v\\

Water Quality of 

Hydrologic Bench Marks 

An Indicator of Water Quality 

in the Natural Environment

'Hill l

"TfT,

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

CIRCULAR 460-E
PartE

Water Quality of 

Hydrologic Bench Marks 

An Indicator of Water Quality 

in the Natural Environment

By James E. Biesecker and Donald K. Leifeste 

CONSERVATION NETWORKS 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 460-E

1975
United States Department of the Interior

ROGERS C. B. MORION, Secretory

Geological Survey

V. E. McKelvey, Director

Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, Virginia 22092
CONTENTS

Abstract -- - _ _. -- . . .. - ... 1

Objectives- ... ................ _.._ _.. . ...._...._ .. _.... ...... ....._ _ ~ ... 2

Water quality in the "natural" environment - - ------ 3

Dissolved-solids concentration - - 4

PpcfvioidpS_ -_......._,____-___......______.___.__.________._...__......._............._____................ I

The influence of man ----- -. __ ... - -- ..... . .... . 9

Nitrate________________________________________-___-____-14

Analysis of several factors affecting "natural" water quality- - - - -15

ft 11 TYl TY1 £JY*'V - _____«_ ___.-...... ....._-.-.... ....... ......._,_.___,___..........__..........._............._._-_................. £\J

References 20

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

FIGURE 1. Map showing locations of hydrologic bench-mark stations 2

2. Map showing physical divisions of the United States- - - - 4

3. Graph showing unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids relationship for bench-mark stations in the 

New England and Blue Ridge provinces of the Appalachian Highlands, the Central 

Lowland province of the Interior Plains, and the Rocky Mountain System 6

4. Graph showing unit-area discharge-median dissolved-solids-concentration curves for various

Tifivfiicpil divisions -- -- ------_............____...._._.._........_.-.._._......_..._.........«__............._..............._........_.. /

5. Map showing water-resources regions of the United States- - - - 11

6-10. Graphs showing unit-area discharge versus dissolved-solids concentration for streams draining 

hydrologic bench-mark stations and major river basins in:

6 Thp i. lieNorth l^uil/ll x&l/ldlll/ll^ Atlantic Rairirm -lvC?^lvlll ---.... . ...................... ...... -_-_ ..... .. . ..... .. .......... .. ..... __ 12 Aij

7. The South Atlantic-Gulf Region_________________-__________'________ 13

Q \Phe T^Iissouri R^*crion -......-__ ...._........._..._.............»...........-...........-.............._............__......_._...... 14

9. The Arkansas-White-Red Region - .-..- - - - _________ _____ 15

10. The Columbia-North Pacific Region - ~ ... ... ._._._.. _.. ..... .. . 16

11. Graph showing relationship between maximum dissolved-solids concentration and average

annual runoff for hydrologic bench-mark stations draining various rock types - -17

12. Graph showing unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids relationship for hydrologic bench-mark 

stations draining volcanic rocks and for hydrologic bench-mark stations draining 

unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits - - - - - - - 19

TABLES

Page

TABLE 1. Locations of hydrologic bench-mark stations- . ... ~ ....._. ..._._..._..... ..........._....... 3

2. Physical divisions of the United States- - .._._. .. - .... . 5

3. Statistical characteristics of the unit-area discharge-median dissolved-solids relationships for

tiic v&noiis priysiCcii divisions "" " ' "* ------------- . _. .... _. ..... ... .. . Q

4. Pesticide analyses of water samples collected at hydrologic bench-mark stations, 1968-70

WEltfir V63.TS - «__............___............._,_......__,...»_._................................._.. _._...._...._.......__.............__.......__._ ft

5. Pesticide analyses of bottom sediments, hydrologic bench-mark stations, 1968-70 water years- 9

ill
Page

TABLE 6. Minor-metal analyses, hydrologic bench-mark stations, 1968-70 water years 9

7. Minor-metal drinking-water standards and observed values, 1968-70 water years- - - - 10

8. Hydrologic bench-mark stations and major stream stations for selected water-resources regions- - 10

9. Population density and average runoff for selected water-resources regions - -- - - 11

10. Nitrate concentration of hydrologic bench-mark stations and selected major streams draining

various water-resources regions, 1968-70 water years - - - - - 15

11. Selected hydrologic characteristics, hydrologic bench-mark stations- - - - - 17

IV
CONSERVATION NETWORKS

PARTE

Water Quality of Hydrologic Bench Marks 

An Indicator of Water Quality in the Natural Environment

By James E. Biesecker and Donald K. Leifeste

ABSTRACT

Water-quality data, collected at 57 hydrologic bench-mark 

stations in 37 States, allow the definition of water quality in 

the "natural" environment and the comparison of "natural" 

water quality with water quality of major streams draining 

similar water-resources regions. Results indicate that water 

quality in the "natural" environment is generally very good. 

Streams draining hydrologic bench-mark basins generally 

contain low concentrations of dissolved constituents. Water 

collected at the hydrologic bench-mark stations was 

analyzed for the following minor metals: arsenic, barium, 

cadmium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc. Of 642 analyses, about 65 

percent of the observed concentrations were zero. Only three 

samples contained metals in excess of U.S. Public Health 

Service recommended drinking-water standards two 

selenium concentrations and one cadmium concentration. A 

total of 213 samples were analyzed for 11 pesticidal compounds. Widespread but very low-level occurrence of pesticide residues in the "natural" environment was 

found about 30 percent of all samples contained low-level 

concentrations of pesticidal compounds. The DDT family of 

pesticides occurred most commonly, accounting for 75 percent of the detected occurrences. The highest observed concentration of DDT was 0.06 microgram per litre, well below 

the recommended maximum permissible in drinking water. 

Nitrate concentrations in the "natural" environment 

generally varied from 0.2 to 0.5 milligram per litre. The 

average concentration of nitrate in many major streams is 

as much as 10 times greater.

The relationship between dissolved-solids concentration 

and discharge per unit area in the "natural" environment 

for the various physical divisions in the United States has 

been shown to be an applicable tool for approximating 

"natural" water quality. The relationship between dissolved-solids concentration and discharge per unit area is 

applicable in all the physical divisions of the United States,

except the Central Lowland province of the Interior Plains, 

the Great Plains province of the Interior Plains, and the 

Basin and Ridge province of the Intermontane Plateaus. 

The relationship between dissolved-solids concentration 

and discharge per unit area is least variable in the New 

England province and Blue Ridge province of the 

Appalachian Highlands. The dissolved-solids concentration versus discharge per unit area in the Central 

Lowland province of the Interior Plains is highly variable. 

A sample collected from the hydrologic bench-mark 

station at Bear Den Creek near Mandaree, N. Dak., contained 3,420 milligrams per litre dissolved solids. This high 

concentration in the "natural" environment indicates that 

natural processes can be principal agents in modifying the 

environment and can cause degradation. Average annual 

runoff and rock type can be used as predictive tools to determine the maximum dissolved-solids concentration expected 

in the "natural" environment.

INTRODUCTION

The United States is currently undergoing a 

growth of population and industry. This growth 

has and will continue to markedly alter the 

environment of this Nation. Hydrology particularly water quality is directly 

and significantly affected by environmental 

changes. In the report entitled "Restoring the 

quality of our environment," by the President's 

Science Advisory Committee, Environmental 

Pollution Panel (1965), it is stated that "Pollution touches us all. We are at the same time 

polluters and sufferers from pollution. Today we 

are certain that pollution adversely affects the 

quality of our lives. In the future, it may affect 

their duration."

l
In planning the optimum utilization of the 

Nation's most valuable resource water it is 

essential to understand the impact of man's 

activities on water quality. In turn, to evaluate 

this environmental impact, the water quality in 

its "natural" environment must be described. 

Water-quality data collected as part of the U.S. 

Geological Survey's Hydrologic Bench-Mark 

Program will provide the basis for this 

description. The hydrologic bench-mark network is comprised of selected stream basins 

which are expected to remain in their present or 

natural condition. Locations of the hydrologic 

bench-mark stations are shown in figure 1 and 

are listed in table 1. As described by Cobb and 

Biesecker (1971), the basins were selected on the 

basis of the following criteria:

1. No manmade storage, regulation, or diversion currently exists or is probable for 

many years.

2. Ground water within the basin will not be affected by pumping from wells.

3. Conditions are favorable for accurate measurement of streamflow, water quality, 

ground-water conditions, and precipitation.

4. The probability of special natural changes is 

minimal.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this report are twofold. The 

primary objective is to describe the water 

quality of streams draining the hydrologic 

bench-mark basins. Dissolved-solids, heavy 

metals, nitrate, and pesticidal contents of the 

streams are described. Janzer and Saindon 

(1972) reported the radiochemical analyses of 

surface waters from hydrologic bench-mark 

basins. Data on the biological characteristics of 

these "natural" basins currently being collected 

will be published in a future report. All the 

water-quality data for the hydrologic benchmark stations are published, by water years, in 

the annual series of State basic-data reports

HAWAII

 

14

- - i_j - c - 

\490

-> /~~X 

EXPLANATION ^' \

Number shown refers to station 

number listed in table 1

0 500 KILOMETRES

FIGURE 1. Locations of hydrologic bench-mark stations.
TABLE 1. Locations of hydrologic bench-mark stations

Station 

No.

Basin location

1 Blackwater River near Bradley, Ala.

2 Sipsey Fork near Grayson, Ala.

3 Wet Bottom Creek near Childs, Ariz.

4 Cossatot River near Vandervoort, Ark.

5 North Sylamore Creek near Fifty Six, Ark.

6 Elder Creek near Branscomb, Calif.

7 Merced River near Yosemite, Calif.

8 Wildrose Creek near Wildrose Station, Calif.

9 Halfmoon Creek near Malta, Colo.

10 Vallecito Creek near Bayfield, Colo.

11 Sopchoppy River near Sopchoppy, Fla.

12 Falling Creek near Juliette, Ga.

13 Tallulah River near Clayton, Ga.

14 Honolii Stream near Papaikou, Hawaii.

15 Hayden Creek below North Fork, near Hayden 

Lake, Idaho.

16 Wickahoney Creek near Bruneau, Idaho.

17 South Hogan Creek near Dillsboro, Ind.

18 Elk Creek near Decatur City, Iowa.

19 -Big Creek at Pollock, La.

20 Wild River at Gilead, Maine.

21 Washington Creek at Windigo, Isle Royale, Mich.

22 Kawishiwi River near Ely, Minn.

23 North Fork Whitewater River near Elba, Minn.

24 Cypress Creek near Janice, Miss.

25 Beauvais Creek near St. Xavier, Mont.

26 Swiftcurrent Creek at Many Glacier, Mont.

27 -Dismal River near Thedford, Nebr.

28 South Twin River near Round Mountain, Nev.

29 Steptoe Creek near Ely, Nev.

Station 

No.

Basin location

30 -McDonalds Branch in Lebanon State Forest, N.J.

31 Mogollon Creek near Cliff, N. Mex.

32 Rio Mora near Tererro, N. Mex.

33 Esopus Creek at Shandaken, N.Y.

34 Cataloochee Creek near Cataloochee, N.C.

35 Bear Den Creek near Mandaree, N. Dak.

36 Beaver Creek near Finley, N. Dak.

37 Upper Twin Creek at McGaw, Ohio.

38 Blue Beaver Creek near Cache, Okla.

39 Kiamichi River near Big Cedar, Okla.

40 Crater Lake near Crater Lake, Oreg.

41 ...Minam River at Minam, Oreg.

42 Young Womans Creek near Renovo, Pa.

43 Scape Ore Swamp near Bishopville, S.C.

44 Upper Three Runs near New Ellenton, S.C.

45 -Castle Creek near Hill City, S. Dak.

46 Little Vermillion River near Salem, S. Dak.

47 Buffalo River near Flat Woods, Tenn.

48 Little River above Townsend, Tenn.

49 Limpia Creek above Fort Davis, Tex.

50 South Fork Rocky Creek near Briggs, Tex.

51 -Red Butte Creek near Salt Lake City, Utah.

52 Holiday Creek near Andersonville, Va.

53 Andrews Creek near Mazama, Wash.

54 North Fork Quinault River near Amanda 

Park, Wash.

55 Popple River near Fence, Wis.

56 Cache Creek near Jackson, Wyo.

57 Encampment River near Encampment, Wyo.

compiled and distributed by the Water 

Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Copies of these reports are available from the 

district offices in the various States.

The second objective of this report is to compare the quality of water of streams in the 

"natural" environment with the water quality 

of major streams draining the same hydrologic 

regions of the United States defined and used by 

the Water Resources Council (1968, p. 1-24).

WATER QUALITY IN THE "NATURAL" 

ENVIRONMENT

"Natural" water quality varies spatially and 

temporally controlled primarily by climate, 

the kind of rocks and soils through which it

moves, and the time it is in contact with these 

materials. Natural water quality is also 

influenced by biochemical reactions, by wind- or 

stream-transported sediments, and by 

evaporation.

The concentration of substances dissolved in 

water undergoes continual change as water 

passes through the hydrologic cycle. Water 

escapes to the atmosphere by evaporation as 

salt-free vapor. Precipitation, the purest of all 

liquid water, contains only small amounts of 

dissolved solids, gases, and dust particles. Runoff accumulates the soluble minerals from the 

upper layer of soil. Water passing through the 

soil and reaching an aquifer leaches additional 

minerals from the aquifer matrix. Because 

ground-water velocities are generally very slow,
HAWAII 

'*4 .2 EXPLANATION

Number shown refers to station

number listed in table 1 

A Letter shown refers to physical

division listed in table 2 

 Division boundary 500 KILOMETRES

FIGURE 2. Physical divisions of the United States (Fenneman, 1928).

water that reaches the water table is in contact 

with the rocks of an aquifer for a much longer 

time than it is in contact with the atmosphere or 

the soil. In the "natural" environment much of 

the dissolved-mineral content of ground water 

and of baseflow of streams is derived from 

aquifer minerals.

DISSOLVED-SOLIDS CONCENTRATION

Regionalization of "natural" water-quality 

characteristics is essential to predict the impact 

of man's various activities on water quality. 

One approach to regionalize water-quality 

characteristics is to use the physiographic divisions described by Fenneman (1928) as hydrologic divisions. These physical divisions are 

based on similar topographic and geographic 

features. The physical divisions of the conterminous United States listed in table 2 are shown 

in figure 2, which also shows the location of the 

hydrologic bench-mark network stations.

There are numerous ways to approach the 

analyses of water-quality data. For this report 

the authors have chosen to describe the variability of selected water-quality characteristics at a 

particular site and compare this variability 

with that at other sites within a given physical 

division as described by Fenneman (1928). In 

this manner major similarities or differences 

can be compared with other geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the various hydrologic 

bench-mark stations. One water-quality 

characteristic useful in interpretation is dissolved-solids concentration because it 

represents an integrated index of numerous dissolved inorganic substances. The relationship 

between dissolved-solids concentration and discharge per unit area gives quantitative information about the hydrologic system of the 

various physical divisions.

The relationship between water discharge per 

unit-drainage area, in cubic feet per second per 

square mile (cubic metres per second per square 

kilometre), and dissolved-solids concentration, 

in milligrams per litre, for hydrologic bench 

marks within a given physical division is frequently similar. Figure 3 presents the unit-area 

discharge-dissolved-solids relationship for all
TABLE 2. Physical divisions of the United States

Letter Province

A New England province of the Appalachian

Highlands. 

B Valley and Ridge province of the Appalachian

Highlands. 

C Appalachian Plateaus province of the Appalachian

Highlands.

I) Blue Ridge province of the Appalachian Highlands. 

E Piedmont province of the Appalachian Highlands.

F Coastal Plain province of the Atlantic Plain. 

G Interior Low Plateaus province of the Interior Plains. 

H Ozark Plateaus province of the Interior Highlands. 

I Ouachita province of the Interior Highlands.

J Central Lowland province of the Interior Plains.

K Superior Upland province of the Laurentian Upland.

L Great Plains province of the Interior Plains.

M Northern Rocky Mountains province of the Rocky

Mountain System. 

N Southern Rocky Mountains province of the Rocky

Mountain System. 

O Middle Rocky Mountains province of the Rocky

Mountain System. 

P Colorado Plateaus province

Plateaus. 

Q Columbia Plateaus province

Plateaus. 

R Basin and Range province

Plateaus. 

S Cascade-Sierra Mountains province of the Pacific

Mountain System. 

T Pacific Border province of the Pacific Mountain

System. 

U Wyoming Basin of the Rocky Mountain System.

of the Intermontane

of the Intermontane

of the Intermontane

bench-mark basins draining four selected 

physical divisions the New England and Blue 

Ridge provinces of the Appalachian Highlands, the Central Lowland province of the 

Interior Plains, and the Rocky Mountain 

System.

Four hydrologic bench-mark stations are 

located in the New England and Blue Ridge provinces of the Appalachian Highlands. The unitarea discharge-dissolved-solids relationship for 

each of these is shown in figure 3A Cataloochee 

Creek near Cataloochee, N.C. (station 34), 

exhibits the most variable unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids relationship the 

range of dissolved-solids concentration is only 8 

mg/1 (milligrams per litre). The maximum 

concentration is 19 mg/1 and the minimum concentration is 11 mg/1 for a tenfold change of 

unit-area discharge, 0.5 to 5.0 ft3 s-1 mi~2 (cubic 

feet per second per square mile) or 0.037 to 0.366 

m3 s- 1 km- 2 (cubic metres per second per square 

kilometre). For all practical purposes, a variation in concentration of only 8 mg/1 dissolved 

solids can be considered as virtually constant.

Water-quality information is available for 

five hydrologic bench-mark basins draining the 

Central Lowland province of the Interior 

Plains. The unit-area discharge-dissolvedsolids relationship of these five basins (fig. 3B) 

is highly variable. One reason is probably the 

wide range in climate over this large area. 

However, by subdividing the physical division 

north of Oklahoma, it can be shown that all stations in the northern part of the physical 

division exhibit similar unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids characteristic curves. 

Hydrologic bench-mark basins draining the 

Rocky Mountain System physical divisions 

M, N, and O, as shown in table 2 and figure 

2 exhibit remarkably similar unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids curves (fig. 3C).

The use of unit-area discharge-median dissolved-solids curves for the various physical 

divisions permits more generalization and comparison of water-quality characteristics of 

streams draining the natural environment of 

the various physical divisions. Figure 4 

presents unit-area discharge-median dissolved-solids relationships for the various 

physical divisions. The unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids relationships for the streams 

draining the hydrologic bench-mark basins 

located in the southern part of the Central Lowland province of the Interior Plains (J), the 

Great Plains province of the Interior Plains (L), 

and the Basin and Range province of the Intermontane Plateaus (R) are not sufficiently similar to be represented by a median curve. Pertinent statistical characteristics of the median 

curves shown in figure 4 are presented in table 

3. Table 3 also describes the statistical dispersion characteristics of the group of curves 

within each physical division. The unit-area 

discharge-dissolved-solids relationships for 

streams draining the Great Plains province are 

most dispersed.

Streams in hydrologic bench-mark basins in 

the New England province and the Blue Ridge
30

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE 

0.003 0.006 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.1

10

0.1

20 HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION -

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

0.3 0.6 1 36 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

10

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE 

0.0003 0.0006 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.01 0.03 0.06

i i i i i iii

0.03 0.06 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

B

' 0.1

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE 

0.003 0.006 0.01 0.03 0.06

0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

0.1

FIGURE 3. Unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids relationship for hydrologic bench-mark stations in (A) the 

New England and Blue Ridge provinces of the Appalachian Highlands, (B) the Central Lowland province of 

the Interior Plains, and (C) the Rocky Mountain System.
UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

600

0.003 0.006 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.1

CC 300

-100

60

O <*? 

O 30

LU

10

K PHYSIOGRAPHIC DIVISION -

Letter refers to letter listed in 

table 2

0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

10

FIGURE 4. Unit-area discharge-median dissolved-solids-concentration curves for various physical divisions.

province of the Appalachian Highlands (A and 

D) contain less dissolved minerals than do the 

streams draining hydrologic bench-mark 

basins in any other part of the country. 

"Natural" waters containing the most dissolved minerals are from those streams 

draining the bench-mark basins located in the 

Interior Plains. For example, one sample 

collected from Bear Den Creek near Mandaree, 

N. Dak. (station 35), contained 3,420 mg/1 dissolved solids. Hydrologic bench-mark streams 

draining the Coastal Plain province of the

Atlantic Plain (F) exhibited the least variation 

in the unit-area-discharge-dissolved-solids relationship.

PESTICIDES

The term "pesticides" refers to those chemical 

compounds used for the control or destruction of 

animal or plant organisms that may be considered nuisances, or pests. The widespread use 

of pesticides has enabled man to achieve greater 

agricultural productivity, improved comfort, 

and better health. However, this widespread use
TABLE 3. Statistical characteristics of the unit-area discharge-median dissolued-solids 

relationships for the various physical divisions

Physical 

division*

A and D ..........

C and E ..........

P.. ...............

I..................

J .................

Northern J3 .......

K4 ................

L.. ...............

M, N, O...........

Q.................

R. ................

T.... .............

Median dissolvedsolids concentration 

for discharge of 

1.0 ft3 s- 1 mi- 2

18 

42 

22 

25

(2 ) 

250 

77 (2)

45 

59 ( 2) 

70

Distribution of dissolved-solids 

concentration for discharge of 1.0ft3 s-'mi-3

Maximum

19 

69 

34 

29

300 

300 

82 

420

54 

70 

175 

72

Minimum

16 

28 

15 

21

84 

220 

72 

20

38 

49 

64 

68

Range

3 

41 

19

8

216 

80 

10 

400

16 

21 

111 

4

Slope of 

median 

curve

0.096 

.072 

.022 

.12

(2) 

.16 

.32 (")

.14 

.060 (2) 

.15

'Letters refer to those listed in table 2.

2Median values not meaningful because of excessive scatter.

3North of Oklahoma.

4Basins draining alluvium.

TABLE 4. Pesticide analyses of water samples collected at hydrologic bench-mark stations, 1968-70

water years

Pesticidal compound

Number of positive occurrences . Maximum observed 

concentration (/ug/1) .........

a

T355

Q 

Q 

Q

213213 

. 0 6

. - .02

H 

Q 

Q

213 

2

H 

Q 

Q

213 

36

.01 .06

T3

T3

O

213 

4

.02

1 

w

213 

0

I

CD

213 

0

S

T3

213 

3

.01

Q 

-* 

ei

176 

3

in

 ^

<M"

176 

4

10 .02

X>

in

175 

1

1.5

has also created many environmental 

problems, documented fish kills being an 

example.

Samples collected from the bench-mark 

stations were analyzed for 11 pesticide compounds (table 4). Table 4 also shows the number 

of stream samples analyzed, the number of 

positive occurrences, and the maximum 

observed concentration. There were 213 

analyses for aldrin, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, 

endrin, heptachlor, and lindane; 176 analyses 

for 2, 4-D, and 2, 4, and 5-T; and 175 analyses 

for silvex. Fifty-nine positive occurrences were 

detected in the observations during the 3-year 

period reported herein. Of these 59 positive 

occurrences, DDT was detected 36 times, DDD 6 

times, and DDE 2 times. These results show that 

the DDT family accounted for 44 of the 59 positive occurrences; therefore, at bench-mark 

stations, as in major streams, the DDT family of 

pesticides is the most commonly occurring,

accounting for about 75 percent of the detected 

occurrences. As shown in table 4, the maximum 

observed concentration of DDT was 0.06 fjg/l 

(microgram per litre), well below the recommended permissible drinking-water maximum of 42 jug/1 (U.S. Federal Water Pollution 

Control Administration, 1968, p. 20).

Pesticide levels in some of the major streams 

of the United States are available (Manigold 

and Schulze, 1969; Breidenbach and others, 

1967). Results of a 1964 nationwide synoptic 

survey (Breidenback and others, 1967) showed 

that dieldrin appeared (positive or presumptive) in 74 percent of all grab samples. 

Manigold and Schulze (1969) reported results of 

monthly measurements for the 24-month period 

of October 1966 to September 1968 at 20 sites on 

streams west of the Mississippi River. These 

data showed that DDT and its metabolites, 

DDD and DDE occurred most frequently; 82 percent of all occurrences were due to these com8
TABLE 5. Pesticide analyses of bottom sediments, hydrologic bench-mark stations, 1968- 70 

_______ water years

Pesticidal compound

Number of analyses .......................

Number of positive occurrences ............

Maximum observed concentration (jug/kg)

1

<

126

0

0

§

Q

126

39

96

Q

Q

126

28

29

5

Q

126

40

43

 c

-8~s

Q

126

4

4.5

 c

13

H

126

0

0

1

o.

EC

126

0

0

03 §

3

126

6

1.7

pounds. Each of the 12 pesticide compounds 

looked for were detected at least once during the 

24-month period.

Table 5 shows the results of analysis of 

bottom sediments from the bench-mark stations. Stream sediments generally act as 

accumulators of organic materials in water and 

serve as integrators of stream conditions over 

long time periods. The accumulation period is 

generally that time span between runoff events 

when bottom sediments may be transported 

downstream. Bottom sediments therefore 

should be better indicators of the presence of 

pesticides than is the stream water itself. As 

given in table 5, DDT or its metabolites were 

detected in 107 of the 126 samples of sediments 

analyzed. Dieldrin was detected in four 

samples, and lindane in six. These data 

indicated widespread low-level occurrence of 

pesticides in the "natural" environment. In 

some bench-mark basins limited agricultural 

activities and in other basins pest control 

spraying in State and National forests could 

account for the pesticide residues detected; however, it seems that atmospheric transport might 

play a significant role in the continental distribution of pesticide residues.

MINOR METALS

Because minor metals can greatly affect the 

potential utility of water and also control or 

alter ecosystems, they are another group of 

water-quality indicators of great importance. 

Minor metals were determined in samples 

collected from streams draining hydrologic 

bench-mark basins. The number of analyses 

performed are summarized in table 6. 

Concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

hexavalent chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc were determined. Of 642 analyses for 11 minor metals, 

only 3 concentrations were found to be in excess 

of drinking-water standards 2 selenium concentrations out of 16 samples and 1 cadmium 

concentration out of 81 samples. Of the 642 

analyses, 414 analyses showed zero concentration of the particular metal analyzed. Table 7 

lists the U.S. Public Health Service (1962) 

drinking water standards for the minor metals 

analyzed and the maximum concentrations 

observed in samples collected at hydrologic 

bench-mark stations.

THE INFLUENCE OF MAN

As population and industry expand in any 

area, human and industrial wastes are unTABLE 6. Minor-metal analyses, hydrologic bench-mark stations, 1968-70 water years

Minor metal

Number of samples containing zero 

concentration ...........................

Number of samples containing 

concentrations in excess of U.S. Public 

Health Service drinking-water standards

"c3 <o

H <

642 58

414 45

3 0

Barium

22

15

0

Cadmium

81

71

1

Hexavalent chromium

9

4

0

"a

o

O

70

61

10

126

87

0

-8

a

3

108

71

0

Mercury

3

1

Selenium

16

5

2

1

18

11

0

u

c

131

43

0

o established drinking-water standards.
TABLE 7. Minor-metal drinking-water standards and observed maximum values, 1968-70 water years

Minor metal

U.S. Public Health Service drinkingMaximum observed concentration (/jg/1)

'8

<

50

20

g

CS CQ

1,000

500

g9 'g

TJ 

CO

0

10

20

1.1

5 g

CS *

X J3 ^ u

33

50

30

cfi

o

0

n\

11

O, «

O J

1,000 50

40 50

>, g

2 1

i-> « ^ ^

2 O2

(') 10

0.5 22

S3

02

50

50

N

5,000

300

'No established drinking-water standards.

TABLE 8. Hydrologic bench-mark stations and major stream stations for selected water-resources regions

Water-resources 

region

North Atlantic ..............

South Atlantic-Gulf. ........

Columbia-North Pacific .....

Hydrologic 

bench-mark 

station

20, 30, 33, 42

2, 11, 12, 13,

24, 43, 44, 52 

18, 25, 26, 27,

35,57 

4, 5, 9, 19, 38,

39 

15, 16, 40, 41,

54,56

U.S. 

Geological 

Survey 

station

1-1840

1-3580 

1-4635 

1-6385

2-0660

2-1290 

2-2360 

2-4295 

2-4895

6-1855

6-3265 

6-4810

7-0770

7-2291 

7-2635 

7-3444 

7-3620.65

13-1545

14-1057 

14-1910

Location of 

selected major streams

Hudson River at Green Island, N.Y. 

Delaware River at Trenton, N.J. 

Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Md.

Pee Dee River near Rockingham, N.C. 

St. Johns River near De Land, Fla. 

Alabama River at Clairborne, Ala. 

Pearl River near Bogalusa, La.

Yellowstone River near Sidney, Mont. 

Big Sioux River near Dell Rapids, S. Dak.

White River at De Valles Bluff, Ark.

Canadian River near Noble, Okla. 

Arkansas River at Little Rock, Ark. 

Red River near Hosston, La. 

Ouachita River below Camden, Ark.

Snake River at King Hill, Idaho.

Columbia River at The Dalles, Oreg. 

Willamette River at Salem, Oreg.

avoidably added to the water of the developing 

region. Salts, metals, pesticides, nutrients, and 

other substances associated with man's 

activities are superimposed on the substances 

which occur naturally in water. One way of 

evaluating the effect of man's activities on the 

water quality of a given region is to compare the 

unit-area discharge and dissolved-solids-concentration relation for hydrologic bench-mark 

basins to that of major streams draining a given 

region. The Water Resources Council (1968, p. 

2-3) established water-resources regions for the 

United States in base year 1965 (fig. 5). Table 8 

lists all water-resources regions which have at 

least four hydrologic bench-mark stations and 

also lists locations of major streams where 

water-quality data are collected in the respective regions. Comparison of the waterquality characteristics at the bench-mark

stations and major stream stations will indicate 

the effect of man's activities on the water 

quality in the various water-resources regions. 

Table 9 lists the population density and 

average runoff for the North Atlantic, South 

Atlantic-Gulf, Missouri, Arkansas-White-Red, 

and Columbia-North Pacific Water-Resources 

Regions. Figures 6-10 show the unit-area 

discharge-dissolved-solids-concentration relationship for the various hydrologic benchmark stations and selected major river basins 

draining the respective water-resources regions. 

Examination of these figures indicates the 

relationship between water quality in the 

natural environment and water quality of major 

streams in these various regions. The most consistent relationship between water quality in 

the natural environment and water quality of 

major streams occurs in the North Atlantic

10
HAWAII

 

14

EXPLANATION

Number shown refers to station 

number listed in table 1

Region boundary

MILES 

500 KILOMETRES

FIGURE 5. Water-resources regions of the United States.

TABLE 9. Population density and average runoff for selected water-resources

regions1

Water-resources

region

North Atlantic .........

South Atlantic-Gulf. . . . Missouri ...............

Arkansas- White-Red . . .

Columbia-North Pacific

Area

(sq mi )

172,000

276,000

515,000

282,000

274,000

Population

in 1960

43,900,000

19,700,000

7,800,000

7,100,000

5,400,000

Population

density

(persons per

sq mi )

255

71

15

25

20

Average

runoff

(in.)

19.95

15.01

2.21

7.13

16.07

'From Water Resources Council (1968, p. 1-1 to 1-5).

Region. All hydrologic bench-mark stations 

draining the North Atlantic Region contain less 

than 40 mg/1 of dissolved solids. The selected 

major streams draining the region contain from 

40 to 300 mg/1 of dissolved solids. One of the 

reasons the effects of man on water quality is so 

apparent in the North Atlantic Region is the 

fact that, although it represents only about 5 

percent of the area of the country, population of 

the region accounts for about 25 percent of the

population of the United States. This region 

contains the largest urbanized complex in the 

Nation, and discharge of wastes to water and 

resulting degradation of water quality is a 

severe problem in many areas.

Streams draining the natural environment of 

the South Atlantic-Gulf Water-Resources 

Region also contain relatively low concentrations of dissolved solids. Generally, major 

streams draining this region contain more dis11
UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

0.003

300

0.006 0.01

I,,, i

0.03 0.06 0.1

_,_I

100

2 60

30

10

33 HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION - 

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

10

FIGURE 6. Unit-area discharge versus dissolved-solids concentration for streams draining hydrologic bench-mark 

stations and major river basins in the North Atlantic Region.

solved solids than streams draining the natural 

environment. The St. Johns River, which drains 

populous northeast Florida, contains the most 

dissolved solids of major streams in this region. 

Major streams generally contain more dissolved solids than streams draining the natural 

environment of this region, but the relationship 

is not nearly so pronounced as it is in the North 

Atlantic Region. One reason is that the population density in this region is only about onefourth as high as the population density in the 

North Atlantic Region.

The Missouri Water-Resources Region has the 

lowest population density and lowest average 

runoff of the five regions listed in table 9. Both 

factors contribute to a nonsystematic 

relationship between water quality and the 

natural environment and the water quality of

the major streams draining this region. Streams 

draining the natural environment of this region 

indicate that poor water quality can result from 

a natural process, as well as from a maninduced process. The role of natural processes in 

environmental degradation was recently 

emphasized by the late William T. Pecora, then 

Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, in a commencement address (1970) at the George 

Washington University in which he scored 

what he termed an "environmental myth" the 

belief by many people that man alone is 

degrading and polluting his environment by our 

modern society. Dr. Pecora gave the following 

examples to demonstrate that natural processes are principal agents in modifying the 

environment: "Many have long believed that 

water issuing from natural springs is pure and

12
UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

0.001

1000

0.003 0.006

I

0.01

I

0.03

I

0.06

i

0.1

I

600

300

100

O 60

30

10

52 HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION -

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

Rver

 - - _ Roanokg River

A'ab,.ama River

0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

10

FIGURE 7. Unit-area discharge versus dissolved-solids concentration for streams draining hydrologic bench-mark 

stations and major river basins in the South Atlantic-Gulf Region.

beneficial to health because of its purity. The 

springs issuing into the Arkansas and Red 

Rivers carry 17 tons of salt per minute. The 

Lemonade Springs in New Mexico carry 900 

pounds of sulfuric acid per million pounds of 

water, which is ten times the acid concentration 

of most acid-mine streams in the Nation." 

Data collected at the hydrologic bench-mark

station located at Bear Den Creek near Mandaree, N. Dak. (station 35, fig. 8), further emphasize that waters containing high concentrations of dissolved minerals do exist in the 

natural environment. For instance, a sample 

collected at the Mandaree station contained 

3,420 mg/1 of dissolved solids. Examination of 

figure 10 shows a wide scatter for the hydro13
UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

1000

600

CT 300 

O

o

I- 100

60

30

0.0003 0.0006 0.001

I . . i . I

0.003 0.006 0.01

27 (Nebraska)

27 HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION -

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

10

0.01 0.03 0.06 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

10

FIGURE 8. Unit-area discharge versus dissolved-solids concentration for streams draining hydrologic bench-mark

stations and major river basins in the Missouri Region.

logic bench-mark stations and major streams 

draining this region, with water at several of the 

bench-mark stations containing appreciably 

more dissolved solids than the major streams. 

All major streams draining the ArkansasWhite-Red Water-Resources Region (fig. 9) 

contain higher dissolved-solids concentrations 

than the hydrologic bench-mark stations 

draining the same region.

NITRATE

Table 10 summarizes nitrate nitrogen concentration for those streams draining hydrologic bench-mark stations and major streams 

listed in table 8. Comparison of the average 

median values shows that man's activities have 

influenced nitrate concentration the least in the 

South Atlantic-Gulf Region and the greatest in 

the North Atlantic Region, again demonstrating the effects of the large urbanized complex in the northeast. Significantly higher 

median values are apparent in the ArkansasWhite-Red, Columbia-North Pacific, and 

Missouri Regions, reflecting the effects of agricultural use of nitrogen fertilizers. The highest 

average maximum values in major streams 

occur in the agriculturally dominated 

Arkansas-White-Red and Missouri Regions. 

The highest average maximum nitrate concentrations in bench-mark stations occurred in 

the Missouri Region, reflecting the strong 

influence of bench-mark site No. 18, one of the 

few bench-mark basins where cultivated crops 

are grown.

Data in table 10 indicate that average median 

nitrate concentrations of streams draining 

hydrologic bench marks range from 0.2 to 0.5 

mg/1. Average nitrate concentrations in many 

major streams are as much as 14 times greater 

than natural concentrations and vary geo14
UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

0.0003

1000

0.0006 0.001 i i i i

0.003 0.006 0.01 0.03 0.06

I i

0.1

I I

HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION -

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

0.03 0.06 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

FIGURE 9. Unit-area discharge versus dissolved-solids concentration for streams draining hydrologic bench-mark 

stations and major river basins in the Arkansas-White-Red Region.

TABLE 10. Nitrate concentration of hydrologic bench-mark stations and 

selected major streams draining various water-resources regions, 1968-70 

water years

Nitrate concentration (mg/1)

Water-resources

South Atlantic-Gulf. . . . Missouri ...............

Arkansas-White-Red . . . 

Columbia-North Pacific

Hydrologic bench marks 1

Average 

maximum

1.7 

1.7 

4.9 

1.0 

1.0

Average 

median

0.3

.5 

.4 

.2 

.2

Selected major streams 1

Average 

maximum

5.9

2.1 

7.4 

16 

6.1

Average 

median

2.9 

A 

1.0 

1.9 

1.0

'Sites listed in table 8.

graphically, being dependent mostly on population density and intensity of agricultural use 

of the land.

ANALYSIS OF SEVERAL FACTORS 

AFFECTING "NATURAL" WATER QUALITY 

In the natural environment the quantity and 

type of chemical constituents dissolved in water

depend mainly on the type of rocks with which 

the water comes in contact, on length of contact 

time, and on rainfall. Rocks are composed of 

minerals, most of which are resistant to solution 

by water. Over great periods of time, however, 

appreciable amounts of these minerals can be 

dissolved. Different rock types vary in

15
UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

CC 600

0.0003 0.0006 0.001

 I , i , i , I , i , i ,i J . 

0.003 0.006 0.01

i , I , i . i ,i J .

0.03

 L_

0.06 0.1

, I , i ,i .i

300 -

54 HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION - 

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

100

60

30 -

-L6_(ldaho)

10

0.03 0.06 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

10

FIGURE 10. Unit-area discharge versus dissolved-solids concentration for streams draining hydrologic bench-mark 

stations and major river basins in the Columbia-North Pacific Region.

resistance to solution. Some rocks granite, for 

instance are not readily dissolved by water, 

but other rocks, such as limestone, are readily 

soluble.

When precipitation and the resulting runoff 

are insufficient to redissolve salts accumulating 

as a result of evaporation, these salts 

accumulate in the soil or on exposed streambeds. Salt residues, common in many parts of 

the arid Western United States, are seldom seen 

in humid areas.

The combined effect of these two hydrologic 

factors rock type and runoff on water quality 

is illustrated in figure 11, which shows the 

relationship between maximum dissolvedsolids concentration and average annual runoff (mainly a function of precipitation) for 

streams draining various rock types. Data used 

in the preparation of figure 11 are summarized 

in table 11.

The curves in figure 11 are a function of 

several natural phenomena the solubility of 

the minerals composing the rock type, the rate

of solution of those minerals, the flow-through 

rate of the water within the rock, the amount of 

precipitation, and the dissolved-solids concentration in the precipitation. In regions of low 

average annual runoff where water containing maximum dissolved-solids concentrations has been in contact with the rocks for a 

long period of time and is little affected by 

dilution due to runoff relatively insoluble sand 

and gravel exhibit the lowest concentrations of 

dissolved solids, and volcanic rocks and limestone showing progressively greater concentrations. This progression is what one would expect 

on the basis of both the solubility and the rate of 

dissolution of the rocks. An explanation of some 

of the other characteristics shown by the curves 

in figure 11 requires that other properties than 

solubility and rate of solution be taken into 

account also.

Ground water in the most permeable 

rocks limestone and basalt has maximum 

velocity for a given energy gradient. Because 

water moves through these rocks and into sur16
face streams relatively rapidly, contact time is 

short; consequently, less material is dissolved 

from limestone and basalt in areas with low 

average annual runoff than from less soluble 

rocks with which the water is in contact for a 

longer period of time. In areas of higher average annual runoff, however, the rate of dissolution of volcanic rocks and limestone is high 

enough that dilution by the increased runoff is 

minimal, and maximum dissolved-solids concentrations are greater than in the less soluble 

rocks. This relationship is shown in figure 11 by 

the lesser slopes of the curves for volcanic rocks 

and limestone and their intersection with the 

curves for the less readily soluble 

rocks granite, shale, sandstone, schist, and 

gneiss. The nearly horizontal curve for sand 

and gravel reflects the insolubility of that rock 

type, and its dissolved-solids intercept is 

probably more dependent on the dissolvedsolids concentration in precipitation falling on 

the basin than on solution of minerals in the 

rock.

The characteristic curves for shale and sandstone and those for the metamorphic 

rocks schist and gneiss exhibit similar 

characteristics. This suggests that one of the 

most easily traced progressions of rock metaphorism, from shale through slate and schist to 

gneiss (Shelton, 1966), does not greatly affect 

the dissolved-solids concentration of water 

draining these rocks.

AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF, IN MILLIMETRES

30

I

3000

1000

600

300

100

60

O 30

O

10

60

I

100

, I

300

I

600

, I ,

1000

, I

3 6 10 30 

AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF, IN INCHES

60

FIGURE 11. Relationship between maximum dissolvedsolids concentration and average annual runoff for 

hydrologic bench-mark stations draining various rock

types.

TABLE 11 Selected hydrologic characteristics, hydrologic bench-mark stations

[N.D., not determined]

Station

No. 1

Drainage

State area

(sq mi )

Physical

division2

Principal

rock type

Average

annual

runoff

(in.)

Maximum

dissolved-solids

concentration-'

(mg/1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Alabama ............

...do ................

Arizona ..............

Arkansas ............

...do ................

California ...........

...do ................

...do ................

Colorado .............

...do ................

Florida ..............

Georgia ..............

See footnotes at end of table, p. 18.

86.8

91.3

36.4

89.4

58.4

6.50

181

QO fj

23

72.1

97.9

72.2

F 

C 

R 

I 

H

T

S 

R

N 

N

F 

E

Granite ..........

Shale, sandstone, 

Limestone .......

Marine sedimentary. 

Granite .............

Metamorphized

sedimentary rocks. 

Schist ..............

Schist, conglomerate

Limestone ... 

Gneiss, schist,

23

26

2

23

19

50

25

.02

18

20

25

14

N.D.

70

258

48

186

88

27

N.D. 

61 

51

153

103

17
TABLE 11 Selected hydrologic characteristics, hydrologic bench-mark stations Continued

Station

No.'

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Georgia .............

Hawaii .............

Idaho ...............

...do ...............

Indiana .............

Iowa ................

Louisiana ...........

Maine ..............

Michigan ...........

Minnesota ..........

...do ...............

Mississippi .........

Montana ............

...do ...............

Nebraska ...........

Nevada .............

...do ...............

New Jersey .........

New Mexico ........

...do ...............

New York ...........

North Carolina .....

North Dakota ..... .

...do ...............

Ohio ................

Oklahoma ..........

...do ...............

Oregon .............

...do ...............

Pennsylvania .......

South Carolina .....

...do ...............

South Dakota .......

...do...............

Tennessee ..........

...do ...............

Texas ...............

...do ...............

Utah ...............

Virginia ............

Washington .........

...do ...............

Wisconsin ..........

Wyoming ...........

...do ...............

Drainage

area

(sq mi )

56.5

11.6

22.0

253

38.2

52.5

51

69.5

13.6

253

101

52.2

100

31.4

960

20

11.1

2.31

69

53.2

59.5

49.2

74

160

12.8

24.6

40.1

26.2

240

46.2

70

87

51

51

447

106

52.4

34.2

7.25

8.53

22.1

74.1

131

10

72.7

Physical

division2

D

...

M

Q

J

J

F

A

K

K

J

F

L

M

L

R

R

F

R

N

C

D

L

J

C

J

I

S

Q

C

F

F

J

J

G

D

R

L

O

E

S

T

K

O

N

Principal

rock type

Gneiss, schist .............

Volcanic ..................

Quartzite .................

Volcanic rocks ............

Limestone ................

Limestone, shale ..........

Unconsolidated sand ......

Gneiss, schist .............

Sandstone ................

Granite, gabbro ...........

Limestone, sandstone .....

Unconsolidated sand ......

Shale, sandstone ..........

Limestone, quartzite ......

Unconsolidated sand ......

Volcanic ..................

Limestone ................

Unconsolidated sand ......

Volcanic rocks ............

( 4 )

Sandstone ................

... do ...................

Sandstone, silt ............

Shale, till .................

Shale, sandstone ..........

Granite ...................

Shale, sandstone ..........

Andesite ..................

Volcanic rocks ............

Shale, sandstone ..........

Unconsolidated sand. .....

...do ............. .....

Shale, schist ..............

Till .......................

Chert .....................

Shale, sandstone ..........

Volcanic rocks ............

Limestone, marl ..........

( 4 )

Schist, quartzite ..........

Granite ...................

Slate......................

Schist, granite ............

Shale, sandstone ..........

Granite ...................

Average

annual

runoff

(in.)

40

. . N.D.

21

.1

12

6

16

34

13

10

4

20

2-3

64

3

3

5

13

3.5

7

25

30

1

<1

15

3-4

20-25

Lake

25

17

15-20

14

1.5

1

22

36

.15

3

9-10

13-14

N.D.

145

12

19

16-18

Maximum

dissol ved-solids

concentration3

(mg/1)

20

N.D.

60

140

353

506

48

23

130

31

314

29

1,870

56

172

94

203

25

110

72

44

20

3,420

1,220

83

213

29

57

36

29

17

292

N.D.

65

19

126

291

447

42

N.D.

60

152

207

56

'Alphabetical by State. 

2From Fenneman (1928).

3Maximum observed during 1968-70 water years; monthly sampling 

4More than two types.

18
300

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE 

0.0003 0.0006 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.01 0.3 0.06 0.1

100

60

LJJ 

DC

I- 30

16 HYDROLOGIC BENCH-MARK STATION - 

Number refers to station number listed in 

table 1

_l 1 Q I_______________I_________I______I I I I I I I_______________|_________|______ . lii.i_______________I_________|______i

d 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 3

S UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

? A

O UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METRES PER SECOND PER SQUARE KILOMETRE

JZ 0.0003 0.0006 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.01

300

10

0.03

O

O

Q 100

LU 

>

_l

O

Q 60

30 -

10

27 (Nebraska)

24 (Mississippi)

30 (New Jersey)

44 (South Carolina)

0.01 0.03 0.06 0.1 0.3 0.6 1 

UNIT-AREA DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

B

FIGURE 12. Unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids relationship for hydrologic bench-mark stations draining (A) 

volcanic rocks and (B) unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits.

19
In addition to exhibiting a definite pattern 

relating maximum dissolved-solids concentration and average annual runoff, streams 

draining several rock types exhibit similar unitarea discharge-dissolved-solids relationships 

throughout the entire observed range of flow. 

Figure 12A shows unit-area dischargedissolved-solids-concentration curves for all 

streams draining volcanic rocks. Figure 12B 

shows similar curves for all streams draining 

unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits. 

Similar plots for other rock types exhibited too 

much scatter to permit useful generalization. 

Apparently, rock type alone is not sufficient to 

characterize inorganic chemical characteristics. Climate, particularly precipitation, 

must be considered.

SUMMARY

The Hydrologic Bench-Mark Program has 

yielded data that provide a description of water 

quality in the "natural" environment and that 

allow a comparison of this "natural" water 

quality with the quality of major streams 

draining the same hydrologic regions of the 

United States.

The relationship between water discharge per 

unit drainage area and dissolved-solids concentration is shown to be a useful approach for 

estimating water quality in the various physical 

divisions of the United States. Median curves 

showing this relationship were developed for 11 

of the 14 physical divisions and can be used to 

estimate the dissolved-solids concentration of 

any "natural" stream if the water discharge per 

unit area is known. Bench-mark streams 

draining the Coastal Plain province of the 

Atlantic Plain had the least variable unit-area 

discharge-dissolved-solids relationship.

Natural streams in the New England and 

Blue Ridge provinces of the Appalachian Highlands contain lower concentrations of dissolved minerals than streams draining hydrologic bench-mark basins in any other part of the 

country. Streams draining bench-mark basins 

in the Interior Plains contain the highest 

concentrations of dissolved minerals.

Pesticide data collected on bench-mark 

streams revealed a widespread low-level occurrence of pesticide residues in the natural 

environment. The DDT family of pesticides 

occurred most commonly and accounted for 75

percent of the detected occurrences. The highest 

observed concentration of DDT was 0.06 /ug/1, 

well below the recommended permissible maximum of 42 jug/1 for drinking water (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 

1968, p. 20).

Concentrations of potentially toxic minor 

metals in bench-mark streams were also very 

low. Of 642 measurements, about 65 percent 

showed near zero concentrations only 3 

measurements indicated concentrations in 

excess of U.S. Public Health Service (1962) 

drinking-water standards.

A comparison of the unit-area discharge-dissolved-solids-concentration relationship between bench-mark streams and major streams 

draining the same water-resources region 

reveals a higher dissolved-solids concentration 

per unit-area discharge for most of the major 

streams. This relationship is most consistent in 

the densely populated North Atlantic Region 

and is reversed in the Missouri Region, where 

several bench-mark streams contain higher 

dissolved-solids concentrations than the major 

streams.

Average median nitrate nitrogen concentration in bench-mark streams range from 0.2 to 0.5 

mg/1. Average concentrations in many major 

streams are as much as 10 times greater. A comparison of average median values shows that 

man's activities have influenced nitrate concentrations the least in the South Atlantic-Gulf 

Region and the most in the North Atlantic 

Region.

REFERENCES

Breidenbach, A. W., Gunnerson, C. G., Kawahara, F. K., 

Lichtenberg, J. J., and Green, R. S., 1967, Chlorinated 

hydrocarbon pesticides in major river basins, 1957-65: 

U.S. Public Health Service Kept. 82, no. 2, p. 139-156.

Cobb, E. D., and Biesecker, J. E., 1971, The national hydrologic bench-mark network: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 

460-D, 38 p.

Fenneman, N. M., 1928, Physiographic divisions of the 

United States, 3d ed., revised and enlarged: Assoc. Am. 

Geographers Annals, v. 18, no. 4, p. 261-353.

Janzer, V. J., and Saindon, L. G., 1972, Radiochemical 

analyses of surface water from U.S. Geological Survey 

hydrologic bench-mark stations: U.S. Geol. Survey 

open-file report, 41 p.

Manigold, D. B., and Schulze, J. A., 1969, Pesticides in 

selected western streams A progress report: Pesticides 

Monitoring Jour., v. 3, no. 2, p. 124-135.

President's Science Advisory Committee, Environmental 

Pollution Panel, 1965, Restoring the quality of our environment: The White House, 317 p.

20
Shelton, J. S., 1966, Geology illustrated: San Francisco, U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water stanW. H. Freeman and Co., 434 p. dards; U.S. Public Health Service Pub. 956, 61 p.

Water Resources Council, 1968, The Nation's water reU.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968, sources The first National assessment of the Water 

Report of the committee on water-quality criteria: Resources Council, parts 1-7: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Washington, B.C., U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 234 p. Govt. Printing Office.

21 ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-677-309/44