In this study, the potential impacts of road topography on hydrologic responses at the watershed scale were simulated. The method considered used a geographic information system to identify road embankment locations and subsequently remove them from the baseline elevation data. Starting from both the ‘with’ and ‘without’ road elevation model, the surface and near-surface hydrological responses for 20 watersheds in Sweden were modeled in HEC-HMS under three different storm intensities. Flow duration curves (FDCs) were used to compare hydrologic responses for the different modeling scenarios under the various storm intensities. Specifically, L-moment ratios of the FDCs were calculated and their variation compared. Results showed an increase in peak flow amounts and reduction in time to peak with increased storm intensity. In addition, variations of the L-moment ratios were larger in larger watersheds. However, the impact of the roads on the modeled hydrologic responses was much smaller than anticipated and only identifiable through detailed examination of the L-moment statistical descriptors. Our findings not only highlight the potential impacts of road topography on watershed-scale hydrology (especially concerning high intensity storms) but also provide a methodology for detecting the even rather small changes that could manifest, for example, under coupled road network and climatic changes.
INTRODUCTION
Any alteration in the physical characteristics of a watershed, especially man-made changes, will influence the natural flow of water (Bergmann et al. 1990). Among typical man-made disturbances to the environment, the development of road networks are among the most common (Jones et al. 2000; Wemple et al. 2001; Ziegler et al. 2007). Roads and their margins have been shown to influence surface and subsurface water flow pathways, infiltration rates, and surface permeability, and the production of fine-grained sediments (e.g., Tague & Band 2001; Wemple et al. 2001; Ziegler et al. 2004; Dutton et al. 2005; Cuo et al. 2006; Ziegler et al. 2007). At the watershed-scale, road networks can significantly change peak flow magnitude and timing (King & Tennyson 1984; Jones & Grant 1996; Wemple et al. 1996; Bruno & Bardossy 1998; Jones et al. 2000; Iroumé et al. 2005). Road networks and their related structures influence hydrologic responses by altering hydrological connectivity within fluvial systems and shortening a watershed's time of concentration. This is especially true during extreme events when surface flow processes dominate the hydrological response (Ziegler et al. 2004; Borga et al. 2005; Cuo et al. 2006; Ziegler et al. 2007; Blanton & Marcus 2009; Soulis et al. 2015).
Collectively, the spatial distribution (extent) of road networks in a watershed typically increases effective drainage density and shortens fluvial flow pathways of hillslopes thereby increasing peak flows of main streams (Luce & Wemple 2001; Soulis et al. 2015). The magnitude of road impact on hydrologic response, however, depends on the configuration of the road-stream network in the watershed, the type of road embankment construction (i.e., cut or fill), and the road location (Ziegler et al. 2007; Blanton & Marcus 2009). This makes the actual impact of roads (and road networks) on hydrologic responses, such as flooding or flow duration, difficult to anticipate.
Owing to this difficulty, there have been several studies and methodological approaches put forward to investigate the possible effects of roads on water flows (and connected systems and/or associated processes) across scales. For example, Wemple et al. (1996) studied the timing influence of road networks by investigating the interaction between road routing effect and drainage network configuration assessed through integrated streamflow response at large (basin) scale. Ziegler et al. (2004) examined variations in soil physical properties near abandoned logging road surfaces to investigate the effect of roads on producing excess runoff in a watershed in northern Thailand. At the landscape scale, Jones et al. (2000) studied the influence of road network configuration on biological and ecological processes by implementation of conceptual models based on observations from HJ Andrews Watershed, Oregon, USA. In addition, Dutton et al. (2005) looked at near-surface permeability variation caused by surface compaction of forest roads at the basin scale for this region. Macdonald et al. (2001) measured sediment yield and runoff generated from unpaved roads in the steep and highly dissected landscape of St John Island. While these studies provide some insights into potential process and mechanism shifts associated with road networks, it is still difficult to generalize the impact of road network development on hydrological response (particularly under extreme conditions). Further, the extent or magnitude of impact can potentially vary from region to region.
Hydrological modeling has provided a valuable tool in this regard (Kalantari et al. 2014a). Different approaches and models have been used to help identify the various impacts of different road types on the hydrologic response of watersheds. Jones et al. (2000) studied peak flow magnitude, seasonality, and duration in response to road construction in ten pairs of experimental watersheds utilizing a physically based model capturing water balance components and hydrologic mechanisms. La Marche & Lettenmaier (2000) used the distributed hydrologic soil vegetation model (DHSVM) to study the effect of forest roads on peak flows in logged catchments of Deschutes River, Washington, USA. DHSVM was also applied by Cuo et al. (2006) to investigate the impact of roads on the water balance of a mountainous, 94 ha experimental watershed in northern Thailand. Loague & VanderKwaak (2002) investigated the impact of roads by comparing the rainfall–runoff response in a small watershed from two models: the quasi-physically based rainfall–runoff model and the integrated hydrology model. Clearly, hydrologic models offer a systematic framework to explore impacts of roads that can leverage our current ‘best’ understanding of hydrological processes occurring at the watershed scale. As such, they provide a valuable tool to test hypothetical situations (via scenario comparisons) that might not have been possible through direct observation and experimental work alone.
This idea of using model-generated scenario comparisons to explore the potential impact of roads networks on hydrological responses across scales serves as the starting point for this study. The main objective of this study is to simulate the impact of road topography on the hydrologic response of forested catchments in Sweden under varying storm intensities (with an emphasis on extreme storms). Specifically, we modeled storm runoff generated from watersheds with the HEC-HMS model. HEC-HMS (Hydrologic Engineering Center-USACE) is semi-distributed rainfall–runoff modeling software that has a dendritic arrangement of hydrologic elements (Davis 1993). The HEC-HMS model has been widely used in numerous hydrological studies and typically provides what is considered to be explicit (and applicable) results in flood-related studies under a wide range of geographies (Ahrens & Maidment 1999; Hellweger & Maidment 1999; Anderson et al. 2002; Cantone & Schmidt 2009). Although HEC-HMS has not been previously used for studying the hydrologic effects of roads, it has been widely used to assess the impact of morphological changes in various hydrology studies (Yusop et al. 2007; Beighley & He 2009). As such, it provides a suitable tool for exploration of the impacts associated with road network topography.
STUDY AREA AND DATA
Elevation in the area, which has typical boreal forest characteristics, ranges from 62 to 475 m above mean sea level and the slope ranges from 0 to 80%. The dominant land cover in this region is mixed coniferous forests. Other major land covers in the area include grassland and agricultural land. The main soil types in the area are glacial till, glacial river sediment, sand and rock outcrops. The region has a moderate to cold climate with an average maximum temperature of 15 °C in July and an average minimum temperature of −5 °C in February. According to the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), the mean annual precipitation in the region was 798 mm for the period 1960–2011, of which the highest and lowest average monthly precipitation occurred in August (80 mm) and February (30 mm), respectively.
METHODS
The method for this case study consists of several steps: (1) watershed delineation in the study area (20 watersheds); (2) virtual (synthetic) removal of road networks from the digital elevation model (DEM) and subsequent re-delineation of the watersheds; (3) hydrological modeling of watersheds both with and without roads by HEC-HMS under storms of varying intensity; and (4) calculation of flow duration curves (FDCs) and statistical comparison to investigate road impact on (modeled) hydrologic responses of the watersheds.
Watershed delineation in the study area and removing roads from DEM
We delineated 20 watersheds with approximately similar physical characteristics in the study area. These watersheds were selected as they span the region of interest and are at an appropriate scale of management for local road authorities (Kalantari & Folkeson 2013). In all the watersheds, which include different types of roads, a main road passes through the watershed area and the watershed outlet is close to the road–stream junction where the main road crosses the main stream. Watersheds were delineated in ArcHydro – an extension available within ArcGIS (ESRI) – allowing the definition of contributing area upstream of each main road–stream cross section. Roads were classified based on their operational type and width into two classes: main roads and other roads. This helped isolate potential impacts of road construction on topography (e.g., main roads potentially constitute a more substantial barrier for surface water flows).
The main assumption in this study is that the road network constitutes the macro-scale element in a watershed that affects the routing of water. Under this assumption, the potential micro-topographic and/or surface infiltration changes brought about by road construction (Soulis & Valiantzas 2012, 2013; Soulis et al. 2015) are not explicitly considered. Given the semi-distributed nature of the modeling approach adopted (see following sections) and the watershed-scale considered relative to the actual areal coverage of road surfaces (Table 1), the impact of this assumption is likely minimal.
. | . | With roads . | Without roads . | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Watershed . | Average basin slope . | WS area (km2) . | Total road density (m/ha) . | Main road density (m/ha) . | Total road coverage in WS (%) . | Main road coverage in WS (%) . | Main flow path (km) . | Basin length (km) . | Drainage density . | WS area (km2) . | Main flow path (km) . | Basin length (km) . | Drainage density (m/ha) . |
WS 01 | 8.4 | 1.00 | 0.0950 | 0.0440 | 0.380 | 0.396 | 2.996 | 2.576 | 36.799 | 1.29 | 3.077 | 2.632 | 36.977 |
WS 02 | 9.9 | 1.60 | 0.2729 | 0.0531 | 1.746 | 0.478 | 3.731 | 3.069 | 36.739 | 2.09 | 3.902 | 3.114 | 35.748 |
WS 03 | 9.6 | 1.70 | 0.2932 | 0.0212 | 1.994 | 0.191 | 2.897 | 2.693 | 35.594 | 1.40 | 2.638 | 2.527 | 32.748 |
WS 04 | 10.5 | 2.10 | 0.2268 | 0.0544 | 1.905 | 0.490 | 2.972 | 2.365 | 34.506 | 2.30 | 3.063 | 2.458 | 27.253 |
WS 05 | 8.1 | 2.20 | 0.1464 | 0.0872 | 1.288 | 0.785 | 2.889 | 2.683 | 40.542 | 2.15 | 2.910 | 2.717 | 32.525 |
WS 06 | 9.4 | 2.60 | 0.1083 | 0.0156 | 1.127 | 0.140 | 3.212 | 2.631 | 36.154 | 2.42 | 2.970 | 2.598 | 33.911 |
WS 07 | 7.3 | 2.60 | 0.0954 | 0.0074 | 0.992 | 0.067 | 3.872 | 3.142 | 37.162 | 2.90 | 4.179 | 3.080 | 34.658 |
WS 08 | 10.5 | 2.70 | 0.0301 | 0.0137 | 0.326 | 0.123 | 4.138 | 2.708 | 30.273 | 2.55 | 3.959 | 2.600 | 26.250 |
WS 09 | 6.9 | 3.00 | 0.0686 | 0.0230 | 0.823 | 0.207 | 3.287 | 3.324 | 45.468 | 2.91 | 3.362 | 3.409 | 39.145 |
WS 10 | 7.7 | 3.60 | 0.1084 | 0.0223 | 1.561 | 0.201 | 4.304 | 3.184 | 37.681 | 3.50 | 4.368 | 3.217 | 33.514 |
WS 11 | 7.7 | 3.70 | 0.0616 | 0.0185 | 0.911 | 0.167 | 2.137 | 2.252 | 37.531 | 3.95 | 2.282 | 2.309 | 35.101 |
WS 12 | 7.1 | 4.30 | 0.0709 | 0.0207 | 1.220 | 0.186 | 3.629 | 3.192 | 33.938 | 4.46 | 3.748 | 3.285 | 26.146 |
WS 13 | 5.7 | 4.70 | 0.2533 | 0.0310 | 1.474 | 0.279 | 4.608 | 2.092 | 34.072 | 5.10 | 4.731 | 2.132 | 30.322 |
WS 14 | 9.6 | 5.00 | 0.0670 | 0.0219 | 4.761 | 0.197 | 5.008 | 4.328 | 37.019 | 4.24 | 4.854 | 4.505 | 36.707 |
WS 15 | 9.5 | 5.10 | 0.1437 | 0.0190 | 2.932 | 0.171 | 4.772 | 3.467 | 34.324 | 5.24 | 4.893 | 3.518 | 30.776 |
WS 16 | 10.0 | 5.40 | 0.1331 | 0.0092 | 2.874 | 0.083 | 8.411 | 7.410 | 33.495 | 5.13 | 8.493 | 7.501 | 31.665 |
WS 17 | 9.9 | 6.90 | 0.1330 | 0.0195 | 3.670 | 0.176 | 5.925 | 4.801 | 36.488 | 7.15 | 6.017 | 4.869 | 37.553 |
WS 18 | 8.4 | 8.70 | 0.0950 | 0.0298 | 4.988 | 0.268 | 5.016 | 3.512 | 39.586 | 8.68 | 4.948 | 3.481 | 38.781 |
WS 19 | 9.9 | 8.70 | 0.2729 | 0.0213 | 2.934 | 0.192 | 6.483 | 5.061 | 35.634 | 7.77 | 6.211 | 4.953 | 33.057 |
WS 20 | 9.6 | 9.10 | 0.2932 | 0.0019 | 3.894 | 0.017 | 9.330 | 7.507 | 32.559 | 8.88 | 9.258 | 7.604 | 30.942 |
. | . | With roads . | Without roads . | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Watershed . | Average basin slope . | WS area (km2) . | Total road density (m/ha) . | Main road density (m/ha) . | Total road coverage in WS (%) . | Main road coverage in WS (%) . | Main flow path (km) . | Basin length (km) . | Drainage density . | WS area (km2) . | Main flow path (km) . | Basin length (km) . | Drainage density (m/ha) . |
WS 01 | 8.4 | 1.00 | 0.0950 | 0.0440 | 0.380 | 0.396 | 2.996 | 2.576 | 36.799 | 1.29 | 3.077 | 2.632 | 36.977 |
WS 02 | 9.9 | 1.60 | 0.2729 | 0.0531 | 1.746 | 0.478 | 3.731 | 3.069 | 36.739 | 2.09 | 3.902 | 3.114 | 35.748 |
WS 03 | 9.6 | 1.70 | 0.2932 | 0.0212 | 1.994 | 0.191 | 2.897 | 2.693 | 35.594 | 1.40 | 2.638 | 2.527 | 32.748 |
WS 04 | 10.5 | 2.10 | 0.2268 | 0.0544 | 1.905 | 0.490 | 2.972 | 2.365 | 34.506 | 2.30 | 3.063 | 2.458 | 27.253 |
WS 05 | 8.1 | 2.20 | 0.1464 | 0.0872 | 1.288 | 0.785 | 2.889 | 2.683 | 40.542 | 2.15 | 2.910 | 2.717 | 32.525 |
WS 06 | 9.4 | 2.60 | 0.1083 | 0.0156 | 1.127 | 0.140 | 3.212 | 2.631 | 36.154 | 2.42 | 2.970 | 2.598 | 33.911 |
WS 07 | 7.3 | 2.60 | 0.0954 | 0.0074 | 0.992 | 0.067 | 3.872 | 3.142 | 37.162 | 2.90 | 4.179 | 3.080 | 34.658 |
WS 08 | 10.5 | 2.70 | 0.0301 | 0.0137 | 0.326 | 0.123 | 4.138 | 2.708 | 30.273 | 2.55 | 3.959 | 2.600 | 26.250 |
WS 09 | 6.9 | 3.00 | 0.0686 | 0.0230 | 0.823 | 0.207 | 3.287 | 3.324 | 45.468 | 2.91 | 3.362 | 3.409 | 39.145 |
WS 10 | 7.7 | 3.60 | 0.1084 | 0.0223 | 1.561 | 0.201 | 4.304 | 3.184 | 37.681 | 3.50 | 4.368 | 3.217 | 33.514 |
WS 11 | 7.7 | 3.70 | 0.0616 | 0.0185 | 0.911 | 0.167 | 2.137 | 2.252 | 37.531 | 3.95 | 2.282 | 2.309 | 35.101 |
WS 12 | 7.1 | 4.30 | 0.0709 | 0.0207 | 1.220 | 0.186 | 3.629 | 3.192 | 33.938 | 4.46 | 3.748 | 3.285 | 26.146 |
WS 13 | 5.7 | 4.70 | 0.2533 | 0.0310 | 1.474 | 0.279 | 4.608 | 2.092 | 34.072 | 5.10 | 4.731 | 2.132 | 30.322 |
WS 14 | 9.6 | 5.00 | 0.0670 | 0.0219 | 4.761 | 0.197 | 5.008 | 4.328 | 37.019 | 4.24 | 4.854 | 4.505 | 36.707 |
WS 15 | 9.5 | 5.10 | 0.1437 | 0.0190 | 2.932 | 0.171 | 4.772 | 3.467 | 34.324 | 5.24 | 4.893 | 3.518 | 30.776 |
WS 16 | 10.0 | 5.40 | 0.1331 | 0.0092 | 2.874 | 0.083 | 8.411 | 7.410 | 33.495 | 5.13 | 8.493 | 7.501 | 31.665 |
WS 17 | 9.9 | 6.90 | 0.1330 | 0.0195 | 3.670 | 0.176 | 5.925 | 4.801 | 36.488 | 7.15 | 6.017 | 4.869 | 37.553 |
WS 18 | 8.4 | 8.70 | 0.0950 | 0.0298 | 4.988 | 0.268 | 5.016 | 3.512 | 39.586 | 8.68 | 4.948 | 3.481 | 38.781 |
WS 19 | 9.9 | 8.70 | 0.2729 | 0.0213 | 2.934 | 0.192 | 6.483 | 5.061 | 35.634 | 7.77 | 6.211 | 4.953 | 33.057 |
WS 20 | 9.6 | 9.10 | 0.2932 | 0.0019 | 3.894 | 0.017 | 9.330 | 7.507 | 32.559 | 8.88 | 9.258 | 7.604 | 30.942 |
From this assumption, and to simulate and compare hydrologic responses of watersheds with roads and without roads, all the roads were virtually (synthetically) removed from the study area DEM. The width of the different classes of roads and their embankments were extracted from the available data (data from Lantmäteriet) and a buffer of 5 m from the edge of embankments was used to define the boundary of road topography. Once the ‘area’ of the road was defined, the topography (elevation) of that area was removed from the DEM and missing values were interpolated to create a ‘roadless’ elevation map of the area. This new DEM without roads was then used to re-delineate the 20 watersheds in the study region.
Exclusion of roads from the elevation resulted in changes in boundaries (area) of some watersheds where road topography had formed watershed divides. In addition to watershed area, several physical descriptors of the watersheds such as main flow path length, basin length, basin slope, drainage density (the ratio of total length of the streams to the area of a watershed), and road density were calculated from both the original and manipulated DEM (Table 1).
Hydrologic modeling of the watersheds
HEC-HMS (Davis 1993) was used to model hydrological responses of the watersheds to the three storm events. In building the hydrological model for a given storm event in HEC-HMS the following data must be provided: a hyetograph (rainfall data), loss model parameters, and transform model parameters (USACE 2000b). The hyetographs used in the modeling were three storms (Figure 2) that were assumed to be uniformly distributed over the test watersheds. This assumption conforms to the basic supposition of uniformly and spatially distributed rainfall in all the methods that are used in HEC-HMS (USACE 2000b).
HEC-HMS computes runoff volume by computing losses such as interception, infiltration, surface storage, and evapotranspiration and subtracting them from the precipitation (USACE 2000b; Knebl 2005). Infiltration is due to penetration of water through the soil surface to deeper layers. Evaporation and transpiration from vegetation and soil surface are other forms of losses that can be represented, however, they were not considered in this simulation due to the relatively short length of the storm events being represented (USACE 2000b). Further, since we are targeting model scenario comparison, the impact of ignoring evapotranspiration is likely limited. In addition, given that the focus here is on short, intense storm events, deeper groundwater routing and storage are not considered. As such, we cover the modeling methodology with emphasis on the near-surface and shallow groundwater processes that are being considered in the HEC-HMS modeling.
In this study the runoff volume estimation method used within the HEC-HMS model was the SCS (Soil Conservation Service) curve number (CN) (USDA NEH-4 1956, 1986, 2004) approach. This approach considers land use properties and soil characteristics to compute infiltration rate and surface runoff losses. This method is often considered suitable for event-based simulations (Ponce & Hawkins 1996; Mishra & Singh 1999, 2006). It represents a quasi-distributed method to calculate excess runoff by considering the location of each unique CN (here determined on a grid cell basis) and its distance to the outlet of the watershed (USACE 2000b). While there can be issues with process representation when adopting a SCS CN approach (Lyon et al. 2004), we are using the approach in this current methodology to assess relative volumes of water within the storm events across the watersheds (i.e., our main focus is on the topographic impact of road structures).
The gridded CNs was produced in HEC-GeoHMS according to the tables of values for different soil types and land uses (Appendix, Tables A1 and A2, available with the online version of this paper).
The Muskingum–Cunge (standard section) method for river routing calculations was used in this study to route water (USACE 2000b). This method is suitable when there is no observed hydrograph data available for calibration (USACE 2000b; Takeuchi et al. 1999) and uses the continuity equation and the diffusion form of the momentum equation (Miller & Cunge 1975; Kousis 1978; Ponce 1978). The required parameters to calculate river routing in the Muskingum–Cunge method in HEC-HMS consist of: (1) channel length and channel slope (which are calculated automatically in HEC-GeoHMS utilizing elevation and drainage map); (2) Manning's number which is assumed equal to 0.03 for this landscape; (3) channel shape which is assumed as a triangle for this landscape; and (4) channel side slope equal to 100% and 50% for sub-basin channels and main reaches, respectively.
Calculation of FDCs and statistical approach
FDCs (Foster 1924, 1934) were used to display the flow characteristics of streams in each watershed under the range of the simulated discharges. FDCs, which are widely used in hydrology, have applications including but not limited to management of water resources (Alaouze 1989), estimation of domestic or industrial discharge that is allowed to release in a river (Male & Ogawa 1984), evaluation of available water for hydropower (Warnick 1984), characterization of low flow regimes (Hughes & Smakhtin 1996), and prediction of flow regimes in ungauged sites by regionalizing methods (Hughes & Smakhtin 1996). FDCs were constructed based on the complete period of the simulated discharges and normalized by the area of the watersheds.
These L-moments ratio estimators offer a complete and rigorous method to compare FDCs. As such, we have computed them in this current study to compare between hydrologic response modeled in the 20 catchments with and without road networks.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Drainage density impacts
FDC comparison with L-moments
L-kurtosis of the FDCs (Figure 7) indicates the peakedness of the simulated outflow from the watersheds. Larger variation in L-kurtosis in the smaller watershed can be seen in both watersheds with roads and without roads. There was also a larger shift (increase) in L-kurtosis with increase in the storm intensity when comparing model results with and without roads. Some larger watersheds showed an increase in the value of L-kurtosis when roads were removed from the topography. This could indicate the importance of road configuration in the hydrologic response of the watersheds although roads may shorten the natural streams in the landscape.
Road impact assessment
Investigation of the variations in drainage density of the watersheds demonstrates a decrease in median but an increase in interquartile range (spread) after removing roads from the topography. This result was expected when considering the positioning of the roads in the landscape relative to the hillslopes (Luce & Wemple 2001). As the road networks are commonly developed perpendicular to the streams and in lowland positions, natural streams are interrupted by the road embankments. The magnitude of those alterations depends on the type of embankment construction that directly influences the effective drainage density especially during extreme events (Ziegler et al. 2004; Borga et al. 2005; Cuo et al. 2006).
There was a clear increase in the L-moment ratios (Figure 8) as storm intensity increases. This might indicate that the intensity of the storm was the main driving factor in magnifying the effect of the road topography in alteration of the hydrologic response. Spatial variability of soil and land cover in combination with rainfall intensity has previously been shown to influence CNs in modeling studies (Soulis & Valiantzas 2012, 2013). Therefore, considering spatial alteration of grid cells that correspond to roads (which was not explicitly modeled here) could serve to exacerbate and/or amplify the results of this current study. Soulis et al. (2015) demonstrated such amplification via runoff generation mechanism alteration at watershed scales.
Comparing the box plots for L-moments ratios shows that median and quartile range of L-moments were higher in watersheds with roads regardless of differences in storm intensities compared to the watershed without roads. This may explain the magnifying effect of roads on hydrological response to storms by increasing the peak outflow. The positive increase in the median, upper quartile, and maximum of the L-skewness can explain the role of roads in accelerating the time to peak of the watershed outflows. The upper quartile of L-skewness and L-kurtosis had similar values for both watersheds with roads and without roads.
It is interesting to note that the effect of road topography on modeled hydrologic response was not only seen as an increase in the peak flow rate or in the timing of the peak. The differences in impact were unique to each of the watersheds primarily because of the specific physical characteristics and configuration of the road networks (Table 1). Thus, understanding the hydrological role of road networks, especially in a Swedish or Nordic setting, warrants further investigation according to the physical characteristics of the region of concern. Still, it is important to highlight that even though the percentage of the areas in each watershed that were covered by the roads (as impervious area) is small (<5% for total roads) there was an observable impact of road topography (and network structure) on hydrological response.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The role of road topography on hydrological response of boreal watersheds was simulated in this study using a hydrologic model. Road network changed the hydrological response of watersheds due to alteration in topography of landscapes. The impact of removing the topographic features as created by the roads was, however, generally small thus elucidating application of more complex statistical methods to assess impacts. The impact of road network on changing the hydrological response was magnified with increases in the storm intensity. Due to different road–stream configurations, location on landscapes and various types of road constructions, responses were different. Both increases and decreases in peak outflow and shifts forward and backward of the time to peak were observed, pointing to the complexity of the interactions between road network, landscapes, and hydrologic response at the watershed scale. Our results (and the modeling and statistical methods explored) highlight this complexity and outline a potentially useful approach for evaluation of possible effect of climate changes (i.e., increased intensification of future storms) in the planning and design of sustainable road structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by Lundbergs Scholarship Foundation and carried out in the Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering at The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).