Environmental Management

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 91–98 | Cite as

Effects of Changing Forest and Impervious Land Covers on Discharge Characteristics of Watersheds

  • Robert C. Wissmar
  • Raymond K. Timm
  • Miles G. Logsdon


Effects of changing patterns of forest and impervious land covers on hydrologic regimes of watersheds were evaluated for urban and rural areas of the lower Cedar River drainage near Seattle, Washington. Land cover characterizations were used in a spatially explicit hydrology model to assess effects of land covers on watershed hydrology during presettlement conditions (“full forest cover”), 1991 and 1998. For the presettlement to 1991 period, urban watersheds showed decreases in forest covers (range 63% to 83%) and increases in impervious surfaces (range 43% to 71%). Rural watersheds showed similar patterns but smaller changes, with forest covers decreasing (range 28% to 34%) and impervious surfaces increasing (range 8% to 15%). For the 1991 and 1998 period, changes in forest covers for urban and rural watershed were <24%, with losses in some watersheds and regeneration in others. Impervious surfaces continued to increase, but increases were larger in rural (range 38% to 60%) than in urban watersheds (range 4% to 27%). Flood-frequency curves indicated that discharge rates (m sec−1) for all watersheds were higher in 1991 and 1998 than historical and suggested that chances for floods increase because of changing land covers. The largest increases in discharge rates were in urban watersheds, with rates for 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year recurrence intervals being more than two times greater than the rate during historical conditions. Changes in flow regimes were indicated by presettlement discharge levels of less frequent recurrence intervals (10-year and 25-year) occurring in posturbanization times (1991 and 1998) during more frequent intervals (2-year and 10-year). Normalized flows (m yr−1) of watersheds for 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year recurrence intervals indicate how flow regimes in 1991 and 1998 can change as functions of different areas of land covers. During 1991 and 1998, abrupt increases in flows occurred when forest covers were low (range 17% to 37%) and impervious surfaces were >46%. In contrast, the lowest flows occurred when forest covers were most extensive (range 59% to 81%) and impervious surfaces were <23%. We conclude that our use of spatial characterizations of impervious surfaces and forested covers in a spatially explicit hydrology model provides a robust approach for revealing how variations in different types and spatial distributions of land covers can affect flood regimes and flows of different watersheds.

Forest covers Impervious surfaces Discharge frequency Normalized flow Flow regimes Watersheds Streams Spatial analyses 


  1. 1.
    Arnold, C. L., Gibbons, C. J. 1996Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicatorJournal of the American Planning Association2243258Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beard, L. R. 1962Statistical methods in hydrologyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersSacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bicknell, B. R., J. C. Imhoff, J. L. Little, A. S. Donigian, and R. C. Johanson. 1997. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran, user manual for release 10. Thend, Georgia, U. S. Environmental Protection agency-600/R-93/144, Environmental Research Laboratory, 660 pp.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booth, D. B. 1991Urbanization and the natural drainage system—Impacts, solution, and prognosisThe Northwest Environmental Journal793118Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booth, D. B., Haugerud, R. A., Troost, K. G. 2003

    The geology of Puget Sound rivers. Pages 14–45

    Montgomery, D. R.Bolton, S.Booth, D. B.Wall, J. eds. Restoration of Puget Sound riversUniversity of Washington Press Seattle, Washington
    Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgan, R. E., and R. A. Hartford, 1993. Monitoring vegetation greenness with satellite data. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-297. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collins, B. D., Montgomery, D. R., Sheikh, A. J. 2003

    Reconstructing the historical landscape of the Puget lowland. Pages 79–128

    Montgomery, D. R.Bolton, S.Booth, D. B.Wall, L. eds. Restoration of Puget Sound riversUniversity of Washington PressSeattle, Washington
    Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dingman, S. L. 1994Physical hydrologyPrentice-HallEnglewood Cliffs, NJ575Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunne, T., Leopold, L. B. 1978Water in environmental planningW. B. Freeman and CoNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King County 1993. Cedar River current and future conditions report. King County, Dept. Public Works, Surf. Water Manage. Div., Seattle, Washington, 1–1 to 8–12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    King County 1998. Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington, p. 352.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konrad, C. P. 2003

    Opportunities and constraints for urban stream rehabilitation. Pages 292–317

    Montgomery, D. R.Bolton, S.Booth, D. B.Wall, L. eds. Restoration of Puget Sound riversUniversity of Washington PressSeattle, Washington
    Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    May, C. W., Horner, R. R. 2000

    The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-riparian ecosystems. Pages 281–286

    Wigington, P. J.Beschta, R. L. eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use WatershedsAmerican Water Resources AssociationMiddleburg, Virginia
    Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moscrip, A. L., Montgomery, D. R. 1997Urbanization, flood frequency and salmon abundance in Puget Sound streamsJournal of the American Water Resources Association3312891297Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Research Council1992Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology and public policyNational Academy PressWashington, D.C.552Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Research Council1999New strategies for Americas watersheds. National Academy of SciencesNational Academy PressWashington, D.C.311Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Wasserman, W. 1996Applied linear regression modelsMcGraw-HillChicago720Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Richards, A. J. 1993Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction. Second editionSpringer-VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Timm, R. K., R. C. Wissmar, J. W. Small, T. M. Leschine, and G. Lucchetti (in press). A screening procedure for prioritizing riparian management areas. Environmental Management.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wigmosta, M., Vail, L., Lettenmaier, D. P. 1994A distributed hydrology-vegetation model for complex terrainWater Resources Research3016651679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams, J. R., H. E. Pearson, and J. D. Wilson. 1985. Stream flow statistics and drainage-basin characteristics for the Puget Sound region, Washington. Volume II. Open-File Report 84-144-B, U.S. Geological Survey, pp 662Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wissmar, R. C., Beschta, R. L. 1998Restoration and the management of riparian ecosystemsFreshwater Biology40571585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wissmar, R. C., Pflugh, D. C., Timm, R. K. 2000

    Changes in developed land cover (1991–1998): Cedar River, Washington. Pages 287–292

    Wigington, P. J.Beschta, R. L. eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use WatershedsAmerican Water Resources AssociationMiddleburg, Virginia
    Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wissmar, R. C., Bisson, P. A.(eds.). 2003Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and management systemsAmerican Fisheries SocietyBethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wissmar, R. C., and R. K. Timm. 2003. Changes in land uses, hydrology and fish habitats in an urban drainage, Cedar River, Washington. Pages 709–714 in Proceedings of the First Interagency Conference in Watersheds, 27–30 October 2003, Bensen, Arizona.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zarriello, P. J. 1999. A precipitation-runoff model for part of the Ninemile Creek watershed near Camillus, Onondaga County, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 98-4201, Denver, CO, 52 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert C. Wissmar
    • 1
  • Raymond K. Timm
    • 1
  • Miles G. Logsdon
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Oceanography Box 355351University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195-5020USA

Personalised recommendations