Natural Hazards

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 413–428

Examining the relationship between wetland alteration and watershed flooding in Texas and Florida

  • Samuel D. Brody
  • Wesley E. Highfield
  • Hyung-Cheal Ryu
  • Laura Spanel-Weber
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Inland flooding remains one of the greatest threats to the safety of human population in the United States (US). While few large-scale studies exist, the potential role of naturally occurring wetlands in mitigating flood duration and intensity has been widely discussed. This study examines the relationship between wetland alteration and coastal watershed flooding in Texas and Florida over a 12-year period. Specifically, we geo-reference wetland alteration permits required under Section 404 of the US Clean Water Act and correlate the number of granted permits with the degree of flooding measured by stream gauge data. Results indicate that specific types of federal permits exacerbate flooding events in coastal watersheds while controlling for various environmental and socioeconomic characteristics.

Keywords

Flooding Wetlands Watershed Planning Texas Florida 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ammon DC, Wayne HC, Hearney JP (1981) Wetlands’ use for water management in Florida. J␣Water Res Plan Manage 107(WR2):315–327Google Scholar
  2. Association of State Floodplain Managers (2000) National flood programs in review – 2000. Association of State Floodplain Managers, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  3. Berke Philip, Roenigk D, Kaiser E, Burby R (1996) Enhancing plan quality: evaluating the role of state planning mandates for natural hazard mitigation. J Environ Plan Manage 39:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boelter DH, Verry ES (1977) Peatland and Water in the Northern Lake States. General Technical Report NC-31, US Department of Agriculture Forestry Service, North Central Experimental Station, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody SD, Highfield WE (2005) Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. J Am Plan Assoc 71(2):159–175Google Scholar
  6. Brody SD, Highfield WE, Thornton S (2006) Planning at the urban fringe: an examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in Southern Florida. Environ Plan B 33:75–96Google Scholar
  7. Bullock A, Acreman M (2003) The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 7(3):358–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conger S (1971) Estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Wisconsin. US, Geological Survey open-file report, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  9. Culliton T, Warren M, Goodspeed T, Remor D, Blackwell C, McDonough J (1990) 50 years of population change along the nation’s coasts, 1960–2010. NOAA, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniel C (1981) Hydrology, geology, and soils of pocosins: a comparison of natural and altered systems. Pocosin Wetlands, Hutchinson Ross, Straudsburg, PAGoogle Scholar
  11. Day JW, Shaffer GP, Britsch LD, Reed DJ, Hawes SR, Cahoon D (2000) Pattern and process of land loss in the Mississippi Delta: a spatial and temporal analysis of wetland habitat change. Estuaries 20(1):1–13Google Scholar
  12. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2004) Wetland mitigation, DEP online, October 10, 2004, URL: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/mitigation/index.htm
  13. Godschalk DR, Beatley T, Berke P, Brower DJ, Kaiser EJ (1999) Natural hazard mitigation: recasting disaster policy and planning. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Heikuranen L (1976) Comparison between runoff condition on a virgin peatland and a forest drainage area. Proc., Fifth International Peat Congress, pp 76–86Google Scholar
  15. Johnston CA., Detenbeck NE, Niemi GJ (1990) The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity. A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10(2):105–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelly NM (2001) Changes to the landscape pattern of coastal North Carolina wetlands under the Clean Water Act, 1984–1992. Land Ecol 16(1):3 – 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kentula ME, Sifneos JC, Good JW, Rylko M, Kunz K (1992) Trends and patterns in Section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environ Manage 16(1):109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kingsford RT, Thomas RF (2002) Use of satellite image analysis to track wetland loss on the Murrumbidgee river floodplain in arid Australia, 1975–1998. Water Sci Technol 45(11):45–53Google Scholar
  19. Lewis WM (2001) Wetlands explained: wetland science, policy, and politics in America. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Novitski RP (1979) Hydrologic characteristics of Wisconsin’s wetlands and their influence on floods, streamflow and sediment, Wetland Functions and Values: The State of our Understanding, Minneapolis, MN, pp 377–388Google Scholar
  22. Novitski RP (1985) The effects of lakes and wetlands on flood flows and base flows in selected northern and eastern states. Proc., Conference on Wetlands of the Chesapeake, Easton, Maryland, Environmental Law Institute, pp 143–154Google Scholar
  23. Ogawa H, Male JW (1986) Simulating the flood mitigation role of wetlands. J Water Res Plan Manage 112(1):114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Padmanabhan FG, Bengston ML (2001) Assessing the influence of wetlands on flooding, Proc., ASCE Conference on Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration, Reno, Nev., pp 1–12Google Scholar
  25. Stein ED, Ambrose RE (1998) Cumulative impacts of Section 404 Clean Water Act permitting on the riparian habitat of the Santa Margarita. California watershed, Wetlands 18(3):393 – 408Google Scholar
  26. Turner RE (1997) Wetland loss in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: multiple working hypotheses. Estuaries 20(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. United States Army Corps of Engineers (1996a) Public notice, LOP categories of work, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, URL: http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/permitting/lop/ lop21may96.pdf(July 12, 2005)
  28. United States Army Corps of Engineers (1996b) Public notice, Addendum, LOP categories of work, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, URL: <http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/permitting/ lop/lop_02aug96.pdf> (July 12, 2005)Google Scholar
  29. United States Army Corps of Engineers (1997) Public notice, Second Addendum, LOP categories of work, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, URL: <http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/permitting/lop/lop_20jun97.pdf> (July 12, 2005)Google Scholar
  30. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2002) Services to the public: flood damage reduction, URL: <http://www.usace.army.mil/public.html#Flood> (July 7, 2005)Google Scholar
  31. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2005) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Jacksonville District Regional General Permits, URL: <http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/permitting/general_ permits.htm> (July 12, 2005)Google Scholar
  32. USACE, Issuance of Nationwide Permits, Notice (2005) Fed Regist 67(10):2019–2095Google Scholar
  33. Verry ES, Boelter DH (1978) Peatland hydrology, wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding, Minneapolis, MN, pp 389–402Google Scholar
  34. Williams J, Wood C, Dombeck M (eds) (1997) Watershed restoration: principles and practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel D. Brody
    • 1
  • Wesley E. Highfield
    • 1
  • Hyung-Cheal Ryu
    • 1
  • Laura Spanel-Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Planning & Sustainability Research Unit, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban PlanningTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations