Streams and Urbanization

  • Derek B. Booth
  • Brian P. Bledsoe

“Urbanization” encompasses a diverse array of watershed alterations that influence the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of streams. In this chapter, we summarize lessons learned from the last half century of research on urban streams and provide a critique of various mitigation strategies, including recent approaches that explicitly address geomorphic processes. We focus first on the abiotic conditions (primarily hydrologic and geomorphic) and their changes in streams that accompany urbanization, recognizing that these changes may vary with geomorphic context and climatic region. We then discuss technical approaches and limitations to (1) mitigating water-quantity and water-quality degradation through site design, riparian protection, and structural stormwater-management strategies; and (2) restoring urban streams in those watersheds where the economic, social, and political contexts can support such activities.


Sediment Load Riparian Zone Stream Channel Urban Stream Sediment Delivery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allan, J. D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt, R. 1997. Conservation Design for Subdivisions. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, C. L., P. J. Boison, and P. C. Patton. 1982. Sawmill Brook: an example of rapid geomorphic change related to urbanization. Journal of Geology 90:155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avolio, C. M. 2003. The Local Impacts of Road Crossings on Puget Lowland Creeks. MSCE Thesis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Barker B. L., R. D. Nelson, and M. S. Wigmosta. 1991. Performance of detention ponds designed according to current standards, pp. 64–70. In: Puget Sound Research 91 Conference Proceedings, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Bledsoe, B. P., and C. C. Watson. 2001. Effects of urbanization on channel instability. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(2):255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bledsoe, B. P. 2002. Stream erosion potential associated with stormwater management strategies. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 128:451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booth, D. B. 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water Resources Bulletin 26(3):407–417.Google Scholar
  9. Booth, D. B. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system—impacts, solutions, and prognoses. Northwest Environmental Journal 7:93–118.Google Scholar
  10. Booth, D. B., and C. R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(5):1077–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booth, D. B., D. R. Montgomery, and J. P. Bethel. 1997. Large woody debris in urban streams of the Pacific Northwest. In: L. A. Roesner (Ed.), Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems, Proceedings of an ASCE Engineering Foundation Conference, Snowbird, Utah, August 4–9, 1996; published by ASCE, Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Booth, D. B., and P. C. Henshaw. 2001. Rates of channel erosion in small urban streams, pp. 17–38. In: M. S. Wigmosta and S. J. Burges (Eds.), Influence of Urban and Forest Land Use on the Hydrologic-Geomorphic Responses of Watersheds, Monograph Series, Water Science and Applications, Volume 2, American Geophysical Union, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Booth, D. B. 2005. Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams, a perspective from the Pacific Northwest of North America. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:724–737.Google Scholar
  14. Bunn, S. E., and A. H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30:492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burges, S. J., B. A. Stoker, M. S. Wigmosta, and R. A. Moeller. 1989. Hydrological Information and Analyses Required for Mitigating Hydrologic Effects of Urbanization. University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Water Resources Series Technical Report No. 117, p. 131.Google Scholar
  16. Burges, S. J., M. S. Wigmosta, and J. M. Meena. 1998. Hydrological effects of land-use change in a zero-order catchment. Journal of Hydrological Engineering 3:86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang, H. H. 1988. Fluvial Processes in River Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA, p. 336.Google Scholar
  18. Chin, A., and K. J. Gregory. 2001. Urbanization and adjustment of ephemeral stream channels. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(4):595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Church, M. 2002. Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47(4): 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coffman, L. S. 2002. Low-impact development: an alternative stormwater management technology. In: R. L. France (Ed.), Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  21. CWP. 2008. Model ordinances. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland, USA, available from
  22. Dunne, T., and L. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California, USA, 809 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren, and M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10(2):199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frissell, C. A. 1997. Ecological principles, pp. 96–115. In: J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck (Eds.), Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Gregory, S. T., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer, T. R. 1972. Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization. Water Resources Research 8:1530–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harding, J. S., E. F. Benfield, P. V. Bolstad, G. S. Helfman, and E. B. D. Jones III. 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:14843–14847.Google Scholar
  28. Henshaw, P. C., and D. B. Booth. 2000. Natural restabilization of stream channels in urban watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(6):1219–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollis, G. E. 1975. The effect of urbanization on floods of different recurrence intervals. Water Resources Research 11(3):431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horner, R. R., D. B. Booth, A. A. Azous, and C. W. May. 1997. Watershed determinants of ecosystem functioning. In: L. A. Roesner (Ed.), Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems, Proceedings of an ASCE Engineering Foundation Conference, Snowbird, Utah, August 4–9, 1996; published by ASCE, Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Jacobson, R. B., S. R. Femmer, and R. A. McKenney. 2001. Land-Use Changes and the Physical Habitat of Streams – A Review with Emphasis on Studies Within the U.S. Geological Survey Federal-State Cooperative Program. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1175, Reston, Virginia, USA, 63 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Karr J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1:66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Water. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Karr, J. R., and C. O. Yoder. 2004. Biological assessment and criteria improve TMDL planning and decision making. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130:594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. King County. 1990. Surface-Water Design Manual. King County Public Works Department, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, Washington, USA, 5 chapters.Google Scholar
  36. Konrad, C. P., and D. B. Booth. 2002. Hydrologic Trends Associated with Urban Development for Selected Streams in the Puget Sound Basin, Western Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources-Investigations Report 02-4040, Tacoma, Washington, USA, p. 40.Google Scholar
  37. Konrad, C. P., and D. B. Booth. 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47:157–177.Google Scholar
  38. Konrad, C. P., D. B. Booth, and S. J. Burges. 2005. Effects of urban development in the Puget Lowland, Washington, on interannual streamflow patterns: consequences for channel form and streambed disturbance. Water Resources Research 41(WO7009), 1029/2005WR004097.Google Scholar
  39. Leopold, L. B. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning – A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 554, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, p. 18.Google Scholar
  40. Leopold, L. B. 1973. River channel change with time: an example. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84:1845–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowrance, R., L. S. Altier, J. D. Newbold, R. R. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J. M. Denver, D. L. Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J. L. Robinson, R. B. Brinsfield, K. W. Staver, W. Lucas, and A. H. Todd. 1995. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffer systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Report EPA 903-R-95-004/CBP/TRS 134/95, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, p. 67.Google Scholar
  42. MacRae, C. R. 1997. Experience from morphological research on Canadian streams: is control of the two-year frequency runoff event the best basis for stream channel protection? pp. 144–162. In: L. A. Roesner (Ed.), Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems, Proceedings of an ASCE Engineering Foundation Conference, Snowbird, Utah, August 4–9, 1996; published by ASCE, Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  43. McBride, M., and D. B. Booth. 2005. Urban impacts on physical stream conditions: effects of spatial scale, connectivity, and longitudinal trends. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(3):565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCuen, R. H. 1979. Downstream effects of stormwater management basins. ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division 105(HY11):1343–1346.Google Scholar
  45. Montgomery, D. R., and L. H. MacDonald. 2002. Diagnostic approach to stream channel assessment and monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morley S. A., and J. R. Karr. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology 16:1498–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Naiman R. J., H. Décamps, and M. E. McClain. 2005. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities. Elsevier/Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, p. 430.Google Scholar
  48. Nelson, A. C. 2004. Toward a New Metropolis: the Opportunity to Rebuild America. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, December, 44 pp., available from
  49. Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D. L. Galat, S. G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Park, C. C. 1997. Channel cross-sectional change, pp. 117–145. In: A. Gurnell and G. Petts (Eds.), Changing River Channels, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  51. Paul M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Poff, N. L., and J. V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1805–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Poff, N. L., and J. D. Allan. 1995. Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrological variability. Ecology 76(2):606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47(11):769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Poff, N. L., M. M. Brinson, and J. W. Day. 2002. Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Climate Change—Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetland Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, January, 44 pp., available from
  56. Poff, N. L., B. P. Bledsoe, and C. O. Cuhaciyan. 2006. Hydrologic alterations due to differential land use across the contiguous United States: geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79:264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. PSAT. 2005. Low Impact Development – Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Publication No. PSAT 05-03, Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, Washington, USA, January, available from
  58. Reckhow, K. H. 1999. Lessons from risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5:245–253.Google Scholar
  59. Richards, K. S., and S. N. Lane. 1997. Prediction of morphological changes in unstable channels, pp. 269–292. In: C. R. Thorne, R. D. Hey, and M. D. Newsom (Eds.), Applied Fluvial Geomorphology for River Engineering and Management, Chapter 10, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  60. Roberts, M. L., R. E. Bilby, and D. B. Booth. 2008. Hydraulic dispersion and reach-averaged velocity as indicators of enhanced organic matter transport in small Puget Lowland streams across an urban gradient. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 171(2):1451–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roesner, L. A., B. P. Bledsoe, and R. W. Brashear. 2001. Are best-management-practice criteria really environmentally friendly? Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127(3):150–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roesner, L. A., and B. P. Bledsoe. 2002. Physical Effects of Wet Weather Flows on Aquatic Habitats – Present Knowledge and Research Needs. Final Report to Water Environment Research Foundation, WERF Project Number 00-WSM-4, p. 250.Google Scholar
  63. Roy A. H., A. D. Rosemond, M. J. Paul, D. S. Leigh, and J. B. Wallace. 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, USA). Freshwater Biology 48: 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3): 100–111.Google Scholar
  65. Schueler, T. 1995. The architecture of urban stream buffers. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(4):155–163.Google Scholar
  66. Schumm, S. A. 1977. The Fluvial System. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  67. Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes Landforms 14(1):11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steedman, R. J. 1988. Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomson, J. D., G. Weiblen, B. A. Thomson, S. Alfaro, and P. Legendre. 1996. Untangling multiple factors in spatial distributions: lilies, gophers, and rocks. Ecology 77:1698–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thorne, C. R., C. Alonso, R. Bettess, D. Borah, S. Darby, P. Diplas, P. Julien, D. Knight, L. Li, J. Pizzuto, M. Quick, A. Simon, M. A. Stevens, S. Wang, and C. C. Watson. 1998. River width adjustment, I: processes and mechanisms. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124(9):881–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trimble, S. W. 1997. Contribution of stream channel erosion to sediment yield from an urbanizing watershed. Science Magazine 278:1442–1444.Google Scholar
  72. USEPA. 1999. Low-impact development design strategies: an integrated design approach. Report EPA 841-B-00-003, June, available from LID_National_Manual.pdf.
  73. Walsh, C. J., A. H. Roy, J. W. Feminella, P. D. Cottingham, P. M. Groffman, and R. P. Morgan. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:706–723.Google Scholar
  74. Westman, W. E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental Planning. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  75. Williams, G. P., and M. G. Wolman. 1984. Downstream Effects of Dams on Alluvial Rivers. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1286, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, p. 83.Google Scholar
  76. Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck. 1997. Understanding watershed-scale restoration, pp. 1–16. In: J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck (Eds.), Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  77. Wohl, E. E., P. L. Angermeier, B. P. Bledsoe, G. M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell, D. M. Merritt, M. A. Palmer, N. L. Poff, and D. Tarboton. 2005. River restoration. Water Resources Research 41(W10301), doi:10.1029/2005WR003985.Google Scholar
  78. Wolman, M. G. 1967. A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels. Geografiska Annaler 49A(2–4):385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek B. Booth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian P. Bledsoe
    • 1
  1. 1.Quaternary Research CenterUniversity of WashingtonSeattle
  2. 2.Stillwater Sciences Inc.Berkeley

Personalised recommendations