The role of land surface versus drainage network characteristics in controlling water quality and quantity in a small urban watershed

The processes that control run‐off quantity and quality in urban watersheds are complex and not well understood. Although impervious surface coverage has traditionally been used to examine altered hydrologic response in urban watersheds, several studies suggest that other elements of the urban landscape, particularly those associated with urban infrastructure and the drainage system, play an equally important role. The relative importance of impervious surfaces, stormwater ponds, expansion of the drainage network, and drainage network structures in controlling hydrologic response was examined in the subwatersheds of the Kromma Kill, an urban watershed located in Albany County, NY. In this study, geographic information systems was used to compute geospatial land surface and drainage network properties of 5 Kromma Kill subwatersheds. In these same subwatersheds, water quantity (rainfall and run‐off) and quality (macroinvertebrates, nitrate, total nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved solids, and nonpurgable organic carbon) parameters were measured. Strong and significant correlations were identified between land surface and drainage network properties and field observations. Causal relationships were then tested using the Environmental Protection Agency's Stormwater Management Model. Field and model analyses suggest that whereas percent imperviousness is a dominant control on water quality, drainage density and slope are equally important. However, for water quantity, whereas imperviousness is positively correlated with increased run‐off volumes, drainage network properties and slope are the dominant controls on run‐off volumes. Results have important implications for stormwater management plans, especially those aimed at reducing the effective impervious surface coverage of urban watersheds. Reducing the percentage of effective imperviousness in a watershed is not a “one size fits all” solution and can help to meet some management objectives, such as reducing nitrogen concentrations and improving water quality, but may not serve as the most effective, and therefore economical, solution for every management objective including reducing run‐off volumes.