|
 |
 |
Appendix: Case Studies
The following case studies demonstrate the impacts that increased flow due to
urbanization can have on urban streams. Like urban streams, each case study is unique. The
case studies look at different attributes such as habitat, stream stability, and sedimentation.
In some cases, where field data did not quantify the impacts, models were applied to estimate
impacts. When available, cost information related to the impacts and restoration is included.
These summaries reflect the level of detail available in the published reports.
Pheasant Branch Basin
Middleton, Wisconsin
Background
The USGS completed a 5-year data collection and modeling study on Pheasant Branch,
a stream that drains 24.5 square miles (mi2) of rolling hills, agricultural land, and rapidly
urbanizing areas around Middleton, Wisconsin. The stream is a tributary to Lake Mendota,
which requires maintenance dredging because of sedimentation. The area changed in
population by 44 percent (8,246 to 11,851) from 1970 to 1980 and is projected to have a
population of 18,000 by 2000. Problems of stream channel erosion and suspended sediment
have developed in Pheasant Branch because of land use changes in the drainage basin.
Urbanization in this area has consisted of residential development as well as industrial and
commercial development. The purposes of the study were to demonstrate that urbanization
does cause adverse impacts on streams within the watershed and to provide information to
city planners and engineers for use when they are evaluating the consequences of
development within the drainage basin.
Impacts on Development
During the 1970s, Pheasant Branch exhibited observed impacts from increased
urbanization (change in morphology, increased erosion and sediment loadings, lowering of
mean streambed elevation by almost 2 feet, and widening of mean channel width by 35
percent). A rainfall runoff model was calibrated and applied to the stream to simulate 68
years of summer flood hydrographs for three conditions current land use, projected urban
development, and complete urban development. Analysis of simulated flood flows indicates
that projected urban development would double the mean annual flood peaks in portions of
the streams. Complete development of the basin would increase the mean annual flood peaks
by a factor of 2.4 without mitigation.
As the watershed became urbanized, significant sedimentation occurred, as well as
widening and incision of the stream channel. Table A-1 shows the percent increase of the 2-year flood, bankfull width, and bankfull depth from present conditions to urbanized
conditions.
. Table A-1. Percent Increase of 2-year Flood, Bankfull Width, and
Bankfull Depth from Present Conditions to Urbanized
Conditions (based on modeling results).
|
Projected Urbanization |
Complete Urbanization |
|
2-yr Flood |
Width |
Depth |
2-yr Flood |
Width |
Depth |
|
(Percent Increase from Preurbanization) |
(Percent Increase from Preurbanization) |
| Site 1 |
99 |
40 |
30 |
140 |
60 |
40 |
| Site 2 |
324 |
110 |
80 |
361 |
110 |
80 |
| Site 3 |
32 |
10 |
10 |
224 |
80 |
60 |
*Most heavily urbanizing subwatershed.
Source: William R. Krug and Gerald L. Goddard. Effects of Urbanization on Stream
flow, Sediment Loads, and Channel Morphology in Pheasant Branch Basin near Middleton,
Wisconsin. USGS Water Resources Investigations, Report 85-4068. July 1986. U.S.
Geological Survey in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin Extension Geological and
Natural History Survey and the City of Middleton.
Holmes Run Watershed
Fairfax County/Falls Church, Virginia
Background
The Holmes Run drainage basin is a 14.5-mi2 watershed with a population of
approximately 60,000 (1990). The city of Falls Church composes 14 percent of the
watershed; the remaining 86 percent is in Fairfax County. Overall, the watershed is an older
suburban region, with the highest densities occurring in Falls Church. In 1995, the Lake
Barcroft Watershed Improvement District received Clean Water Act section 319 funds to
develop and implement a retrofit program for mitigating the impacts of 30 years of
development in the watershed.
Impacts of Development
The flow-related impacts of unmitigated development within the Holmes Run
watershed include the following:
Frequent flooding from snowmelt and storm runoff. Floods
occur several times a year and can be intense enough to endanger the lives of people trapped
in cars. Because of urbanization, this flooding has affected private property.
Severe stream bank erosion within subwatersheds, which has
resulted in severe undercutting of stream banks and deposition of sediment downstream
(Figure A-1).
Significant sediment problems in Lake Barcroft. Dredging of
two internal silt basins must be done four times a year at an average cost of $150,000 for
each dredging. Since 1961, approximately 376,000 cubic yards (yd3) of sediment has been
dredged in the watershed at a total cost of more than $2 million.
Debris from intense storm scour is washed into Holmes Run and
its tributaries, blocking flow and impairing water quality.
Source: Lake Barcroft Watershed Improvement District. Holmes Run Watershed
Best Management Practice Implementation Project. Final report. Lake Barcroft
Watershed Improvement District, Fairfax County, Virginia. 1997.
Peachtree Creek
Atlanta, Georgia
Background
The Peachtree Creek watershed near Atlanta, Georgia, is an ideal location to monitor
the response of stream flow to urbanization. A major portion of the watershed, covering 86.8
mi2, lies upstream of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station where stream runoff
data have been collected continuously since 1958. This corresponds roughly to the period of
rapidly increasing urbanization in the watershed.
Prior to urbanization in the watershed, which began slowly in the early part of the
century, the area was covered primarily by wooded land. Early increases in imperviousness
were primarily due to conversions of this woodland to buildings or pavement. By the middle
of the century the watershed had a substantial amount of impervious cover about 28 percent
in 1958. More rapid urbanization began at about this time, and the rate of conversion to
impervious cover increased. By 1968 imperviousness had increased to 35 percent.
Population of the area increased rapidly as well from 215,450 in 1960 to 473,600 in 1985.
Researchers decided to use the stream flow data that had been collected over 30 years
in the watershed to determine if correlations between increases in imperviousness and stream
flow volume could be found. Stream flow data, annual runoff data, and information on the
state of imperviousness in the watershed were collected and analyzed together. The results
demonstrated just how closely a change from southern woodland to southern city is related to
impacts on streams and rivers.
Results of the Analysis
Annual runoff and rainfall data for the watershed from 1958 to 1988 indicate the
urbanization and impacts on streams are closely correlated. During the latter half of those 30
years (1973 to 1988), the analysis indicated that urbanization had resulted in stream runoff
volumes even greater than those which had been expected based on the relationship derived
from the data. During dry years in the same period, in contrast, the data pointed to a
decrease in stream flow during low flow periods as a result of urbanization, to levels below
normal. This result was not surprising and is an expected result of urbanization, which
typically decreases the quantity of water that seeps into the ground to replenish ground water
supplies. It is the level of ground water, not rainwater runoff, that is primarily responsible
for keeping streams running during periods of low rainfall. The ground water reserves in the
Peachtree Creek watershed had probably dwindled over the years due to progressive
urbanization. Increased evaporation during these dry years could also have contributed to the
low flows.
Perhaps the most important finding from the data analysis in terms of the effects of
urbanization on stream flow was that peak runoff flows for a given intensity of storm
increased in the Peachtree Creek watershed as the watershed became more urbanized. That
means that the Peachtree Creek today has to carry far more water in or beyond its banks
during a storm event than it did before urbanization of the surrounding watershed.
Source: Bruce Ferguson and Philip Suckling. Changing Rainfall-Runoff Relationships
in the Urbanizing Peachtree Creek Watershed, Atlanta, Georgia. Water Resources Bulletin
(AWRA). April 1990.
Pipers Creek
Seattle, Washington
Background
The Pipers Creek Watershed is located in the Seattle, Washington, area and covers
approximately 3 mi2. The upper reaches of the watershed are 100 percent
developed primarily with shopping centers, residences, and commercial development with a
high percent of impervious surfaces.
The lower reaches of the watershed are surrounded by steep slopes in a park. The
creek discharges to Puget Sound with an average 1-year peak flow of 330 cubic feet per
second (ft3/s) and a 100-year event flow of 1,000 ft3/s. Although no predevelopment rates
have been quantified, it is estimated that they did not exceed 20 ft3/s for the 1-year event.
Under natural conditions, it is believed that Pipers Creek was dominated by pools and drops
and provided excellent habitat for several aquatic species, including trout and salmon.
Impacts of Development
In the early 1970s the city of Seattle built a storm drain pipe system to serve the
heavily developed portion of the watershed. The Pipers Creek watershed averages 10
housing units per acre. This led to peak storm flows in excess of 300 ft3/s. Because of the
development of the watershed and increased flow, boulders originally installed to control
runoff impacts downstream became traps for sediment and debris. During low flows, the
stream lacked concentrated flows to move sediment through the system. Because of large
stormwater volumes over many years, the stream channel was straightened. Due to these
conditions, fish populations were restricted by limited quality habitat, limited food, and
difficult passage up and down the stream. The stream was also aesthetically unappealing.
Actions Taken
The city has taken actions to restore the stream. This program is based on a relatively
low cost maintenance approach ($35,000 for 1 mile of stream) that stabilizes the channel and
rebuilds fish habitat. Some of the actions taken include protecting the eroding portions of the
stream channel, installing "step-downs" to create pools and riffles for habitat, clearing fish
passages, through the boulders, and deepening the channel to allow a fairly steady
consolidated stream flow to remove fine sediments.
Sources: Richard Gustav, Douglas Sovern, and Percy Washington. Maintaining Fish
Habitat in Urban Streams. Water Environment and Technology. June 1994.
Douglas Sovern, Richard Gustav, and Percy Washington. Effects of Urban Growth on
Stream Habitat. In Conference Proceedings - Effects of Watershed Development and
Management on Aquatic Ecosystems. 1996.
Valley Stream, Pines Brook, and Bellmore and Massapequa Creeks
Long Island, New York
Background
The USGS conducted a study of the impacts of urbanization on base flow in four
urban streams on the southwest shore of Long Island, New York. The purpose of the study
was to quantify the changes in base flow in the streams resulting from urbanization. Because
of the permeable glacial soils (sand and gravel) in the area, ground water seepage made up
approximately 95 percent of the area's stream flow. The balance was from runoff from
storm events.
Impacts of Urbanization
The urbanization that began in the 1940s and continued through the 1970s led to
construction of stormwater conveyance systems and sanitary sewers. This resulted in more
water being discharged to tide and not seeping into the ground to recharge the aquifer, thus
reducing base flow to the streams. Table A-2 shows the impact of urbanization on base flow
by comparing two streams in each of three areas an urbanized sewered area, an urbanized
unsewered area, and a rural unsewered area. As shown in the table, urbanization since the
1940s has resulted in significant loss of ground water flow to streams in the area.
Table A-2. Average Percent Base Flow of Selected Streams on
Long Island by Area.
|
Years | Urbanized Sewered Area
(% Flow from Base Flow) | Urbanized Unsewered Area
(% Flow from Base Flow) | Rural Unsewered Area
(% Flow from Base Flow) | |
| Stream 1 | Stream 2 |
Stream 1 | Stream 2 | Stream 1
| Stream 2 |
| 1948-1953 | (no data) | 86 |
84 | 94 | 96 | 95
| | 1953-1964 | 63 | 69 | 89
| 89 | 95 | 97
| | 1964-1970 | 17 | 22 | 83
| 84 | 96 | 97 |
Source: Dale Simmons and Richard Reynolds. Effects of Urbanization on Base Flow
of Selected South-Shore Streams, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey.
AWRA Water Resources Bulletin. October 1982.
East Meadow Brook
Nassau County, Long Island, New York
Background
A study was conducted on the southward-flowing East Meadow Brook in Nassau
County, Long Island, New York, to determine the impact of increased urbanization on the
direct runoff to the stream. The purposes of the study were to relate urban development to
the increases in the volume of annual runoff to the stream, to compare hydrograph features of
preurbanization and posturbanization, and to compare rainfall-runoff relationships for periods
before and after urban development. The East Meadow Brook drainage area covers
approximately 31 mi2. The area experienced intense urbanization from 1944 to 1962. This
development included construction of storm sewers that discharge to the stream. The area
was developed when the main focus of stormwater management was to move the water out of
an area and prevent flooding.
Impacts of Urbanization
The study showed that an increase in the volume of direct runoff closely corresponded
to an increase in the area having storm sewers that drained directly to East Meadow Brook.
The development area increased by 530 percent from 1943 to 1962. During this same period,
annual direct runoff to East Meadow Brook increased by 270 percent. One-hour hydrographs
of storms in the watershed showed that the average peak discharge increased from 313 ft3/s in
1939 to approximately 776 ft3/s in 1962.
Source: G.E. Seaburn. Effects of Urbanization on Direct Runoff to East Meadow
Brook, Nassau County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 627-B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1969.
Kelsey Creek
Bellevue, Washington
Background
Kelsey Creek is a heavily urbanized watershed in Bellevue, Washington. Over the
years, degradation of its designated uses has occurred.
Impacts of Urbanization
Although degraded water quality has been a factor in the declining quality of Kelsey
Creek, aquatic organism impacts are mostly associated with increased peak flow and the
resultant sediment carrying capacity and channel instability in the stream. Kelsey Creek has
extreme hydrologic responses to storms. Flooding has substantially increased due to
urbanization; the peak annual discharge has almost doubled in 30 years, and the flooding
frequency also has increased. This has resulted in the greater sediment transport and channel
instability. The stream has also exhibited lower base flows (when compared to urbanized
streams) between storms. This factor might have affected the stream's ability to flush toxic
spills or other dry-weather pollutants from the creek systems. All of these factors might have
resulted in a change in the dominant fish species from coho salmon to the less pollutant-
sensitive cutthroat trout. This lower "flushing" during dry periods might also have reduced
the movement of smaller fish and other aquatic organisms through the system.
Source: Robert Pitt. Biological Effects of Urban Runoff Discharges. Presented at the
Engineering Foundation conference Urban Runoff and Receiving Systems: An
Interdisciplinary Analysis of Impact, Monitoring, and Management, Mt. Crested Butte,
Colorado. August 1991.
Atlanta Metropolitan Area
Dekalb County, Georgia
Background
Observations and studies of several creeks in and around the Atlanta, Georgia, area
have demonstrated the impact of increased stormwater flow on urban stream morphology,
primarily incision and enlargement of stream channels. Despite city and county stormwater
regulations requiring that peak discharges following development be controlled to
predevelopment rates for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year storms, degradation is
occurring.
Impacts of Development
The following are two documented examples of changes in stream morphology in the
Atlanta area:
- A first-order stream that was stable before the construction of a 12-acre apartment
complex now exhibits channel enlargement where it receives outfall from a detention pond
constructed to control impacts from the development. The detention facility, sized to
accommodate peak runoff rates calculated by the rational method, was designed with a
maximum storage capacity of 40,000 ft3. However, abundant vegetative growth in the pond
has reduced its capacity, resulting in more water being discharged to the stream. Efforts to
reduce the channel degradation have been ineffective.
- When the area was used for agricultural production at the turn of the century, several
small gullies formed on hillsides. After the abandonment of agriculture more than 40 years
ago, the gullies stabilized. They often contain 30- to 40-year-old trees, which were able to
grow because the gullies received only intermittent flows during times of severe rain events.
As urbanization increased, these areas became conveyance systems for stormwater from
impervious surfaces. Active downcutting is taking place in these areas, resulting in undercut
trees, headcuts, and the export of large amounts of sediment.
Source: Nelson R. Nunnaly. Channel Incision in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. In
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, edited by S. Wang, E.
Langendoen, and F. Shields, Jr. The University of Mississippi. 1997.
Patuxent River System
Maryland
Background
The Patuxent River system was studied by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in
the 1970s because it had both rural and urbanizing areas.
Impacts of Urbanization
The study concluded that subwatersheds within suburbanizing areas are markedly
different in physical characteristics and behavior from rural watersheds. Urbanizing basins
yield approximately 986.6 tons of sediment/mi2/yr, compared to 63.7 tons
produced by the same area in a rural watershed. Such extensive sediment loads can choke
streams, and "sand bars" can occur as far downstream as 3.5 miles. The size and shape of
urban channels changed at rates at least three times greater than those found in comparable
rural areas.
Source: Helen L Fox. The Urbanizing River: A Case Study in the Maryland Piedmont.
In Geomorphology and Engineering, edited by D.R. Coates. Dowden, Hutchinson, and
Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. 1976.
Various Streams
North Carolina Piedmont
Background
Historical stream flow data were analyzed for a number of streams in North Carolina.
The intent was to see if a correlation could be drawn between low stream flows and
urbanization. The data were compared for both urbanizing watersheds and watersheds in
areas that are still rural.
Results
While there was some support for the premise that urbanization could lead to low
stream flow, the statistical analysis of the data proved inconclusive. It appeared that both
urban and rural small streams were experiencing decreasing stream flows over time.
Source: Evett, J.B. Effects of Urbanization and Land Use Changes on Low Stream
Flows. University of North Carolina, Charlotte, College of Engineering, Department of Civil
Engineering. June 1994.
|