Co-designed Land-use Scenarios and their Implications for Storm Runoff and Streamflow in New England

Abstract

Landscape and climate changes have the potential to create or exacerbate problems with stormwater management, high flows, and flooding. In New England, four plausible land-use scenarios were co-developed with stakeholders to give insight to the effects on ecosystem services of different trajectories of socio-economic connectedness and natural resource innovation. With respect to water, the service of greatest interest to New England stakeholders is the reduction of stormwater and flooding. To assess the effects of these land-use scenarios, we applied the Soil and Water Assessment Tool to two watersheds under two climates. Differences in land use had minimal effects on the water balance but did affect high flows and the contribution of storm runoff to streamflow. For most scenarios, the effect on high flows was small. For one scenario—envisioned to have global socio-economic connectedness and low levels of natural resource innovation—growth in impervious areas increased the annual maximum daily flow by 10%, similar to the 5–15% increase attributable to climate change. Under modest population growth, land-use decisions have little effect on storm runoff and high flows; however, for the two scenarios characterized by global socio-economic connectedness, differences in choices regarding land use and impervious area have a large impact on the potential for flooding. Results also indicate a potential interaction between climate and land use with a shift to more high flows resulting from heavy rains than from snowmelt. These results can help inform land use and development, especially when combined with assessments of effects on other ecosystem services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Abbaspour KC (2015) SWAT-CUP: SWAT calibration and uncertainty programs—a user manual. EAWAG, Dübendorf, Switzerland

  2. Andréassin V (2004) Water and forests: rrom historical controversy to scientific debate. J Hydrol 291(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydrol.2003.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anh K-H, Merwade V (2017) The effect of land cover change on the duration and severity of high and low flows. Hydrol Process 31:133–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel RD, van Griensven A, Van Liew MW, Kannan N, Jha MK (2012) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1491–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large‐area hydrologic modeling and assessment: part I. Model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashagre BB, Platts PJ, Njana M, Burgess ND, Balmford A, Turner RK, Schaafsma M (2018) Integrated modelling for economic valuation of the role of forests and woodlands in drinking water provision to two African cities. Ecosyst Serv 32:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baker TJ, Miller SN (2013) Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to assess land use impact on water resources in an East African watershed. J Hydrol 486:100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.01.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosch JM, Hewlett JD (1982) A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapo-transpiration. J Hydrol 55(1–4):3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brauman K, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown AE, Western AW, McMahon TA, Zhang L (2013) Impact of forest cover changes on annual streamflow and flow duration curves. J Hydrol 483:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, Western AW, Vertessy RA (2005) A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J Hydrol 310:28–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:185–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Calder IR, Aylward B (2006) Forest and floods: moving to an evidence-based approach to watershed and integrated flood management. Water Int 31:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng C (2013) Social vulnerability, green infrastructure, urbanization and climate change-induced flooding: a risk assessment for the Charles River watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Doctoral Dissertation, Retrieved from Scholarworks at University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/781/

  16. Cheng C, Yang EY-C, Ryan RL, Yu Q, Brabec E (2017) Assessing climate change-induced flooding mitigation for adaptation in Boston’s Charles River Watershed. Landsc Urban Plan 167:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. City of Rochester, NH (2020) Water Quality Report for the City of Rochester, NH, PWS ID: NH2001010. https://www.rochesternh.net/public-works/pages/water-quality-reports. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  18. Cocheco River Watershed Coalition (2008) Cocheco River Nomination, submitted to the Department of Environmental Services. https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/rivers/documents/cch-nom.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  19. Cuo L, Lettenmaier DP, Alberti M, Richey JE(2009) Effects of a century of land cover and climate change on the hydrology of the Puget Sound basin. Hydrological Processes 23:907–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dadson SJ, Hall JW, Murgatroyd A, Acreman M, Bates P, Beven K, Heathwaite L, Holden J, Holman IP, Lane SN, O’Connell E, Penning-Roswell E, Reynard N, Sear D, Thorne C, Wilby R (2017) A restatement of the natural science evidence concerning catchment-based “natural” flood management in the UK. Proc R Soc 473:31. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2016.0706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dennedy-Frank PJ, Gorelick SM (2019) Insights from watershed simulations around the world: Watershed service-based restoration does not significantly enhance streamflow. Glob Environ Change 58:101938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101938

  22. Desimone LA, Walter DA, Eggleston JR, Nimiroski MT (2002) Simulation of ground-water flow and evaluation of water-management alternatives in the upper Charles River basin, eastern Massachusetts. United States Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report, Reston, VA, 02-4234

  23. Devito K, Creed I, Gan T, Mendoza C, Petrone R, Silins U, Smerdon B (2005) A framework for broad-scale classification of hydrologic response units on the Boreal Plain: is topography the last thing to consider? Hydrol Process 19:1705–1714. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fallon Lambert K, McBride MF, Weiss M, Thompson JR, Theoharides KA, Field P (2018) Voices from the land: listening to New Englanders’ views of the future. Harvard Forest, Harvard University and the Science Policy Exchange, Petersham, MA, ISBN: 978-962-14667-5

  25. FEMA (2008) Independent evaluation of recent flooding in New Hampshire. Federal Emergency Management Agency. www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dam/documents/flood_report_nh_flooding_analysis.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  26. Gangrade S, Kao S-C, McManamay RA (2020) Multi-model hydroclimate projections for the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basin in the southeastern United States. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59806-6

  27. Guswa AJ, Hamel P, Dennedy-Frank PJ (2017) Potential effects of landscape change on water supplies in the presence of reservoir storage. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019691

  28. Hantush MM, Kalin L (2006) Impact of urbanization on the hydrology of Pocono Creek watershed: a model study. USEPA Final Report EPS/600/R-07/006. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268

  29. Homa ES, Brown C, McGarigal K, Compton BW, Jackson SD (2013) Estimating hydrologic alteration from basin characteristics in Massachusetts. J Hydrol 503:196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold ND, Wickham JD, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(no. 5):345–354

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jencso KG, McGlynn BL (2011) Hierarchical controls on runoff generation: topographically driven hydrologic connectivity, geology, and vegetation. Water Resour Res 47:W11527. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Karlsson IB, Sonnenborg TO, Refsgaard JC, Trolle D, Børgesen CD, Olesen JE, Jeppesen E, Jensen KH (2016) Combined effects of climate models, hydrological model structures and land use scenarios on hydrological impacts of climate change. J Hydrol 535:301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kumar S, Merwade V, Kinter J, Niyogi D (2013) Evaluation of temperature and precipitation trends and long-term persistence in CMIP5 twentieth-century climate simulations. J Clim 26(12):4168–4185. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00259.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Laaha G, Demuth S, Hisdal H, Kroll CN, van Lanen HAJ, Nester T, Rogger M, Sauquet E, Tallaksen LM, Woods RA, Young A (2013) Prediction of low flows in ungauged basins. In: Blöschl G, Sivapalan M, Wagener T, Viglione A, Savenije H (eds) Runoff prediction in ungauged basins: synthesis across processes, places, and scales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  35. LaFontaine JH, Hay LE, Viger RJ, Regan RS, Markstrom SL (2015) Effects of climate and land cover on hydrology in the southeastern U.S.: potential impacts on watershed planning. J Am Water Resour Assoc 51(5):1235–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Martin KL, Hwang T, Vose JM, Coulston JW, Wear DN, Miles B, Band LE (2017) Watershed impacts of climate and land use changes depend on magnitude and land use context. Ecohydrology 10(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1870

  37. McBride MF, Duveneck MJ, Lambert KF, Theoharides KA, Thompson JR (2019) Perspectives of resource management professionals on the future of New England’s landscape: Challenges, barriers, and opportunities. Landsc Urban Plan 188:30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McBride MF, Fallon Lambert K, Huff ES, Theoharides KA, Field P, Thompson JR (2017) Increasing the effectiveness of participatory scenario development through codesign. Ecol Soc 22(3):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09386-220316

  39. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil and water assessment tool—theoretical documentation, version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report, College Station, TX, No. 406

  41. NOAA (2018) National Centers For Environmental Information. Climate Data Online Search. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018

  42. Olofsson P, Holden CE, Bullock EL, Woodcock CE (2016) Time series analysis of satellite data reveals continuous deforestation of New England since the 1980s. Environ Res Lett 11:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Olson SA (2007). Flood of May 2006 in New Hampshire, US Geological Survey Open-File Report, Reston, VA, 2007-1122, p 32

  44. Plisinski J, McBride MF, Morrele L, Duveneck MJ, Thompson JR (2017) New England landscape futures land cover maps. Harvard Forest. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.890897

  45. Price K (2011) Effects of watershed topography, soils, land use, and climate on baseflow hydrology in humid regions: a review. Prog Phys Geogr 35(4):465–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311402714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reitz M, Sanford WE, Senay GB, Cazenas J (2017) Annual estimates of recharge, quick-flow runoff, and ET for the contiguous US using empirical regression equations, 2000-2013. US Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7PN93P0

  47. Rosenzweig BR, McPhillips L, Chang H, Cheng C, Welty C, Matsler M, Iwaniec D, Davidson C (2018) Urban pluvial flood risk and opportunities for resilience. WIREs. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1302

  48. Schwarz P (1991) The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. Currency Doubleday, New York

  49. Shrestha S, Bhatta B, Shrestha M, Shrestha PK (2018) Integrated assessment of the climate and landuse change impact on hydrology and water quality in the Songkhram River Basin, Thailand. Sci Total Environ 643:1610–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.306

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sillmann J, Kharin VV, Zhang X, Zweirs FW, Bronaugh D (2013) Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate. J Geophys Res Atmos 118:1716–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Smahktin VU (2001) Low flow hydrology: a review. J Hydrol 240:147–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Soares-Filho B, Rodrigues H, Follador M (2013) A hybrid analytical-heuristic method for calibrating land-use change models. Environ Model Softw 43:80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Soares-Filho BS, Rodrigues HO, Costa WL (2009) Modeling environmental dynamics with Dinamica EGO. Belo Horizonte, Brazil, p120, ISBN 978-85-910119-0-2

  54. Suttles KM, Singh NK, Vose JM, Martin KL, Emanuel RE, Coulston JW, Saia SM, Crump MT (2018) Assessment of hydrologic vulnerability to urbanization and climate change in a rapidly changing watershed in the Southeast US. Sci Total Environ 645:806–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.287

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thompson JR, Lambert KF, Foster D, Blumstein M, Broadbent E, Zambrano AA (2014) Changes to the land: four scenarios for the future of the Massachusetts Landscape. Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Petersham, MA, p 38

    Google Scholar 

  56. Thompson JR, Plinskski J, Olofsson P, Holden CE, Duveneck MJ (2017) Forest loss in New England: a projection of recent trends. PLoS ONE 12:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thompson JR, Plisinski J, Fallon Lambert K, Duveneck MJ, Morreale L, McBride M, Graham MacLean M, Weis M, Lee L (2020) Spatial simulation of co-designed land-cover change scenarios in New England: alternative futures and their consequences for conservation priorities. Earth’s Future. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001348

  58. Thompson JR, Wiek A, Swanson F, Carpenter SR, Fresco N, Hollingsworth TN, Spies TA, Foster DR (2012) Scenario studies as a synthetic and integrative research activity for long-term ecological research. BioScience 62:367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Town of Farmington, NH (2020) https://www.farmington.nh.us/water-and-wastewater-department. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  60. USACE (2020a) United States Army Corps of Engineers. https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Flood-Risk-Management/Massachusetts/Charles-River-NVS/. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  61. USACE (2020b) United States Army Corps of Engineers. https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Flood-Risk-Management/New-Hampshire/Cocheco/. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  62. USDA (2004) Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall, Chapter 10. In: National engineering handbook, Part 630 hydrology. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch10.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2016

  63. USDA (2014) SSURGO Soils. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey/. Accessed 24 Mar 2014

  64. USDA (2018) Census of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/. Accessed 23 Apr 2018

  65. USEPA (2020) United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/soakuptherain/soak-rain-disconnect-redirect-downspouts. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  66. USGS (2016) The StreamStats program. US Geological Survey. http://strreamstats.usgs.gov. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  67. USGS (2018) USGS Geo Data Portal. Bias Corrected Constructed Analogs V2 Daily Climate Projections. US Geological Survey. https://cida.usgs.gov/gdp/client/#!catalog/gdp/dataset/54dd5dece4b08de9379b38d5. Accessed 29 Jan 2018

  68. Wang R, Kalin L, Kuang W, Tian H (2014) Individual and combined effects of land use/cover and climate change on Wolf Bay watershed streamflow in southern Alabama. Hydrol Process 28:5530–5546. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10057

  69. Xian G, Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Hossain N, Wickham J (2011) The change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77(8):758–762

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zambrano-Bigiarini M (2017) Goodness-of-fit functions for comparison of simulated and observed hydrological time series. CRAN.R. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/hydroGOF/index.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2017

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported, in part, by the Highstead Foundation and grants from the National Science Foundation, including the Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research Program (Grant No. NSF-DEB 18-32210), and the Scenarios Society and Solutions Research Coordination Network (Grant No. NSF-DEB-13-38809). The authors would also like to thank Dr. James Dennedy-Frank for his helpful comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Guswa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guswa, A.J., Hall, B., Cheng, C. et al. Co-designed Land-use Scenarios and their Implications for Storm Runoff and Streamflow in New England. Environmental Management (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01342-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Land-use change
  • Ecosystem services
  • Storm runoff
  • Streamflow
  • Landscape scenarios
  • New England