Environmental Management

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 604–618 | Cite as

Characterizing the Effects of Stormwater Mitigation on Nutrient Export and Stream Concentrations

  • Colin D. Bell
  • Sara K. McMillan
  • Sandra M. Clinton
  • Anne J. Jefferson


Urbanization increases nutrient loading and lowers residence times for processing of reactive solutes, including nitrate, total dissolved nitrogen, orthophosphate, and dissolved organic carbon), which leads to increased stream concentrations and mass export. Stormwater control measures mitigate the impacts of urbanization, and have the potential to improve stream water quality, however the net effect instream is not well understood. We monitored two urban and two suburban watersheds in Charlotte, NC to determine if mitigation controlled the fraction of total mass export during storm, if development classification as either urban or suburban (defined by the age, density and distribution of urban development) controlled storm nutrient and carbon dynamics, and if stormwater control measures were able to change stream water chemistry. While average concentrations during stormflow were generally greater than baseflow, indicating that storms are important times of solute export, the fraction of storm-derived export was unrelated to mitigation by stormwater control measures. Development classification was generally not an important control on export of N and dissolved organic carbon. However, event mean concentrations of orthophosphate were higher at the suburban sites, possibly from greater fertilizer application. Stormwater control measures influenced instream water chemistry at only one site, which also had the greatest mitigated area, but differences between stormwater control measure outflow and stream water suggest the potential for water quality improvements. Together, results suggest stormwater control measures have the potential to decrease solute concentrations from urban runoff, but the type, location, and extent of urban development in the watershed may influence the magnitude of this effect.


Water quality Best management practices Stormwater management 

Supplementary material

267_2016_801_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary Information


  1. Aber JD, Melillo JM, Nadelhoffer KJ, Pastor J, Boone RD (1991) Factors controlling nitrogen cycling and nitrogen saturation in Northern temperate forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 1:303–315. doi:10.2307/1941759 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitkenhead-Peterson JA, Steele MK, Nahar N, Santhy K (2009) Dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen in urban and rural watersheds of south-central Texas: land use and land management influences. Biogeochemistry 96:119–129. doi:10.1007/s10533-009-9348-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environment Federation (WEF) (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st Edition. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environment Federation (WEF). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc 62:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedan ES, Clausen JC (2009) Stormwater Runoff quality and quantity from traditional and low impact development watersheds1. J Am Water Resour Assoc 45:998–1008. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00342.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell CD, McMillan SK, Clinton SD, Jefferson AJ (2016) Hydrological response to stormwater control measures in Urban watersheds. J Hydrol 541:1488–1500. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt ES, Band LE, Walsh CJ, Berke PE (2008) Understanding, managing, and minimizing urban impacts on surface water nitrogen loading. Ann NY Acad Sci 1134:61–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertrand-Krajewski J-L, Chebbo G, Saget A (1998) Distribution of pollutant mass vs volume in stormwater discharges and the first flush phenomenon. Water Res 32:2341–2356. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00420-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boström B, Andersen J, Fleischer S, Jansson M (1988) Exchange of phosphorus across the sediment-water interface. In: Persson G, Jansson M (eds) Phosphorus in freshwater ecosystems, vol 48. Developments in Hydrobiology. Springer, pp 229–244. Uppsala, Sweden. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3109-1_14
  10. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TKe, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Stormwater Services (CMSWS) (2013) Charlotte-Mecklenburg BMP design manual, Revised EditionGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins KA et al. (2010) Opportunities and challenges for managing nitrogen in urban stormwater: a review and synthesis. Ecol Eng 36:1507–1519. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devito KJ, Fitzgerald D, Hill AR, Aravena R (2000) Nitrate dynamics in relation to lithology and hydrologic flow path in a river riparian zone. J Environ Qual 29. doi:10.2134/jeq2000.00472425002900040007x
  14. Diehl TH (2008) A modified Siphon sampler for shallow Water. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5282Google Scholar
  15. Dietz ME, Clausen JC (2008) Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and low impact subdivision. J Environ Manag 87:560–566. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duan S, Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Band LE, Belt KT (2012) Phosphorus export across an urban to rural gradient in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. J Geophys Res 117:G01025. doi:10.1029/2011jg001782 Google Scholar
  17. Duncan JM, Groffman PM, Band LE (2013) Towards closing the watershed nitrogen budget: spatial and temporal scaling of denitrification. J Geophys Res 118:1105–1119. doi:10.1002/jgrg.20090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagrani V, Diemer JA, Karl JJ, Allan CJ (2014) Assessing the hydrologic and water quality benefits of a network of stormwater control measures in a SE U.S. Piedmont watershed. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50:128–142. doi:10.1111/jawr.12121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geosyntec Consultants I, Wright Water Engineers I (2012) International stormwater best management practices (BMP) database pollutant category summary statistical Addendum: TSS, bacteria, nutrients, and metalsGoogle Scholar
  20. Groffman PM, Boulware NJ, Zipperer WC, Pouyat RV, Band LE, Colosimo MF (2002) Soil nitrogen cycle processes in Urban Riparian zones. Environ Sci Technol 36:4547–4552. doi:10.1021/es020649z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groffman PM, Law NL, Belt KT, Band LE, Fisher GT (2004) Nitrogen fluxes and retention in urban watershed ecosystems. Ecosystems 7:393–403Google Scholar
  22. Hale R, Turnbull L, Earl S, Childers D, Grimm N (2015) Stormwater infrastructure controls runoff and dissolved material export from arid Urban watersheds. Ecosystems 18:62–75. doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9812-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Taylor SL (2004) The influence of Urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ Manag 34:112–124. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0221-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hefting MM, Bobbink R, de Caluwe H (2003) Nitrous oxide emission and denitrification in chronically nitrate-loaded riparian buffer zones. J Environ Qual 32. doi:10.2134/jeq2003.1194
  25. Henderson GS, Swank WT, Waide JB, Grier CC (1978) Nutrient budgets of appalachian and cascade region watersheds: a comparison. For Sci 24:385–397Google Scholar
  26. Hook A, Yeakley JA (2005) Stormflow dynamics of dissolved organic carbon and total dissolved nitrogen in a small Urban watershed. Biogeochemistry 75:409–431. doi:10.1007/s10533-005-1860-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt WF, Smith J, Jadlocki S, Hathaway J, Eubanks P (2008) Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, N.C. J Environ Eng 134:403–408. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:5(403) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jefferson AJ, Bell CD, Clinton SM, McMillan SK (2015) Application of isotope hydrograph separation to understand contributions of stormwater control measures to urban headwater streams. Hydrol Process 29:5290–5306. doi:10.1002/hyp.10680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnes PJ (2007) Uncertainties in annual riverine phosphorus load estimation: impact of load estimation methodology, sampling frequency, baseflow index and catchment population density. J Hydrol 332(1):241–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kearney MA, Zhu W, Graney J (2013) Inorganic nitrogen dynamics in an urban constructed wetland under base-flow and storm-flow conditions. Ecol Eng 60:183–191. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koch BJ et al. (2015) Suburban watershed nitrogen retention: estimating the effectiveness of stormwater management structures. Elementa 3:000063Google Scholar
  32. Koch BJ, Febria CM, Gevrey M, Wainger LA, Palmer MA (2014) Nitrogen removal by stormwater management structures: a data synthesis. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50:1594–1607. doi:10.1111/jawr.12223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kronvang B, Bruhn AJ (1996) Choice of sampling strategy and estimation method for calculating nitrogen and phosphorus transport in small lowland streams. Hydrol Process 10(11):1483–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. La Valle PD (1975) Domestic sources of stream phosphates in urban streams. Water Res 9:913–915. doi:10.1016/0043-1354(75)90041-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Law N, Band L, Grove M (2004) Nitrogen input from residential lawn care practices in suburban watersheds in Baltimore County, MD. J Environ Plan Manag 47:737–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leopold LB (1968) Hydrology for urban land planning: a guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use. USGS Circ 554:1–18Google Scholar
  37. Lewis DB, Grimm NB (2007) Hierarchical regulation of nitrogen export from urban catchments: interactions of storms and landscapes. Ecol Appl 17:2347–2364. doi:10.1890/06-0031.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Likens GE (2013) Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem, 3 edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mallin MA, Ensign SH, Wheeler TL, Mayes DB (2002) Pollutant removal efficacy of three wet detention ponds. J Environ Qual 31:654–660. doi:10.2134/jeq2002.6540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds (2016) http://meckrod.manatron.com/. Accessed 12 2015
  41. Mecklenburg County GIS (2013) 2012 Mecklenburg County Tree Canopy/Landcover. http://maps.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/openmapping/data.html. Accessed Jun 2015
  42. O’Driscoll M, Clinton SM, Jefferson AJ, Manda A, McMillan SK (2010) Urbanization effects on watershed hydrology and instream processes in the Southern United States. Water 2:605–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osmond DL, Platt JL (2000) Characterization of suburban nitrogen fertilizer and water use on residential turf in Cary, North Carolina. HortTechnol 10:320–325Google Scholar
  44. Passeport E et al. (2013) Ecological engineering practices for the reduction of excess nitrogen in human-influenced landscapes: a guide for watershed managers. Environ Manag 51:392–413. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9970-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365Google Scholar
  46. Perniel M, Ruan R, Martinez B (1998) Nutrient removal from a stormwater detention pond using duckweed. Appl Eng Agric 14:605–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petrone KC (2010) Catchment export of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus across an agro-urban land use gradient, Swan-canning river system, southwestern Australia. J Geophys Res 115. doi:10.1029/2009JG001051
  48. Poor CJ, McDonnell JJ (2007) The effects of land use on stream nitrate dynamics. J Hydrol 332:54–68. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  50. Roesner L, Bledsoe B, Brashear R (2001) Are best-management-practice criteria really environmentally friendly? J Water Resour Plan Manag 127:150–154. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:3(150) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Selbig WR, Bannerman RT (2008) A comparison of runoff quantity and quality from two small basins undergoing implementation of conventional and low-impact-development (LID) strategies: cross plains, Wisconsin, Water Years 1999–2005Google Scholar
  52. Shields CA et al. (2008) Streamflow distribution of non-point source nitrogen export from urban-rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Water Resour Res 44:W09416.Google Scholar
  53. Shuster WD, Bonta J, Thurston H, Warnemuende TE, Smith DR (2005) Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: a review. Urban Water J 2:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sickman JO, Zanoli MJ, Mann HL (2007) Effects of urbanization on organic carbon loads in the Sacramento River, California. Water Resour Res 43. doi:10.1029/2007WR005954
  55. Smart MM, Jones JR, Sebaugh JL (1985) Stream-watershed relations in the Missouri Ozark plateau province1. J Environ Qual 14:77–82. doi:10.2134/jeq1985.00472425001400010015x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swank WT, Vose JM (1997) Long-term nitrogen dynamics of Coweeta forested watersheds in the southeastern United States of America. Global Biogeochem Cycles 11:657–671. doi:10.1029/97GB01752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor GD, Fletcher TD, Wong THF, Breen PF, Duncan HP (2005) Nitrogen composition in urban runoff—implications for stormwater management. Water Res 39:1982–1989. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2005.03.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Toet C, Hvitved-Jacobsen T, Yousef YA (1990) Pollutant removal and eutrophication in urban runoff detention ponds. Water Sci Technol 22:197–204Google Scholar
  59. Vidon P, Hubbard LE, Soyeux E (2009) Seasonal solute dynamics across land uses during storms in glaciated landscape of the US Midwest. J Hydrol 376:34–47. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walker WW (1985) Urban nonpoint source impacts on a surface water supply. Perspectives on nonpoint source pollution conference proceedings US EPA office of water regulations and standards EPA-440/5-85-001:129-137Google Scholar
  61. Walker WW (1987) Phosphorous removal by urban runoff detention basins. Lake Reserv Manag 3:314–326. doi:10.1080/07438148709354787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR (2005) Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:690–705. doi:10.1899/04-020.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Waschbusch R, Selbig W, Bannerman R (1994) Sources of phosphorus in stormwater and street dirt from two urban residential basins in Madison. Wisconsin 95:1999Google Scholar
  64. Westerhoff P, Anning D (2000) Concentrations and characteristics of organic carbon in surface water in Arizona: influence of urbanization. J Hydrol 236:202–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams MR, King KW, Macrae ML, Ford W, Van Esbroeck C, Brunke RI, English MC, Schiff SL (2015) Uncertainty in nutrient loads from tile-drained landscapes: effect of sampling frequency, calculation algorithm, and compositing strategy. J Hydrol 530:306–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winter JG, Duthie HC (2000) Export coefficient modeling to asses phosphorus loading in an urban watershed. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:1053–1061. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb05709.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Biological EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Earth SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeologyKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations