USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Sean Woznicki

Publications and source records attributed to Sean Woznicki.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Lessons learned from 20 y of monitoring suburban development with distributed stormwater management in Clarksburg, Maryland, USA

Urban development is a well-known stressor for stream ecosystems, presenting a challenge to managers tasked with mitigating its effects. For the past 20 y, streamflow, water quality, geomorphology, and benthic communities were monitored in 5 watersheds in Montgomery County, Maryland, USA. This study presents a synthesis of multiple studies of monitoring efforts in the study area and new analysis of more recent monitoring data to document the primary lessons learned from monitoring. The monitored watersheds include a forested control, an urban control with centralized stormwater management, and 3 suburban treatment watersheds featuring low-impact development and a high density of infiltration-focused stormwater facilities distributed across the watershed. Treatment watersheds were monitored before development, during construction, and after development. Monitoring was initiated to inform adaptive management of stormwater and impervious cover limits within the study area, with a focus on the impacts of distributed stormwater management. Results from our synthesis indicate that distributed stormwater management is advantageous compared with centralized stormwater management in numerous ways. Hydrologic benefits were greater with distributed stormwater infrastructure, demonstrating the ability to mitigate runoff volumes and peak flows and, for small storms, replicate predevelopment conditions. Baseflow temporarily increased during the construction phase in the treatment watersheds. Water-quality benefits were mixed, with declines in baseflow nitrate concentrations but limited changes to nitrate export and increases in specific conductance after development. Substantial topographic changes occurred during construction in the treatment watersheds, including changes within the riparian zone, despite riparian buffer protections. Ecological monitoring indicated that even though index of biotic integrity scores rebounded in some cases, sensitive benthic macroinvertebrate families did not fully recover in the treatment watersheds. Lessons learned from this synthesis highlight the importance of tracking multiple indicators of stream health and considering past land use and that more stormwater facilities distributed across the watershed is beneficial but cannot mitigate the effects of all urban stressors on aquatic ecosystems.

Maryland

Changes in event‐based streamflow magnitude and timing after suburban development with infiltration‐based stormwater management

Green stormwater infrastructure implementation in urban watersheds has outpaced our understanding of practice effectiveness on streamflow response to precipitation events. Long‐term monitoring of experimental urban watersheds in Clarksburg, Maryland, USA, provided an opportunity to examine changes in event‐based streamflow metrics in two treatment watersheds that transitioned from agriculture to suburban development with a high density of infiltration‐focused stormwater control measures (SCMs). Urban Treatment 1 has predominantly single family detached housing with 33% impervious cover and 126 SCMs. Urban Treatment 2 has a mix of single family detached and attached housing with 44% impervious cover and 219 SCMs. Differences in streamflow‐event magnitude and timing were assessed using a before‐after‐control‐reference‐impact design to compare urban treatment watersheds to a forested control and an urban control with detention‐focused SCMs. Streamflow and precipitation events were identified from 14 years of sub‐daily monitoring data with an automated approach to characterize peak streamflow, runoff yield, runoff ratio, streamflow duration, time to peak, rise rate, and precipitation depth for each event. Results indicated that streamflow magnitude and timing were altered by urbanization in the urban treatment watersheds, even with SCMs treating 100% of the impervious area. The largest hydrologic changes were observed in streamflow magnitude metrics, with greater hydrologic change in Urban Treatment 2 compared to Urban Treatment 1. While streamflow changes were observed in both urban treatment watersheds, SCMs were able to mitigate peak flows and runoff volumes compared to the urban control. The urban control had similar impervious cover to Urban Treatment 2, but Urban Treatment 2 had more than twice the precipitation depth needed to initiate a flow response and lower median peak flow and runoff yield for events less than 20 mm. Differences in impervious cover between the Urban Treatment watersheds appeared to be a large driver of differences in streamflow response, rather than SCM density. Overall, use of infiltration‐focused SCMs implemented at a watershed‐scale did provide enhanced attenuation of peak flow and runoff volumes compared to centralized‐detention SCMs.

Maryland