Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 213–228 | Cite as

Variable Streamflow Contributions in Nested Subwatersheds of a US Midwestern Urban Watershed

  • Liang Wei
  • Jason A. Hubbart
  • Hang Zhou
Article

Abstract

Quantification of runoff is critical to estimate and control water pollution in urban regions, but variation in impervious area and land-use type can complicate the quantification of runoff. We quantified the streamflow contributions of subwatersheds and the historical changes in streamflow in a flood prone urbanizing watershed in US Midwest to guide the establishment of a future pollution-control plan. Streamflow data from five nested hydrological stations enabled accurate estimations of streamflow contribution from five subwatersheds with variable impervious areas (from 0.5% to 26.6%). We corrected the impact of Missouri river backwatering at the most downstream station by comparing its streamflow with an upstream station using double-mass analysis combined with Bernaola-Galvan Heuristic Segmentation approach. We also compared the streamflow of the urbanizing watershed with seven surrounding rural watersheds to estimate the cumulative impact of urbanization on the streamflow regime. The two most urbanized subwatersheds contributed >365 mm streamflow in 2012 with 657 mm precipitation, which was more than fourfold greater than the two least urbanized subwatersheds. Runoff occurred almost exclusively over the most urbanized subwatersheds during the dry period. The frequent floods occurred and the same amount of precipitation produced ~100 mm more streamflow in 2008–2014 than 1967–1980 in the urbanizing watershed; such phenomena did not occur in surrounding rural watersheds. Our approaches provide comprehensive information for planning on runoff control and pollutant reduction in urban watersheds.

Keywords

Nested watersheds Double-mass analysis Urban stream syndrome Backwater Bernaola-Galvan heuristic segmentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to scientists of the Interdisciplinary Hydrology Laboratory (www.FORH2O.net).

Funding

Funding was provided by joint agreement of the University of Missouri, the City of Columbia, and Boone County Public works as per the Hinkson Creek Collaborative Adaptive Management (CAM) program. Other funding was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (P.N: G08-NPS-17) under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, and Los Alamos National Laboratory LDRD program. Results presented may not reflect the views of the sponsors and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Supplementary material

11269_2017_1804_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2040 kb)

References

  1. Arnell NW (1999) Climate change and global water resources. Glob Environ Chang 9(Supplement 1):S31–S49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(99)00017-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell JE, Leeper RD, Palecki MA, Coopersmith E, Wilson T, Bilotta R, Embler S (2015) Evaluation of the 2012 drought with a newly established national soil monitoring network. Vadose Zone J 14.  https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2015.02.0023
  3. Bernaola-Galván P, Ivanov PC, Nunes Amaral LA, Stanley HE (2001) Scale Invariance in the Nonstationarity of Human Heart Rate. Phys Rev Lett 87:168105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd M, Bufill M, Knee R (1993) Pervious and impervious runoff in urban catchments. Hydrol Sci J 38:463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–88.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[80:SHIUER]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. MC Graw-Hill International, New York, pp 380–415Google Scholar
  7. EPA (2011) United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 Total Maximum Daily Load HinksonCreek (MO_1007 and 1008 Boone County, Missouri). Available at:https://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/tmdl/docs/1007-1008-hinkson-tmdl.pdf
  8. Fry JA et al (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858–864Google Scholar
  9. Furusho C, Andrieu H, Chancibault K (2014) Analysis of the hydrological behaviour of an urbanizing basin. Hydrol Process 28:1809–1819.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gleick PH (1998) Water in crisis: paths to sustainable water use. Ecol Appl 8:571–579.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0571:wicpts]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hollis G (1975) The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval. Water Resour Res 11:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Homer C et al (2007) Completion of the 2001 national land cover database for the counterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73:337Google Scholar
  14. Homer C et al (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States–representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81:345–354Google Scholar
  15. Hubbart JA (2012) Using Sediment Particle Size Class Analysis to Better Understand Urban Land-Use Effects. Int J Appl 2:12-27Google Scholar
  16. Hubbart JA, Zell C (2013) Considering streamflow trend analyses uncertainty in urbanizing watersheds: a baseflow case study in the central United States. Earth Interact 17:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hubbart JA, Holmes J, Bowman G (2010) TMDLs: improving stakeholder acceptance with science-based allocations. Watershed Sci Bull 1:19–24Google Scholar
  18. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2007) The evolution of urban sprawl: evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:20672–20677.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705527105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobson CR (2011) Identification and quantification of the hydrological impacts of imperviousness in urban catchments: a review. J Environ Manag 92:1438–1448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennen JG, Henriksen JA, Heasley J, Cade BS, and Terrell JW (2009) Application of the Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process for Missouri Streams: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1138, 57 p.Google Scholar
  21. Kohler MA (1949) Double-mass analysis for testing the consistency of records and for making adjustments. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 30:188–189Google Scholar
  22. Lerch RN, Erickson JM, Wicks CM (2001) Intensive water quality monitoring in two karst watersheds of Boone County, Missouri. Proceedings of the 15th National Cave and Karst Management Symposium, National Cave and Karst Management Symposium Steering Committee, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  23. Lerch RN, Wicks CM, Moss PL (2005) Hydrologic characterization of two karst recharge areas in Boone County Missouri. J Cave Karst Stud 67:158–173Google Scholar
  24. Lyne V, Hollick M (1979) Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modelling. In: Institute of Engineers Australia National Conference, pp 89–93. Melbourne, 21-22 March 1979 / organised by the National Committee on Engineering Management of the Institution of Engineers, Australia.Google Scholar
  25. Mallya G, Zhao L, Song X, Niyogi D, Govindaraju R (2013) 2012 Midwest drought in the United States. J Hydrol Eng 18:737–745.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCuen RH, Walesh SG, Rawls WJ (1983) Control of urban stormwater runoff by detention and retention, vol 1428. US Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ParlierGoogle Scholar
  27. McNamara JP, Kane DL, Hinzman LD (1998) An analysis of streamflow hydrology in the Kuparuk River basin, Arctic Alaska: a nested watershed approach. J Hydrol 206:39–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00083-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Metcalfe RA, Schmidt BJ (2014a) Streamflow Analysis and Assessment Software (SAAS)(V4) http://people.trentu.ca/rmetcalfe/SAAS.html
  29. Metcalfe RA, Schmidt BJ (2014b) Streamflow analysis and assessment software (version 4): reference manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Goulais RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. Metcalfe RA, Mackereth RW, Grantham B, Jones N, Pyrce RS, Haxton T, Luce JJ, Stainton R, (2013) Aquatic Ecosystem Assessments for Rivers. Science and Research Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 210 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Miller JD, Kim H, Kjeldsen TR, Packman J, Grebby S, Dearden R (2014) Assessing the impact of urbanization on storm runoff in a peri-urban catchment using historical change in impervious cover. J Hydrol 515:59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nathan R, McMahon T (1990) Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and recession analyses. Water Resour Res 26:1465–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2008) Streams in the urban landscape. In: Marzluff JM et al (eds) Urban ecology: an international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer US, Boston, pp 207–231.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poff NL, Bledsoe BP, Cuhaciyan CO (2006) Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79:264–285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roy AH, Shuster WD (2009) Assessing impervious surface connectivity and applications for watershed Management1 JAWRA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45:198–209.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00271.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sartor JD, Boyd GB, Agardy FJ (1974) Water pollution aspects of street surface contaminants. J Water Pollut Control Fed 46:458–467Google Scholar
  37. Searcy JK, Hardison CH (1960) Double-mass curves. United States Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  38. Shuster W, Bonta J, Thurston H, Warnemuende E, Smith D (2005) Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: a review. Urban Water J 2:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vörösmarty C et al (2004) Humans transforming the global water system EOS. Trans Am Geophys Union 85(509):513–514Google Scholar
  40. Walker CH, Hopkin S, Sibly R, Peakall DB (2006) Principles of ecotoxicology, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  41. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723.  https://doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Burns MJ (2012) Urban Stormwater runoff: a new class of environmental flow problem. PLoS One 7:e45814.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weibel SR, Anderson RJ, Woodward RL (1964) Urban land runoff as a factor in stream pollution. J Water Pollut Control Fed 36:914–924Google Scholar
  44. Xian G, Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Hossain N, Wickham J (2011) Change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:758–762Google Scholar
  45. Zeiger S, Hubbart JA, Anderson SH, Stambaugh MC (2015) Quantifying and modelling urban stream temperature: a central US watershed study. Hydrol Process.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10617
  46. Zillgens B, Merz B, Kirnbauer R, Tilch N (2007) Analysis of the runoff response of an alpine catchment at different scales. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1441–1454.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1441-2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ForestryUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Earth and Environmental Sciences DivisionLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  3. 3.Davis College, Schools of Agriculture and Food, and Natural ResourcesWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Water Security and ScienceWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  5. 5.Department of GeographyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations