 115 p.Google Scholar
  10. Clow, D. W., & Mast, M. A. (1999). Long-term trends in stream water and precipitation chemistry at five headwater basins in the northeastern United States. Water Resources Research, 35(2), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driscoll, C. T., Driscoll, K. M., Roy, K. M., & Mitchell, M. J. (2003). Chemical response of lakes in the Adirondack Region of New York to declines in acidic deposition. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(10), 2036–2042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehleringer, J. R., Arnow, L. A., Arnow, T., McNulty, I. B., & Negus, N. C. (1992). Red Butte Canyon Research Natural area-history, flora, geology, climate, and ecology. Great Basin Naturalist, 52(2), 95–121.Google Scholar
  13. Eimers, M. C., Watmough, S. A., & Buttle, J. M. (2007). Drought-induced sulphate release from a wetland in south-central Ontario. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 127, 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fishman, M. J., Raese, J. W., Gerlitz, C. N., & Husband, R. A. (1994). US Geological Survey approved inorganic and organic methods for the analysis of water and fluvial sediment, 1954–94. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–351, 55 p.Google Scholar
  15. Godsey, S., Kirchner, J. W., & Clow, D. W. (2009). Concentration-discharge relationships reflect chemostatic characteristics of catchments. Hydrological Processes, 23, 1844–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodale, C. L., Aber, J. D., & Vitousek, P. M. (2003). An unexpected nitrate decline in New Hampshire Streams. Ecosystems, 6, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helsel, D. R., & Hirsch R. M. (2002). Statistical methods in water resources. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 4, chapter A3. US Geological Survey, 522 p.Google Scholar
  18. Hirsch, R. M., Hamilton, P. A., & Miller, T. L. (2006). US Geological Survey perspective on water-quality monitoring and assessment. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 8, 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirsch, R. M., Moyer, D. L., & Archfield, S. A. (2010). Weighted regressions on time, discharge, and season (WRTDS), with an application to Chesapeake Bay River inputs. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 46, 857–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Judd, K. E., Likens, G. E., Buso, D. C., & Bailey, A. S. (2011). Minimal response in watershed nitrate export to severe soil frost raises questions about nutrient dynamics in the Hubbard Brook experimental forest. Biogeochemistry, 106, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kerr, J. G., Eimers, M. C., Creed, I. F., Adams, M. B., Beall, F., Burns, D., et al. (2011). The effect of seasonal drying on sulphate dynamics in streams across southeastern Canada and the northeastern. Biogeochemistry, 10, 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Laudon, L., Dillon, P. J., Eimers, M. C., Semkin, R. G., & Jeffries, D. S. (2004). Climate-induced episodic acidification of streams in central Ontario. Environmental Science & Technology, 38, 6009–6015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawrence, G. B., Simonin, H. A., Baldigo, B. P., Roy, K. M., & Capone, S. B. (2011). Changes in the chemistry of acidified Adirondack streams from the early 1980s to 2008. Environmental Pollution, 159(10), 2750–2758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lehmann, C. M. B., Bowersox, V. C., Larson, R. S., & Larson, S. M. (2007). Monitoring long-term trends in sulfate and ammonium in US precipitation: results from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Focus, 7, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lins, H. F. (1985). Interannual streamflow variability in the United States based on principal components. Water Resources Research, 21, 691–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lins, H. F. (1986). Recent patterns of sulfate variability in pristine streams. Atmospheric Environment, 20, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lins, H.F. (2005). Streamflow trends in the United States from the National Streamflow Information Program. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3017, 4 p.Google Scholar
  28. Lovett, G. M., Burns, D. A., Driscoll, C. T., Jenkins, J. C., Mitchell, M. J., Rustad, L., et al. (2007). Who needs environmental monitoring? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandernack, K. W., Lynch, L., Krouse, H. R., & Morgan, M. D. (2000). Sulfur cycling in wetland peat of the New Jersey Pinelands and its effect on stream water chemistry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 64, 3949–3964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mast, M. A., & Clow, D. W. (2008). Effects of 2003 wildfires on stream chemistry in Glacier National Park, Montana. Hydrological Processes, 22, 5013–5023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mast, M. A., & Turk, J. T. (1999). Environmental characteristics and water quality of hydrologic benchmark network stations in the Midwestern United States, 1963–95. US Geological Survey Circular 1173-B, 130 p.Google Scholar
  32. Mast, M. A., Turk, J. T., Clow, D. W., & Campbell, D. H. (2011). Response of lake chemistry to changes in atmospheric deposition and climate in three high-elevation wilderness areas of Colorado. Biogeochemistry, 103, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murdoch, P. S., & Shanley, J. B. (2006). Flow-specific trends in river-water quality resulting from the effects of the Clean Air Act in three mesoscale, forested river basins in the northeastern United States through 2002. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 120, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murdoch, P.S., McHale, M.R., Mast, M.A., & Clow, D.W. (2006). The US Geological Survey Hydrologic Benchmark Network. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005–3135, 6 pGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy, J. D., Johnson, D. W., Miller, W. W., Walker, R. F., Carroll, E. F., & Blank, R. R. (2006). Wildfire effects on soil nutrients and leaching in a Tahoe basin watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ranalli, A.R. (2004). A summary of the scientific literature on the effects of fire on the concentration of nutrients in surface waters. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004–1296, 23 p.Google Scholar
  37. Runkel, R.L., Crawford, C.G., & Cohn, T.A. (2004). Load Estimator (LOADEST): a FORTRAN program for estimating constituent loads in streams and rivers. US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 4, Chapter A5, 69 p.Google Scholar
  38. Schertz, T.L., Alexander, R.B., & Ohe, D.J. (1991). The computer program estimate trend (ESTREND), a system for the detection of trends in water-quality data. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91–4040, 63 p.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, R.A., & Alexander, R.B. (1983). Evidence for acid-precipitation-induced trends in stream chemistry at hydrologic bench-mark stations. US Geological Survey Circular 910, 12 p.Google Scholar
  40. Stoddard, J.L., Kahl, J.S., Deviney, F.A. et al. (2003). Response of Surface Water Chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. USEPA, Research Triangle Park, EPA/620/R-03/001NC.Google Scholar
  41. Tebaldi, C., Adams-Smith, D., Heller, N. (2012). The heat is on: U.S temperature trends. Climate Central. http://www.climatecentral.org/wgts/heat-is-on/HeatIsOnReport.pdf. Accessed January 2013.
  42. Todd, A.S, Manning, A.H., Verplanck, P.L., Crouch, C., McKnight, D.M., & Dunham, R. (2012). Climate-change-driven deterioration of water quality in a mineralized watershed. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:10.1021/es3020056
  43. Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., & Swetnam, T. W. (2006). Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313, 940–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilde, F.D. (2011). Water-quality sampling by the US Geological Survey: standard protocols and procedures. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010–312, 2 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations