Article pubs.acs.org/est
Assessment of Regional Variation in Streamflow Responses to Urbanization and the Persistence of Physiography Kristina G. Hopkins,*,†,‡ Nathaniel B. Morse,§ Daniel J. Bain,† Neil D. Bettez,∥ Nancy B. Grimm,⊥ Jennifer L. Morse,# Monica M. Palta,∇ William D. Shuster,∞ Anika R. Bratt,● and Amanda K. Suchy⊥ †
Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, 4107 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, United States National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 1 Park Place, Suite 300, Annapolis, Maryland 21401, United States § Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Rudman Hall, 46 College Road, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, United States ∥ Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, 2801 Cty Road 44A, Millbrook, New York 12545, United States ⊥ School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, 427 E Tyler Mall, Tempe, Arizona 85281, United States # Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207, United States ∇ School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 876004, Tempe, Arizona 85287-6004, United States ∞ Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States ● Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108, United States ‡
S Supporting Information *
ABSTRACT: Aquatic ecosystems are sensitive to the modification of hydrologic regimes, experiencing declines in stream health as the streamflow regime is altered during urbanization. This study uses streamflow records to quantify the type and magnitude of hydrologic changes across urbanization gradients in nine U.S. cities (Atlanta, GA, Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Detroit, MI, Raleigh, NC, St. Paul, MN, Pittsburgh, PA, Phoenix, AZ, and Portland, OR) in two physiographic settings. Results indicate similar development trajectories among urbanization gradients, but heterogeneity in the type and magnitude of hydrologic responses to this apparently uniform urban pattern. Similar urban patterns did not confer similar hydrologic function. Study watersheds in landscapes with level slopes and high soil permeability had less frequent high-flow events, longer high-flow durations, lower flashiness response, and lower flow maxima compared to similarly developed watersheds in landscape with steep slopes and low soil permeability. Our results suggest that physical characteristics associated with level topography and high water-storage capacity buffer the severity of hydrologic changes associated with urbanization. Urbanization overlain upon a diverse set of physical templates creates multiple pathways toward hydrologic impairment; therefore, we caution against the use of the urban homogenization framework in examining geophysically dominated processes.
■
(i.e., metabolism and nutrient uptake).4−6 Altered hydrologic regimes are particularly important because the flow regime drives the form and function of aquatic ecosystems7,8 and regulates pollutant and nutrient dynamics in aquatic ecosystems.9 At the watershed scale, urbanization can shift the water balance from predominantly infiltration flow paths to increasing amounts of runoff, creating a broad range of both pulse and press
INTRODUCTION By 2030, 84% of the U.S. population is expected to reside in urban areas,1 and urban land-cover is expected to nearly triple compared to urban extent in 2000.2 Given urban growth projections, landscape alterations during city expansion will continue to be one of the primary drivers of global environmental change.3 Increased impervious cover following urbanization has led to a consistent decline in the quality or health of urban aquatic ecosystems, termed the urban stream syndrome.4,5 Impaired aquatic ecosystems experience altered hydrologic regimes and elevated nutrient and contaminant loadings that affect ecosystem structure (i.e., algal, plant, and animal communities) and function © XXXX American Chemical Society
Received: November 4, 2014 Revised: January 23, 2015 Accepted: January 26, 2015
A
DOI: 10.1021/es505389y Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Article
Environmental Science & Technology disturbances to aquatic ecosystems.10 Shifts in runoff processes in turn influence nutrient loading,11,12 carbon cycling,13 and the community composition and function of macroinvertebrates and fish.14,15 Therefore, the quantification of hydrologic change is fundamental to understanding the multiple processes driving declines in urban aquatic ecosystem health. Hydrologic changes typically associated with urbanization include increased frequency and magnitude of high-flows, increased stream flashiness, higher runoff efficiency, and reduced baseflow.4 However, recent national assessments have identified heterogeneity in hydrologic response to urbanization, and have attempted to link this variability to the proportions of different land-use categories at the scale of the metropolitan area16 and larger regional watersheds.17 Among metropolitan areas, the frequency of high-flow events increased in six of the nine metropolitan areas examined, and flow magnitude increased in five of the nine cities.16 Among regions, urbanization increased peak-flow magnitudes in the southeastern and northwestern regions of the U.S., decreased peak flows in the southwestern U.S., and effected no change in the central region.17 These studies highlight heterogeneity in hydrologic changes associated with urbanization and suggest that underlying differences in climate, physiographic setting, geology, and stormwater management likely explain differences among metropolitan areas. Abiotic factors can be used to classify the landscape into hydrologic regions in which controls on processes mediating streamwater delivery are similar.18,19 Fundamental physiographic features influencing the movement of surface water, groundwater, and atmospheric water include topography, geology, and climate, respectively.20 For example, the infiltration of precipitation is expected to be greater in a landscape with level slopes and permeable soils and bedrock, compared to a landscape with level slopes and impermeable soils and bedrock.18 In addition, surface runoff will be greater in landscapes with steep slopes compared to level slopes.20 The portions of the U.S. continent that were previously glaciated often, though not always, feature level slopes and relatively high soil/bedrock permeability.21 Just as physiographic features are fundamental controls on natural flow regimes, we hypothesize that physiographic setting (i.e., glaciated versus unglaciated terrains) is a major driver mediating the variability in streamflow response to urbanization. Physiography also constrains and thereby shapes the type, arrangement, and age of development and infrastructure within a city.22−24 For example, in areas with excess or scarce water resources, dams and reservoirs are built to capture and contain instreamflow. The regulating function of dams homogenizes downstream discharge, stabilizing flow timing, duration, and frequency.25,26 By contrast, the construction of stream culverts and stormwater drainage networks minimizes flooding in urban centers, but accelerates the delivery of runoff to receiving waters and downstream communities.27 The decision to implement one water management strategy over another has important implications for both hydrologic and ecological processes and will have different consequences in different physiographic settings. Therefore, comparative assessments are fundamental to clarifying the relative importance of both human and physiographic factors, and in determining whether physiographic characteristics can dominate the hydrologic response signal even when urban development is heterogeneous among cities. Our goal was to characterize regional variability in hydrologic response to urbanization and explore anthropogenic and natural factors that likely drive observed differences in hydrologic
response. Our approach utilized urbanization gradients in nine U.S. metropolitan areas to discern relationships among landcover and hydrologic metrics. Study cities were grouped into two broad physiographic categories that contrast in their topography and geology. The three research questions we explored were (1) How do development trajectories vary among cities and among the two physiographic settings? (2) How does hydrologic response to urbanization vary among cities and the two physiographic settings? and, (3) Is hydrologic response to physiographic characteristics evident despite expected responses to widely heterogeneous urban development?
■
STUDY LOCATION AND METHODS Study Area. Study cities include Atlanta, GA, Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Detroit, MI, Raleigh, NC, St. Paul, MN, Pittsburgh, PA, Phoenix, AZ, and Portland, OR (Figure 1). All the study
Figure 1. Location of study cities in the United States. Urbanization gradients are composed of rural (1000 people/km2) watersheds.
cities have humid climates, except for Phoenix (Supporting Information (SI) Table SI-1). Within each city, watersheds were selected to span an urbanization gradient from rural to urban (Figure 1). Each city’s gradient consisted of between five to 15 watersheds; all watersheds had 50 Ml/km2 of dam storage. Dams associated with reservoirs in urban Boston watersheds likely homogenize the flow regime by reducing peak flow and augmenting baseflow.26 A high density of small lakes and dams in urban watersheds can increase the water storage capacity of the watershed by detaining and slowing water during high-flow events. For example, one of the urban Boston watersheds (Townbrook) averaged 26 high-flow events per year, 65% fewer high-flow events than watersheds with similar development extents in Raleigh and Baltimore (Figure 3A). Our results suggest the importance of physiographic features (i.e., lakes) and human factors (i.e., dams) that increase the water-storage capacity of the landscape, in effect buffering the magnitude of high-flows, thereby limiting hydrologic changes. While the regulating function of dams and reservoirs may be hydrologically beneficial, it may also have negative ecological effects through increased water temperature, barriers to fish passage, and altered nutrient cycling.44,45 Flashiness baseline suggested the importance of another physiographic feature, soil permeability. Among the climate and physiographic characteristics examined, mean watershed soil permeability was the strongest predictor of flashiness baseline (Figure 4C). We interpreted a low flashiness baseline as an indicator of relatively fewer high-flow events at low development levels. Areas with permeable soils should have higher infiltration rate and less overland flow,46 which may result in watersheds that are naturally buffered against hydrologic change. We expected St. Paul to have a low flashiness baseline. However, the negative flashiness baseline identified in St. Paul was likely an artifact of the watersheds composing the urbanization gradient, which only included urban watersheds (Figure 1). Both flashiness response and flashiness baseline suggested the importance of physiographic characteristics that provide hydrologic buffering in urban watersheds. We theorize that areas with these physiographic attributes (i.e., permeable soils, level slopes, and high lake density) are less hydrologically sensitive to development because the underlying landscape has a greater buffering capacity, which provides hydrologic services even as the landscape is paved over during urbanization. Maximum Flow. Area-weighted, 1-day maximum flow increased across five of the nine urbanization gradients and tended to be higher in urban watersheds in Raleigh, Atlanta, and Baltimore (open symbols, Figure 5A). These cities correspond to the unglaciated physiographic setting. Just as with stream flashiness, we attributed the differences in maximum flow among the two physiographic regions to differences in landscape features that likely buffer high-flow events, such as water storage capacity. Dams increase the water storage capacity of the landscape by retaining water in surface reservoirs. In Boston, urban watersheds actually had lower maximum flow compared to rural watersheds (Figure 5A). The negative relationship between maximum flow and urbanization may occur because dam storage increased across Boston’s urbanization gradient (R2 = 0.38, p < 0.05). As dam storage increased, maximum flow declined (R2 = 0.49, p < 0.05). A decline in maximum flow was also exhibited in a G
DOI: 10.1021/es505389y Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology the severity of high- and maximum-flow events. The hydrologic buffering function of these features provides benefits even as the landscape is paved over with impervious surfaces. However, it is important to note that features such as lakes and ponds can also have a parallel set of negative ecological effects, including elevated water temperature, reduced nutrient cycling, and increased contaminant loads.45 These results lend further evidence to the growing body of literature supporting management strategies that increase the water-storage capacity of urban watersheds through the use of distributed stormwater management strategies, which promote infiltration and control of stormwater at the source.51−53
IMPLICATIONS The land-cover characterization in this study revealed relatively similar development trajectories among watersheds situated along urbanization gradients in nine U.S. cities. The similarity of development trajectories is consistent with the concept that urbanization leads to a convergence or homogenization of the landscape appearance, making cities more similar to each other than the natural landscape they replace.38,39,54 However, we identified regional differences in hydrologic response to this apparently uniform urbanization pattern: similar urban form does not confer similar hydrologic function. In addition, physical characteristics (i.e., topography and soils) are important factors in regulating the type and magnitude of hydrologic changes. Therefore, we caution against the use of the urban homogenization framework in examination of geophysically dominated processes, and stress the need for comparative studies across a larger set of cities occupying diverse positions on a variety of physical, biologic, and social gradients.54 Furthermore, our results provide evidence indicating physical characteristics of the watershed, such as level topography and high water-storage capacity, may hydrologically buffer the severity of hydrologic changes associated with urbanization. Increasing the buffering capacity of urban watersheds is one strategy that may reduce the broad range of both pulse and press disturbances often experienced by urban aquatic ecosystems, as well as provide additional opportunities for nutrient processing within these ecosystems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
■
REFERENCES
(1) (UNPD) United Nations Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, ST/ESA/SER.A/352; Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations: New York, NY, 2014. (2) Seto, K.; Güneralp, B.; Hutyra, L. R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109, 16083−16088. (3) Grimm, N. B.; Faeth, S. H.; Golubiewski, N. E.; Redman, C. L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J. M. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 2008, 319, 756. (4) Walsh, C. J.; Roy, A. H.; Feminella, J. W.; Cottingham, P. D.; Groffman, P. M.; Morgan, R. P., II The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005a, 24, 706−723. (5) Meyer, J. L.; Paul, M. J.; Taulbee, W. K. Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 602−612. (6) Konrad, C. P.; Booth, D. B. Hydrologic Changes in Urban Streams and Their Ecological Significance; American Fisheries Society Symposium; 2005; Vol. 47, pp 157−177. (7) Poff, N. L. .; Allan, J. D.; Bain, M. B.; Karr, J. R.; Prestegaard, K. L.; Richter, B. D.; Sparks, R. E.; Stromberg, J. C. The natural flow regime. BioScience 1997, 47, 769−784. (8) Harman, W.; Starr, R.; Carter, M.; Tweedy, K.; Suggs, K.; Miller, C.; Tweedy, K. A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects, EPA 843-K-12−006; Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: Washington, DC, 2012. (9) Deletic, A. The first flush load of urban surface runoff. Water Res. 1998, 32, 2462−2470. (10) Booth, D. B.; Jackson, C. R. Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1997, 33, 1077−1090. (11) Groffman, P. M.; Law, N. L.; Belt, K. T.; Band, L. E.; Fisher, G. T. Nitrogen fluxes and retention in urban watershed ecosystems. Ecosystems 2004, 7, 393−403. (12) Hatt, B. E.; Fletcher, T. D.; Walsh, C. J.; Taylor, S. L. The influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ. Manage. 2004, 34, 112−124. (13) Pouyat, R.; Groffman, P.; Yesilonis, I.; Hernandez, L. Soil carbon pools and fluxes in urban ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116 (Supplement1), S107−S118. (14) Roy, A. H.; Rosemond, A. D.; Paul, M. J.; Leigh, D. S.; Wallace, J. B. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanization (Georgia, USA). Freshwater Biol. 2003, 48, 329−346. (15) Fitzpatrick, F. A.; Diebel, M. W.; Harris, M. A.; Arnold, T. L.; Lutz, M. A.; Richards, K. D. Effects of urbanization on the geomorphology, habitat, hydrology, and fish index of biotic integrity of streams in the Chicago area, Illinois and Wisconsin. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2005, 47, 87− 115. (16) Brown, L. R.; Cuffney, T. F.; Coles, J. F.; Fitzpatrick, F.; McMahon, G.; Steuer, J.; Bell, A. H.; May, J. T. Urban streams across the
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information *
Additional information detailing the study location, data sources and data reduction methods are provided. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
■
■
Funding was provided by the Long-Term Ecological Research program’s Network Office (NSF #0832652 and #0936498) via an Urban Aquatics Working Group; the Central Arizona− Phoenix (NSF #1026865), Baltimore Ecosystem Study (NSF #1027188), and Plum Island Ecosystem (NSF #1058747) LTERs; and the University of Pittsburgh. The Capital Region Watershed District and collaborators at the University of Minnesota provided St. Paul streamflow records. We are grateful for assistance in data compilation from Rose Smith, Fox Peterson, Leila Desotell, Carolyn Voter, and Seth Gustafson. We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for helpful comments on this manuscript.
■
■
Article
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Phone: (410) 919-9140, fax: (410) 216-9026; e-mail:
[email protected]. Author Contributions
N.B.G., D.J.B., J.L.M., M.M.P., N.D.B., K.G.H., N.B.M., A.R.B., and A.K.S. conceived the research question, designed the study, and assisted with data collection. K.G.H. conducted the data analysis and wrote the manuscript with contributions from N.B.G., N.B.M., D.J.B., N.D.B., J.L.M., M.M.P., W.D.S., A.R.B., and A.K.S. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest. H
DOI: 10.1021/es505389y Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Article
Environmental Science & Technology USA: Lessons learned from studies in 9 metropolitan areas. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2009, 28, 1051−1069. (17) Poff, N. L. .; Bledsoe, B. P.; Cuhaciyan, C. O. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: Geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 2006, 79, 264−285. (18) Wolock, D. M.; Winter, T. C.; McMahon, G. Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the united states using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environ. Manage. 2004, 34, S71−S88. (19) Olden, J. D.; Kennard, M. J.; Pusey, B. J. A framework for hydrologic classification with a review of methodologies and applications in ecohydrology. Ecohydrology 2012, 5, 503−518. (20) Winter, T. C. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2001, 37, 335−349. (21) Hunt, C. B. Physiography of the United States; W.H. Freeman: San Francisco, CA, 1967. (22) Bain, D. J.; Brush, G. S. Gradients, property templates, and land use change. Prof. Geogr. 2008, 60, 224−237. (23) Schneider, A.; Woodcock, C. E. Compact, dispersed, fragmented, extensive? A comparison of urban growth in twenty-five global cities using remotely sensed data, pattern metrics and census information. Urban Stud. 2008, 45, 659−692. (24) Seto, K. C.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, R.; Fragkias, M. The new geography of contemporary urbanization and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 167−194. (25) Williams, G. P.; Wolman, M. G. Downstream Effects of Dams on Alluvial Rivers, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1984. (26) Poff, N. L.; Olden, J. D.; Merritt, D. M.; Pepin, D. M. Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104, 5732− 5737. (27) Alley, W. M.; Veenhuis, J. E. Effective impervious area in urban runoff modeling. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1983, 109, 313−319. (28) Trimble, D. E. Geology of Portland, Oregon, and adjacent areas, B 1119; United States Geological Survey: Washington, DC, 1963. (29) Gerber, R. E.; Boyce, J. I.; Howard, K. W. Evaluation of heterogeneity and field-scale groundwater flow regime in a leaky till aquitard. Hydrogeol. J. 2001, 9, 60−78. (30) Shuster, W. D.; Dadio, S.; Drohan, P.; Losco, R.; Shaffer, J. Residential demolition and its impact on vacant lot hydrology: Implications for the management of stormwater and sewer system overflows. Landscape. Urban Plann. 2014, 125, 48−56. (31) Stephenson, D. A.; Fleming, A. H.; Mickelson, D. M. Glacial deposits. In The Geology of North America; The Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, 1988; Vol. O-2, pp 301−314. (32) Falcone, J. GAGES II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow; NSDI Node; U. S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 2011. (33) Lee, J. G.; Hearney, J. P. Estimation of urban imperviousness and its impacts on storm water systems. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2003, 129, 419−426. (34) Janke, B. D.; Finlay, J. C.; Hobbie, S. E.; Baker, L. A.; Sterner, R. W.; Nidzgorski, D.; Wilson, B. N. Contrasting influences of stormflow and baseflow pathways on nitrogen and phosphorus export from an urban watershed. Biogeochemistry 2014, 121, 209−228. (35) Barringer, T. H.; Reiser, R. G.; Price, C. V. Potential effects of development on flow characteristics of two New Jersey streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1994, 30, 283−295. (36) Mathews, R.; Richter, B. D. Application of the indicators of hydrologic alteration software in environmental flow setting. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 1400−1413. (37) Richter, B. D.; Baumgartner, J. V.; Powell, J.; Braun, D. P. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1163−1174. (38) Groffman, P. M.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Bettez, N. D.; Grove, J. M.; Hall, S. J.; Heffernan, J. B.; Hobbie, S. E.; Larson, K. L.; Morse, J. L.; Neill, C. Ecological homogenization of urban USA. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 74−81.
(39) Steele, M. K.; Heffernan, J. B.; Bettez, N.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Groffman, P. M.; Grove, J. M.; Hall, S.; Hobbie, S. E.; Larson, K.; Morse, J. L. Convergent surface water distributions in US cities. Ecosystems 2014, 17, 685−697. (40) Borchert, J. R. The Twin Cities urbanized area: Past, present, future. Geogr. Rev. 1961, 51, 47−70. (41) Arnold, C. L.; Gibbons, C. J. Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 1996, 62, 243−258. (42) Hopkins, K. G.; Bain, D. J.; Copeland, E. M. Reconstruction of a century of landscape modification and hydrologic change in a small urban watershed in Pittsburgh, PA. Landscape Ecol. 2014, 29, 413−424. (43) Coles, J. F.; McMahon, G.; Bell, A. H.; Brown, L. R.; Fitzpatrick, F. A.; Eikenberry, B. S.; Woodside, M. D.; Cuffney, T. F.; Bryant, W. L.; Cappiella, K. Effects of Urban Development on Stream Ecosystems in Nine Metropolitan Study Areas Across the United States, Circular 1373; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 2012. (44) Ligon, F. K.; Dietrich, W. E.; Trush, W. J. Downstream ecological effects of dams. BioScience 1995, 45, 183−192. (45) Mallin, M.; Ensign, S.; Wheeler, T.; Mayes, D. Pollutant removal efficacy of three wet detention ponds. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 654− 660. (46) Horton, R. E. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1945, 56, 275−370. (47) Shuster, W.; Rhea, L. Catchment-scale hydrologic implications of parcel-level stormwater management (Ohio USA). J. Hydrol. 2013, 485, 177−187. (48) Loperfido, J. V.; Noe, G. B.; Jarnagin, S. T.; Hogan, D. M. Effects of distributed and centralized stormwater best management practices and land cover on urban stream hydrology at the catchment scale. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 2584−2595. (49) Scalenghe, R.; Marsan, F. A. The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas. Landscape Urban Plan. 2009, 90, 1−10. (50) Bhaskar, A. S.; Welty, C. Water balances along an urban-to-rural gradient of metropolitan Baltimore, 2001−2009. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 2012, 18, 37−50. (51) Roy, A. H.; Wenger, S. J.; Fletcher, T. D.; Walsh, C. J.; Ladson, A. R.; Shuster, W. D.; Thurston, H. W.; Brown, R. R. Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the United States. Environ. Manage. 2008, 42, 344−359. (52) Walsh, C. J.; Fletcher, T. D.; Ladson, A. R. Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: Looking to the catchment to save the stream. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 690−705. (53) Drake, J.; Bradford, A.; Van Seters, T. Hydrologic performance of three partial-infiltration permeable pavements in a cold climate over low permeability soil. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2014, 19, 04014016. (54) Grimm, N. B.; Foster, D.; Groffman, P.; Grove, J. M.; Hopkinson, C. S.; Nadelhoffer, K. J.; Pataki, D. E.; Peters, D. P. The changing landscape: Ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 264−272.
I
DOI: 10.1021/es505389y Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
