Streamflow characterization and hydromodification, Indian and Kill Creek Basins, Johnson County, Kansas, 1985–2018
Urban stream restoration requires a quantitative understanding of hydromodification to provide a scientific basis for establishing, prioritizing, and monitoring stream quality improvement goals. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Johnson County Urban stream restoration benefits from a quantitative understanding of hydromodification to provide a scientific basis for establishing, prioritizing, and monitoring stream quality improvement goals. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Johnson County Stormwater Management Program, began in 2017 to assess streamflow conditions at U.S. Geological Survey streamgages along Indian and Kill Creeks in Johnson County, Kansas. These streams represent the most urban (Indian Creek) and least urban (Kill Creek) drainage basins in the county. The assessment used 40 streamflow indicators to characterize streamflow conditions for both streams and quantify the degree of hydromodification for Indian Creek. The 40 streamflow indicators consisted of 35 commonly used indicators for characterizing streamflow, 2 less common seasonality indicators, and 3 other indicators based on duration curves, runoff hydrographs, and streamflow percentile classes. The indicators represented five key components of the natural streamflow regime: magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change. As part of the study, indicators were evaluated as to general utility for characterizing streamflow conditions, quantifying hydromodification, and assessing the effectiveness of implemented management practices intended to restore urban streams. Results identifying indicators that serve these purposes could be applied more generally to other streams in Johnson County to assess hydromodification and potential restoration opportunities. Although the same set of streamflow indicators may not apply to other regions, methods and results presented in this report provide guidance, techniques, and perspective for future related or similar studies elsewhere, particularly those designed to quantify hydromodification of urban streams and monitor the effectiveness of restoration efforts. Compared to Kill Creek, which, for the purposes of this study, was considered representative of a least disturbed rural reference condition, Indian Creek hydrology was determined to be substantially modified because of urbanization. Of the 35 streamflow indicators evaluated, 19 indicated a generally consistent and substantial difference between the 2 streams. Hydromodification of Indian Creek was characterized by larger annual mean and monthly mean streamflows (and, thus, larger streamflow volumes), larger low streamflows of shorter duration, larger high streamflows with increased frequency and shorter duration, faster rise and fall rates, and decreased seasonality of high and low streamflows. For the two seasonality indicators, seasonality of high and low streamflows decreased. Duration curves, runoff event hydrographs, and streamflow percentile classes also indicated differences between the two streams for specific ranges of streamflow. Indicators that were useful in identifying generally consistent and substantial differences between the two streams, and therefore demonstrating they collectively or individually may be indicators of hydromodification, included annual median and mean flows; monthly mean flows for February, July, August, September, October, November, and December; all the minimum mean flow indictors (1-day, 3-day, 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day); annual number and mean magnitude of peak flows; some of the flow pulse indicators; and rise and fall rates. Indicators determined to be marginally useful or not useful for identifying consistent and substantial streamflow differences between streams included the flashiness indicators Richards-Baker flashiness index and the fraction of the year the daily mean flow is greater than the annual mean flow, which was not expected. Municipalities are challenged by the need to restore stream quality in urbanized areas where options are limited because of existing development. Understanding hydromodification effects and implications for stream quality can help managers plan urban development that minimizes degradation of stream quality and provides insights for implementing effective management practices. Streamflow indicators identified in this report can be used to guide urban stream restoration. In particular, the most useful indicators could form the basis of numeric criteria for restoration goals aimed at achieving or progressing toward more natural streamflow conditions—and, by extension, more healthy ecosystems—by characterizing flow conditions, quantifying hydromodification, establishing stream-restoration goals, and monitoring progress toward achieving those goals as management practices are implemented.