Cited by 319Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesSoil erosion and sediment transport

FOREST COVER, IMPERVIOUS‐SURFACE AREA, AND THE MITIGATION OF STORMWATER IMPACTS1

Booth, Derek B., Hartley, David, Jackson, Rhett·2002·JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Abstract

For 20 years, King County, Washington, has implemented progressively more demanding structural and nonstructural strategies in an attempt to protect aquatic resources and declining salmon populations from the cumulative effects of urbanization. This history holds lessons for planners, engineers, and resource managers throughout other urbanizing regions. Detention ponds, even with increasingly restrictive designs, have still proven inadequate to prevent channel erosion. Costly structural retrofits of urbanized watersheds can mitigate certain problems, such as flooding or erosion, but cannot restore the predevelopment flow regime or habitat conditions. Widespread conversion of forest to pasture or grass in rural areas, generally unregulated by most jurisdictions, degrades aquatic systems even when watershed imperviousness remains low. Preservation of aquatic resources in developing areas will require integrated mitigation, which must including impervious‐surface limits, forest‐retention policies, stormwater detention, riparian‐buffer maintenance, and protection of wetlands and unstable slopes. New management goals are needed for those watersheds whose existing development precludes significant ecosystem recovery; the same goals cannot be achieved in both developed and undeveloped watersheds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb01000.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Knowledge of landscape indicators of salmon-habitat condition such as forest cover and impervious surface indicates that potential effects of the wider landscape on restoration outcomes should not be ignored.

    “Knowledge of landscape indicators of salmon-habitat condition such as forest cover and impervious surface suggests that we should not ignore the potential effects of this wider landscape on the outcome of the program (Booth et al. 2002, Allan 2004, Hale et al. 2004, Andrew and Wulder 2011).”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Booth et al. 2002

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Booth, D. B., Hartley, D., & Jackson, R.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-06
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
835-845
ISSN
  • 1093-474X (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-1688
OpenAlex
W2125027857
Cited by
319
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 18
FWCI
10.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
forest cover, impervious surfaces, urbanization, salmon habitat, detention ponds, channel erosion, riparian buffers, wetland conservation, watershed management, King County, Washington, pasture conversion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review