Urbanization of a watershed degrades both the form and the function of the downstream aquatic system, causing changes that can occur rapidly and are very difficult to avoid or correct. A variety of physical data from lowland streams in western Washington displays the onset of readily observable aquatic‐system degradation at a remarkably consistent level of development, typically about ten percent effective impervious area in a watershed. Even lower levels of urban development cause significant degradation in sensitive water bodies and a reduced, but less well quantified, level of function throughout the system as a whole. Unfortunately, established methods of mitigating the downstream impacts of urban development may have only limited effectiveness. Using continuous hydrologic modeling we have evaluated detention ponds designed by conventional event methodologies, and our findings demonstrate serious deficiencies in actual pond performance when compared to their design goals. Even with best efforts at mitigation, the sheer magnitude of development activities falling below a level of regulatory concern suggests that increased resource loss will invariably accompany development of a watershed. Without a better understanding of the critical processes that lead to degradation, some downstream aquatic‐system damage is probably inevitable without limiting the extent of watershed development itself.

Cumulatively, headwater streams contribute to maintaining hydrologic connectivity and ecosystem integrity at regional scales. Hydrologic connectivity is the water‐mediated transport of matter, energy and organisms within or between elements of the hydrologic cycle. Headwater streams compose over two‐thirds of total stream length in a typical river drainage and directly connect the upland and riparian landscape to the rest of the stream ecosystem. Altering headwater streams, e.g., by channelization, diversion through pipes, impoundment and burial, modifies fluxes between uplands and downstream river segments and eliminates distinctive habitats. The large‐scale ecological effects of altering headwaters are amplified by land uses that alter runoff and nutrient loads to streams, and by widespread dam construction on larger rivers (which frequently leaves free‐flowing upstream portions of river systems essential to sustaining aquatic biodiversity). We discuss three examples of large‐scale consequences of cumulative headwater alteration. Downstream eutrophication and coastal hypoxia result, in part, from agricultural practices that alter headwaters and wetlands while increasing nutrient runoff. Extensive headwater alteration is also expected to lower secondary productivity of river systems by reducing stream‐system length and trophic subsidies to downstream river segments, affecting aquatic communities and terrestrial wildlife that utilize aquatic resources. Reduced viability of freshwater biota may occur with cumulative headwater alteration, including for species that occupy a range of stream sizes but for which headwater streams diversify the network of interconnected populations or enhance survival for particular life stages. Developing a more predictive understanding of ecological patterns that may emerge on regional scales as a result of headwater alterations will require studies focused on components and pathways that connect headwaters to river, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems. Linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems cannot be discounted when addressing large‐scale issues such as hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and global losses of biodiversity.

No abstract

No 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.