Land Use Effects on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Northeastern United States

Water Resources and Land Use and Cover in a Humid Region: The Southeastern United States

“…4) (Casarim, 2009). Similar patterns have been reported in the Northeast, including a study near New Haven, Connecticut, where sediment deposition increased 40% after European settlement in New England (de la Crétaz and Barten, 2007). Trimble (2008) noted that, as erosive land uses (particularly agriculture) declined in the southeastern Piedmont after the 1930s, stream turbidity declined sharply.…”

“…After a forest has reached maturity (∼30 yr for pines), streamfl ow may approach the pre-aff orestation level due primarily to reduced transpiration rates and to a lesser extent reduced leaf area index and therefore reduced interception (Scott and Prinsloo, 2008). Results from Hubbard Brook, Marcell, Fernow, and Leading Ridge Experimental Forests in the northeastern United States indicated that with natural regrowth, water yield increases may diminish within 3 to 10 yr after forest cutting (de la Crétaz and Barten, 2007). Th is suggests that longer rotations may be able to mitigate the negative eff ects of aff orestation on water yield.…”

“…Zhang and Schilling (2006) reported increased streamfl ow (3-13 mm mo −1 ) and basefl ow (4-12 mm mo −1 ) with conversion of perennial vegetation to seasonal row crops in the Mississippi River basin. For comparison, peak discharge in tilled land was 12 times greater than peak discharge in a forested pasture in southwestern Wisconsin (de la Crétaz and Barten, 2007). As a consequence of increased fl ow rates in agricultural lands, erosion is often increased and can be highly problematic (discussed below).…”

“…As a result of reduced infi ltration and increased runoff velocity, urban fl ow hydrographs may entail more rapid and larger pulses (i.e., becoming less stable or more fl ashy in nature) (e.g., Fig. 2); this is a refl ection of more frequent and intense fl ooding in urban compared with forested areas (Beighley et al, 2003;Calhoun et al, 2003;Crim, 2007;de la Crétaz and Barten, 2007). In Houston, Texas, increases in watershed imper- Bosch and Hewlett (1982) >10% IS cover (vs. forested) 32% of 159% increase in peak fl ows Houston, Texas Olivera and DeFee (2007) 10-20% IS cover (vs. forested) 2× increase in runoff many Paul and Meyer (2001) 20-30% nonforest (vs. >90% forest) 3× increase in TSS † Blue Ridge physiographic region Price and Leigh (2006) 20-30% nonforest (vs. >90% forest) 2-3× increase in TDS Blue Ridge physiographic region Price and Leigh (2006) 20-30% nonforest (vs. >90% forest) 4-5× increase in turbidity Blue Ridge physiographic region Price and Leigh (2006) 20-30% nonforest (vs. >90% forest) 5-8× increase in NO 3 concentration Blue Ridge physiographic region Price and Leigh (2006) >13% IS cover (vs. forested) 3.8-7.3× increase in median NO 3 concentration west Georgia Crim (2007) >13% IS cover (vs. forested) 3× increase in median Cl concentration west Georgia Crim (2007) vious cover contributed to a 159% increase in peak fl ows (Table 2), although a greater portion of this increase was attributable to precipitation than increased watershed IS (Olivera and DeFee, 2007).…”

Urbanization in the Southeastern United States: Socioeconomic forces and ecological responses along an urban-rural gradient

“…For example, Kaye et al (2006) reported that with 10-20% IS in Baltimore, surface runoff doubled. Consequently, common observations in urban streams include increased peak flows and reduced base flows (Rose and Peters 2001;Calhoun et al 2003;de la Crétaz and Barten 2007;Olivera and Defee 2007). and Crim (2007) supported these general findings in their studies in west Georgia.…”