USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

Karen Cappiella

Publications and source records attributed to Karen Cappiella.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Effects of urban development on stream ecosystems in nine metropolitan study areas across the United States

Urban development is an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The urban footprint on the American landscape has expanded during a century and a half of almost continuous development. Eighty percent of Americans now live in metropolitan areas, and the advantages and challenges of living in these developed areas—convenience, congestion, employment, pollution—are part of the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Nowhere are the environmental changes associated with urban development more evident than in urban streams. Contaminants, habitat destruction, and increasing streamflow flashiness resulting from urban development have been associated with the disruption of biological communities, particularly the loss of sensitive aquatic species. Every stream is connected downstream to larger water bodies, including rivers, reservoirs, and ultimately coastal waters. Inputs of chemical contaminants or sediments at any point along the stream can cause degradation downstream with adverse effects on biological communities and on economically valuable resources, such as fisheries and tourism. In response to general concerns about the degradation of urban streams, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a national-scale, scientific investigation of the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems. Nine metropolitan study areas of the United States were selected—Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The studies were conducted in Salt Lake City, Birmingham, and Boston in 1999–2000; in Atlanta, Raleigh, and Denver in 2002–2003; and in Portland, Dallas, and Milwaukee in 2003–2004. The comprehensive investigation of all nine studies focused on three broad questions of interest to decision makers: What are the primary effects of urban development on stream ecosystems? How do the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems vary regionally across the country? Which urban-related stressors are most closely linked to biological community degradation, and how can multiple stressors be managed to protect stream health as a watershed becomes increasingly urbanized?

Alabama;Colorado;Georgia;Massachusetts;North Carol

Strategies for managing the effects of urban development on streams

Urban development remains an important agent of environmental change in the United States. The U.S. population grew by 17 percent from 1982 to 1997, while urbanized land area grew by 47 percent, suggesting that urban land consumption far outpaced population growth (Fulton and others, 2001; Sierra Club, 2003; American Farmland Trust, 2009). Eighty percent of Americans now live in metropolitan areas. Each American effectively occupies about 20 percent more developed land (for housing, schools, shopping, roads, and other related services) than 20 years ago (Markham and Steinzor, 2006). Passel and Cohn (2008) predict a dramatic 48 percent increase in the population of the United States from 2005 to 2050. The advantages and challenges of living in these developed areas—convenience, congestion, employment, pollution—are part of the day-to-day realities of most Americans. Nowhere are the environmental changes associated with urban development more evident than in urban streams. The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program investigation of the effects of urban development on stream ecosystems (EUSE) during 1999–2004 provides the most spatially comprehensive analysis of stream impacts of urban development that has been completed in the United States. A nationally consistent study design was used in nine metropolitan areas of the United States—Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A summary report published as part of the EUSE study describes several of these impacts on urban streams ( Coles and others, 2012 ).

Alabama;Colorado;Georgia;Massachusetts;North Carol

Sedimentation and bathymetry changes in Suisun Bay: 1867-1990

Understanding patterns of historical erosion and deposition in San Francisco Bay is crucial in managing such issues as locating deposits of sediment-associated contaminants, and the restoration of wetland areas. These problems were addressed by quantitatively examining historical hydrographic surveys. The data from five hydrographic surveys, made from 1867 to 1990, were analyzed using surface modeling software to determine long-term changes in the sediment system of Suisun Bay and surrounding areas. A surface grid displaying the bathymetry was created for each survey period, and the bathymetric change between survey periods was computed by differencing these grids. Patterns and volumes of erosion and deposition, sedimentation rates, and shoreline changes were derived from the resulting change grids. Approximately 115 million cubic meters of sediment were deposited in the Suisun Bay area from 1867 to 1887, the majority of which was debris from hydraulic gold mining in the Sierra Nevada. Just under two-thirds of the area of the study site was depositional during this time period, while less than one-third of it was erosional. However, over the entire study period, the Suisun Bay area lost sediment, indicating that a large amount of erosion occurred from1887 to 1990. In fact, this area lost sediment during each of the change periods between 1887 and 1990. Because erosion and deposition are processes that may vary over space and time, further analyses of more specific areas were done to examine spatial and temporal patterns. The change in the Suisun Bay area from being a largely depositional environment to an erosional one is the result of a combination of several factors. These factors include the regulation and subsequent cessation of hydraulic mining practices, and the increase in flood control and water distribution projects that have decreased sediment supply to the bay by reducing the frequency and duration of peak flow conditions. Another pattern shown by the changing bathymetry is the substantial decrease in the area of tidal flat (defined in this study as the area between mean lower low water and the shoreline), particularly in Grizzly Bay and Honker Bay. These tidal flats are important to the bay ecosystem, providing stability and biologic diversity.

California