CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFreshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology

Strategies for managing the effects of urban development on streams

Open access
Cappiella, Karen, Stack, William P., Fraley-McNeal, Lisa, Lane, Cecilia, McMahon, Gerard·2012·Circular
DOI 10.3133/cir1378
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3133/cir1378

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Low impact development (i.e., green stormwater infrastructure) seeks to best approximate pre-development hydrological conditions, which, if achieved, can effectively address both water quantity and quality.

    “Low impact development (i.e., green stormwater infrastructure) seeks to best approximate pre-development hydrological conditions, which, if achieved, can effectively address both water quantity and quality (Cappiella et al. 2012;Odefey et al. 2012).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Cappiella et al. 2012

  • Traditional stormwater systems do not always adequately address the rate of stormwater flow and quality, leading to continued problems with erosion and water pollution.

    “However, these traditional systems do not always adequately address the rate of stormwater flow and quality, leading to continued problems with erosion and water pollution (Collins et al. 2010;Cappiella et al. 2012).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Cappiella et al. 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Booth, D.B., and Jackson, C.R., 1997, Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 33, no. 5, p. 1077-1090.
  2. Burian, S., and Edwards, F., 2002, Historical perspectives of urban drainage: Global solutions for urban drainage, Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage (9ICUD), September 8-13, 2002.
  3. Burian, S., Nix, S., Pitt, R., and Durrans, S., 2000, Urban wastewater management in the United States: Past, present, and future: Journal of Urban Technology, December 2000.
  4. Cahoon, L., Hales, J., Rowland, K., Carey, E., Loucaides, S., and Nearhoof, J., 2006, Shellfishing closures in southwest Brunswick County, North Carolina: Septic tanks vs. storm water runoff as fecal coliform: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 22, no. 2, p. 319-327.
  5. Cheng, M., Coffman, L., Zhang, Y., and Licsko, J., 2004, Comparison of hydrologic responses from low-impact development compared to conventional development, in Protection and Restoration of urban and rural streams: Proceedings of Protection and Restoration of Urban and Rural Streams Symposium 2003.
  6. Chesapeake Bay Program and Virginia Tech, 2002, Proceed- ings of Three Workshops on Impediments to Low Impact Development and Environmental Sensitive Design, Chesa- peake Bay Program's Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee; Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee; and Virginia Tech's Insti- tute for Innovative Governance: STAC Publication 02-003.
  7. Chesapeake Stormwater Network, 2008, The reformulated Impervious Cover Model: Implications for stream clas- sification, subwatershed management and permitting: Chesapeake Stormwater Network Technical Bulletin No. 3, version 1.
  8. Chesapeake Stormwater Network, 2011, Stormwater design for high intensity redevelopment projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Chesapeake Stormwater Network Technical Bulletin No. 5, version 2.0. City of Austin, 1995, PAH and coal tar studies, accessed August 10, 2012, at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/ surface_pahcoaltar.htm.
  9. Dietz, M.E., and Clausen, J.C., 2008, Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and low impact subdivision: Journal of Environmental Manage- ment, v. 87, no. 4, p. 560-566.
  10. Duda, A.M., and Cromartie, K.D., 1982, Coastal pollution from septic tank drainfields: Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 108, no. 6, p. 1265-1279.
  11. Henshaw, P., and Booth, D., 2000, Natural restabilization of stream channels in urban watersheds: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 36, no. 6, p. 1219-1236.
  12. Horner, R., and May, C., 1999, Regional study supports natural land cover protection as leading best management practice for maintaining stream ecological integrity, in Comprehensive Stormwater & Aquatic Ecosystem Manage- ment Conference Papers, First South Pacific Conference, February 22-26, New Zealand, v. 1, p. 233-247.
  13. Horner, R., May, C., Livingston, E., Blaha, D., Scoggins, M., Tims, J., and Maxted, J., 2001, Structural and non-structural BMPs for protecting streams: Linking stormwater BMP designs and performance to receiving water impact miti- gation, in Proceedings Engineering Research Foundation Conference: American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 60-77.
  14. Hubbart, J.A., Holmes, J., and Bowman, G., 2010, TMDLs: Improving stakeholder acceptance with science-based allo- cations: Watershed Science Bulletin, Fall 2010, p. 19-24.
  15. Jacob, J., and Lopez, R., 2009, Is denser greener? An evalua- tion of higher density development as an urban stormwater quality best management practice: Journal of American Water Resources Association, v. 45, no. 6, p. 1533-1535.
  16. Jones, R.C., Via-Norton, A., and Morgan, D.R., 1996, Bio- assessment of BMP effectiveness in mitigating stormwater impacts on aquatic biota, in Roesner, L.A., ed., Effects of watershed development and management on aquatic ecosystems, Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference, August 4-9, 1996, Snowbird, Utah: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 402-417.
  17. Kim, Sukko, 2000, Urban development in the United States, 1690-1990: Southern Economic Journal, v. 66, p. 855-880.
  18. Lassiter, R.V., 2008, An assessment of impediments to low-impact development in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Richmond, Va., Virginia Com- monwealth University, M.S. thesis, VCU digital archives, accessed August 22, 2012, at http://digarchive.library.vcu. edu/handle/10156/1551.
  19. Lee, K.B., and Ham, P.J., 1988, Effects of Surrey's storm water management policy on channel erosion, in Pro- ceedings, International Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Municipal Engineering, Town of Markham, Ontario, Canada, p. C5-1-C5-15.
  20. Leopold, L., 1994, A view of the river: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
  21. Leopold, L.B., Huppman, R., and Miller, A., 2005, Geomor- phic effects of urbanization in forty-one years of observa- tion: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, v. 149, no. 3, p. 349-371.
  22. Lindow, N., Shofar, S., and Curtis, M., 2010, Tracking water- shed restoration in Montgomery County, Maryland: Ellicott City, Md., Watershed Science Bulletin, Fall 2010, Associa- tion of Watershed and Stormwater Professionals.
  23. Low Impact Development Center, 2000, Low impact develop- ment, A literature review: Washington, D.C., United States Office of Water (4203) EPA-841-B-00-005 Environmental Protection Agency.
  24. MacRae, C.R., 1996, Experience from morphological research on Canadian streams: Is control of the two-year frequency runoff event the best basis for stream channel protection?, in Roesner, L.A., ed., Effects of watershed development and management on aquatic ecosystems, Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference, August 4-9, 1996, Snowbird, Utah: New York, American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 144-162.
  25. Maxted, J., 1999, The effectiveness of retention basins to protect downstream aquatic life in three regions of the United States, in Comprehensive Stormwater and Aquatic Ecosystem Management, First South Pacific Conference, February 22-26, 1999, Auckland, New Zealand, v. 1, p. 215-222.
  26. McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000, Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing: Journal of Social Issues, v. 56, no. 3, p. 543-554.
  27. Melosi, M.V., 2000, The sanitary city: Urban infrastructure in America from colonial times to the present: Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press, xii plus 578 p.
  28. Morisawa, M., and LaFlure, E., 1979, Hydraulic geometry stream equalization and urbanization, in Rhodes, D.D., and Williams, G.P., eds., Adjustments of the fluvial system, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Geomorphology Sympo- sia Series, September 21-22, 1979, Binghampton, N.Y.: Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 372 p.
  29. National Academy of Sciences, 2008, Committee on reducing stormwater discharges to water pollution: Urban storm- water management in the United States, A Report of the National Research Council: Washington D.C., National Academic Press.
  30. National Research Council, 2001, Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
  31. Palmer, M., and Allan, J., 2006, Restoring rivers, in Policy recommendations to enhance effectiveness of river restora- tion: National Academy of Sciences Journal, Issues in Sci- ence and Technology 22, p. 40-48.
  32. Paul, M.J., and Meyer, J.L., 2001, Streams in the urban land- scape: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 32, p. 333-365.
  33. Roy, A.H., Freeman, M.C., Freeman, B.J., Wenger, S.J., Ensign, W.E., and Meyer, J.L., 2005, Investigating hydro- logic alteration as a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts in urbanizing streams: Journal of the North American Ben- thological Society v. 24, p. 656-678.
  34. Schueler, T.R., Fraley-McNeal, L., and Cappiella, K., 2009, Is impervious cover still important? A review of recent research: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering v. 14, no. 4, p. 309-315.
  35. Scoggins, M., McClintock, N.L., Gosselink, L., and Bryer, P., 2007, Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons below coal-tar-sealed parking lots and effects on stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities: Journal of the North American Benthological Society v. 26, no. 4, p. 694-707.
  36. Steuer, J.J., 2010, A generalized watershed disturbance- invertebrate relation applicable in a range of environmental settings across the continental United States: Urban Ecosys- tems, DOI 10.1007/s11252-010-0131-x. · DOI
  37. Stribling, J., Leppo, E., Cummins, J., Galli, J., Meigs, S., Coffman, L., and Cheng, M., 2001, Relating instream biological conditions to BMP activities in streams and watersheds, in Linking Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impacts Mitigation: Snowmass, Colo., Engineering Research Foundation. United States Conference of Mayors, [n.d.], Protecting and developing the urban tree canopy: A 135-city survey, accessed August 22, 2012, at http://www.usmayors.org/ trees/treefinalreport2008.pdf.
  38. Walsh, C.J., Roy, A.H., Feminella, J.W., Cottingham, P.D., Groffman, P.M., and Morgan II, R.P., II, 2005, The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 24, no. 3, p. 706-723.
  39. Wang, L., Lyons, J., Rasmussen, P., Simons, P., Wiley, T., and Stewart, P., 2003, Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and forest ecoregions: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, v. 60, no. 5, p. 491-505.
  40. Waring, G., 1883, Sanitary drainage: The North American Review, v. 137, issue 320, p. 57-67.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cappiella, K., Stack, W. P., Fraley-McNeal, L., Lane, C., & McMahon, G.
ORCID
McMahon, Gerard
Venue
Circular
Publisher
US Geological Survey
Published
2012
Pages
i-69
ISSN
  • 1067-084X (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-5703
DOI
10.3133/cir1378
OpenAlex
W1044091403
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
U.S. Geological Survey circular/U.S. Geological Survey Circular (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Pollution Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
Keywords
urban development, urban rivers, urbanization, stream water quality, National Water-Quality Assessment Program, EuSe, urban land use, stream habitat degradation, metropolitan areas

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