Quantifying flow interval–pollutant loading relationships in a rapidly urbanizing mixed-land-use watershed of the Central USA
- 209 Downloads
Rapid urbanization and agricultural development have altered flow and pollutant loading regimes resulting in poorly understood pollutant transport regimes and inadequately conceived management practices. Four years of hydrologic and water quality data (i.e., stream flow, suspended sediment, nitrate, nitrite, total ammonium, total inorganic nitrogen, and total phosphorus) were collected using a five-site nested-scale study design in a representative mixed-land-use watershed. Cumulative nested sub-basin drainage areas ranged from 79 to 208 km2. Daily flow and load duration analyses were used to quantify land use impacts to flow-mediated pollutant loading at multiple flow intervals including high flows (0–10%), moist conditions (10–40%), mid-range flows (40–60%), dry conditions (60–90%), and low flows (90–100%). Pollutant loads ranged across four orders of magnitude for suspended sediments, and three orders of magnitude for nutrient loads during the high flow interval when nearly all of the total pollutant loads were transported (e.g., 99% of suspended sediments, 92% of total inorganic nitrogen, and 95% of total phosphorus loads). Results from stepwise multiple linear regression analyses showed significant relationships between land use, flow, and pollutant load at high flows, moist conditions, and mid-range flow intervals (R 2 > 75.7; p < 0.035). No significant relationships (p < 0.05) were detected during dry conditions, or low flow intervals. Results highlight the need for consideration of combined flow and pollutant loading targets appropriate for watersheds modified by current and ongoing land use and point to a need for long-term and broad-scale efforts to develop achievable hydrologic and water quality recommendations especially in rapidly urbanizing mixed-land-use watersheds.
KeywordsPollutant loading Urban Mixed-land-use hydrology Suspended sediment Nutrients
Funding was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation and 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. Additional funding was provided by partners of the Hinkson Creek Watershed Collaborative Adaptive Management 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
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007) Standard methods for determining sediment concentrations in water samples. ASTM D:3977–3997Google Scholar
- Howarth RW, Billen G, Swaney D, Townsend A, Jaworski N, Lajtha K, Downing JA, Elmgren R, Caraco T, Jordan T, Berendse F, Freney J, Kudeyarov V, Murdoch P, Zhu ZL (1996) Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine N & P fluxes for the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: natural and human influences. Biochemistry 35(1):75–139Google Scholar
- Hubbart JA (2011) Urban floodplain management: understanding consumptive water-use potential in urban forested floodplains. Stormwater 12(6):56–63Google Scholar
- Hubbart JA, Holmes J, Bowman G (2010) Integrating science based decision making and TMDL allocations in urbanizing watersheds. Watershed Sci Bull 01:19–24Google Scholar
- Hubbart JA, Muzika R-M, Huang D, Robinson A (2011) Improving quantitative understanding of Bottomland Hardwood Forest influence on soil water consumption in an urban floodplain. Watershed Sci Bull 3:34–43Google Scholar
- Leopold LB, Wolman MG, Miller JP (2012) Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, p 11501Google Scholar
- Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ, Merritt WS, McKee LJ, Eyre BD, Baginska B (1999) Review of techniques to estimate catchment exports. Environment Protection Authority, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- MDNR (2011) Total maximum daily load for Hinkson Creek Boone County, Missouri. Prepared by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Water Protection ProgramGoogle Scholar
- Miller D, Vandike J (1997) Groundwater resources of Missouri. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Land Survey Water Resources Rep, 46, p 136Google Scholar
- Shepard AN, Valentine JF, D’Elia CF, Yoskowitz DW, Dismukes DE (2013) Economic impact of Gulf of Mexico ecosystem goods and services and integration Into restoration decision-making. Gulf Mexico Sci 1(2):10–27Google Scholar
- Turnipseed DP, Sauer VB (2010) Discharge measurements at gaging stations. In: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques in Water Resource Investigations Book 3: Applications of Hydraulics. Chap A8. http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri3a8/pdf/TWRI_3-A8.pdf