Urban Stream Corridors and Forest Patches – The Connections: A Case Study of Bloomington, IN

Streams and forests are connected ecosystems, but few studies have looked at the connectivity between streams and forests in urban environments. City-made decisions affect connections between streams and forests by isolating both streams and forests. Streams are often channelized or buried to reduce �ooding and increase potential developable areas. Forests become fragmented and are removed unless they are protected by public ownership, private ownership, or mixed governance arrangements. Historical choices in land usage affect the sites and sizes of current urban streams, forests, and development. This affects the distribution of impervious surfaces, a ubiquitous urban land cover type, which separates streams from forests. Despite these barriers to stream/forest interactions, cities can experience stream/forest connectivity. Seven Bloomington watersheds are ranked on their proportions of buried streams, channelized streams, forested hydrology, forested streams, urban forest patch cover, and impervious surface cover, along with historical presence of urbanization. Several watersheds demonstrate stream/forest connectivity, with �ve of these watersheds containing 50% or greater forested stream segments. Bloomington canopy cover reduces stormwater runoff by approximately 127 kiloliters per year. These forested areas reduce �ooding, reduce nutrient loading, and reduce stream conditions associated with urban stream syndrome. Streams provide incentive for forest protection, aesthetic value, and recreational value. Understanding urban stream/forest connectivity can improve green infrastructure design and green space design, which improves urban resilience and better connects residents to the environment.


Introduction
Urban areas usually contain streams, which may ow into or away from these areas.Streams provide stormwater drainage for communities and drinking water, which are necessary for the environmental sustainability and human health in urban areas (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999;Paul and Meyer 2001).
Urban development often impairs streams by increases in nutrient and contaminant loading, ashier hydrology, altered channel morphology, and reduced species richness (Grove et al. 2015;Walsh et al. 2005).Urban development occurs concurrently with new impervious surface cover (ISC).Development projects frequently remove or reduce the size of Urban Forest Patches (UFPs).
UFPs are well-known for their ability to improve air quality by removing air pollution, sequestering carbon, and regulating local climate.They also provide food production, recreational opportunities, and aesthetic value (Costanza et al. 1997;Escobedo et al 2019).Urban development can reduce the ability of UFPs to provide ecosystem services through exposure to higher concentrations of contaminants and reduced species richness (Pickett et al. 2001(Pickett et al. , 2011)).
When connected, UFPs can improve a stream's ecosystem and regulate ooding via avoided runoff, interception, and transpiration (Berland et al 2017;Roy et al. 2005).Connectivity between urban streams and UFPs depends on the development around the stream and the proximity of the UFP to streams via surface ow and underground water tables (Grove et al. 2015; Roy et al 2005).For urban streams, connectivity is reduced when the corridors are channelized or buried.For UFPs, being further away from the stream naturally decreases connectivity.However, connectivity is also decreased when impervious surfaces exist between streams and UFPs.This relationship between streams and UFPs changes over time (Grove et al. 2015;Pickett et al. 2001).Many cities are currently expanding into nearby rural areas (Gollin et al 2016).Knowing how cities grow and develop is important to understanding how their streams and UFPs arrived at their current conditions and placement.Terminology used within this paper is listed in Table 1.Physical, chemical, and ecological changes that consistently occur in urban streams.These changes include altered channel morphology and stability, ashier hydrology, increased nutrient and contaminate loading, reduced species richness, and increased amounts of tolerant species.

Channelization
Anthropogenic modi cations to an urban stream that control erosion, drain wetlands, and reduce retention time of water within the basin.Common examples include concrete banks and rip-rap.

Buried Stream Segment
A section of a stream that has been funneled through a buried pipe to channelize the stream and increase constructible surface area.

Channelized Stream Segment
A section of a stream that has been modi ed to control erosion and reduce retention time.Includes sections of streams that have cement banks or have been lined with rip-rap.

Urban Forest Patch
A self-established ecosystem within city limits that includes enough plants to establish a canopy and an understory.Understories consist of a shrub and a ground cover layer.

Connectivity
The ability of surface or underground waters to move between forest and basin.

Impervious Surface Cover
Land cover that reduces the ability of water to in ltrate the ground.ISC includes buildings, roads, sidewalks, driveways, and other manufactured surfaces.

Research Questions
Where and when have Bloomington streams been channelized and/or buried over time, and how have these modi cations altered channel connectivity to nearby UFPs?
Where and when have UFPs near streams emerged, disappeared, and/or changed in size over time, and how have these changes in UFP area and location altered their impact on streams?  2 shows ten subwatersheds that belong to each of the larger watersheds.Three watersheds were excluded from this study due to few stream segments within Bloomington city limits or poorly de ned watershed boundaries.

GIS Imagery
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) imagery, analyzed on ArcGIS Pro version 2.9, is used to observe and measure most of the metrics of this study.Three layers were downloaded from the Bloomington City GIS portal.First is the Bloomington 2019 city boundary.All maps produced for this study are clipped to this layer, which continues to be the current boundary as of 2022 (Haley 2015).Second is the Natural Drainage Basins layer, which shows subwatersheds within Bloomington.This layer has been modi ed using the 2019 Storm Outfalls Map to show the seven subwatershed boundaries included in this study (Bloomington GIS 2019).Finally, Creeks and Streams, shows all the surface and sinking streams (Bloomington GIS 2016).
The Local Resolution Hydrology layer was downloaded from IndianaMap and shows all channels that are at least 12m wide.This layer includes buried segments and channelized segments and provides a basis for nding buried stream segments and channelized stream segments (U.S.

Visual Inspection
A visual inspection of UFPs in Bloomington was performed between March and June 2022.This inspection was performed by driving out to each site and con rming sizes, shapes, and percent canopy cover of UFPs and the presence of streams.Observed tree species were recorded at each site.Additionally, this inspection provided insight on sites that have natural streams, buried streams, or channelized streams.Channelized streams include surface channels lined by rip-rap or cement banks.This survey of urban forested patches added to the GIS Imagery by re ning the Local Resolution Hydrology, buried stream imagery and the UFP imagery.

Estimate of UFP Ecosystem Services
In addition to GIS Imagery, estimates of Bloomington's UFP ecosystem services were computed using i-Tree Canopy.i-Tree Canopy nds estimates for the amounts of air pollutants, carbon sequestering, and mitigated storm runoff by estimating the percentage of canopy cover in an area.For this study, the Bloomington city limits were used from the US Census Places within the i-Tree Canopy software.The i-Tree Canopy US Census Places uses the current areas of towns and cities, which provides the same political boundaries as the city boundary used in the GIS Imagery.The program selected random points around the city, and these points are labeled as tree/shrub and not tree/shrub.In this estimation, 1,000 random points were placed around Bloomington and categorized.Sites had to contain one acre or more of canopy cover to be designated as tree/shrub.This is designation is used to collect ecosystem service estimates more accurately for UFPs.i-Tree Canopy provided estimates for hydrological in amounts provided.All evaluation estimates are rounded to the nearest square kilometer (USDA Forest Service et al 2022).

Watershed Area and Locations
In total, the seven subwatersheds cover 58.93 square kilometers.Combined, the seven watersheds drain 97% of Bloomington land cover, with the remaining 3% draining by Stephens Creek, Sinking Creek, and Leonard Springs (not included in this study).Figure 1 shows the major subwatersheds, and the creeks and streams within Bloomington.Five of these watersheds have the majority of their watersheds within Bloomington.Stout Creek and EFJC have the majorities of their watersheds outside of Bloomington, but both watersheds contain several channels in Bloomington.The visual inspection of Bloomington UFPs showed that tree assemblages differed based on a UFP's proximity to a stream and geomorphology.UFPs along streams contained lowland assemblages.UFPs in valleys also tended to contain lowland assemblages, even if streams were not present.

Calculations
Table 3shows each watershed's percent buried streams, percent channelized streams, percent forest cover, percent forested stream length, and percent forested hydrology length.Attribute tables were compiled for each watershed's hydrology lengths, channelized stream lengths, and buried stream lengths, forested hydrology lengths, forested stream lengths, creek and stream lengths, UFP area, and watershed area.Total segment lengths or areas were calculated.Percent buried streams, channelized streams, and forested hydrology were calculated by dividing these total lengths by total hydrology lengths.Percent forested stream and UFP cover were calculated by dividing total forested stream lengths and total UFP areas by total creek and stream lengths and total watershed areas, respectively.Overall, most watersheds have higher percent buried streams than percent channelized streams.Clear Creek has the highest percentage of buried stream segments because most of the urban core is in this watershed.Stout Creek and WFCC have higher percent channelized streams and Stout Creek has the highest percentage of channelized stream segments.This is due to the presence of an interstate highway that was constructed in these watersheds.Griffy Creek contains the lowest percent buried streams and channelized streams.
Percent forested stream is always higher than percent forested hydrology.Percent forested stream uses the creeks and streams layer, shown in Fig. 3, which omits buried and channelized streams.The forested hydrology map shown in Fig. 4 includes buried streams and channelized streams and omits most channels less than 12m wide.These differences account for most of lower percentages seen in forested hydrology.However, forested streams include lakeshores as stream surface, which overestimates percent forested stream in Griffy Creek.Overall, Griffy Creek has the highest percent forested stream and hydrology.Clear Creek contains the lowest percentage of forested area in both categories

Ranking Watersheds
The following list shows Bloomington watersheds in order from most to least connected.This ranking is based on the information provided in Tables 3 and 4, with the ranking values shown in Table 5.This table assigns a value for the rank order among study streams for each characteristic.
Watersheds are ranked from lowest score to highest score.Watersheds receive a rank from 1 to 7 for buried stream segments, channelized stream segments, percent forested hydrology, percent forested stream, and percent UFP cover.Historical urbanization receives a 1 for presence or a 0 for absence.
Watersheds receive a rank based on average percent ISC, with LIDA receiving a 1 and OSA receiving a 0.Griffy Creek received the best score overall.Griffy Creek has been partially urbanized since 1967, but the majority of the watershed is undeveloped forest.WFCC ranked second, with high percent UFP cover, high percent forested stream, later development and low percent buried stream.Stout Creek ranked third due to having high percent channelized stream, low percent buried stream, and moderate amount of UFP cover.
Jackson Creek ranked fourth, mostly due to high percent buried stream, high proportion of percent forested hydrology, but low percent channelized stream.EFJC ranked fth due to low percent UFP cover, percent forested hydrology, percent forested stream, and later development.Cascade Creek ranked sixth, due to its low percent forested stream, percent forested hydrology, and high percent buried and channelized stream.
Finally, Clear Creek ranked last.It has the most buried streams, lowest percent UFP cover, lowest percent forested stream, lowest percent forested hydrology, the high average percent ISC and is the only channel to be mostly urbanized in 1939.

UFP Hydrological Ecosystem Services
Results from identifying random points around Bloomington found that 271 out of 1000 points were identi ed as canopy cover.This is 27.1% of Bloomington and covers about 16.4 square kilometers.Table 6 shows quantity for hydrological bene ts these forests provide.Types of these bene ts include avoided runoff, evaporation, interception, and transpiration.Avoided runoff bene ts are assumed to be 7.748 kl/km Streams with high connectivity have fewer anthropogenic alterations in their watersheds than streams with lower connectivity.Channelization decreases drainage time for watersheds.However, this also reduces the ability of water to interact with the surrounding environment.Buried streams have the least connectivity with UFPs because these streams are mostly unable to interact with their surrounding environment.Most of these streams were seen in Clear Creek, Cascade Creek, and Jackson Creek.Channelized streams include streams that ow through concrete-lined banks and streams that have their sides covered in rip-rap.Clear Creek and Cascade Creek contain the more concrete-lined banks, but highest proportions of channelized streams were Stout Creek and WFCC, with most of these streams occurring as rip-rap streams.This reduction of connectivity contributes to the symptoms of USS, such as altered channel morphologies, increased nutrient and chemical loading, reduced species richness, and increase in number of tolerant species.These anthropogenic modi cation to streams may contribute to ooding directly downstream during most rain events and may backup to cause ooding in the urban core (Avni and

Improving Connectivity between and Streams
To improve allocation of Bloomington UFP ecosystem services, UFPs need to be established or protected in areas where streams are owing out of a highly channelized section of their reach.Bloomington is an atypical city, as there are no streams that ow into the city.This makes better allocation of UFP services limited to areas directly outside of the urban core.Most of these areas currently lack su ciently sized UFPs to reduce the symptoms of USS, and often have highly channelized surface streams.

Figure 2 presents
Figure 2 presents Bloomington's hydrology in each watershed.The Hydrology layer shows both natural and arti cial waterways.This includes streams, underground streams, canals, buried streams, and channelized streams.Most underground streams are found in Stout Creek and WFCC.Buried stream segments and channelized stream segments only show up on the Hydrology layer.These segments were found through comparing the Local Resolution Hydrology layer to the Creeks and Streams layer, 2019 Bloomington Storm Outfall Map and the GIS World Imagery layer.Channelized stream segments and buried stream segments are shown in Fig. 2.Urban Forest Patches and Visual AnalysisFigures3 and 4show UFPs in Bloomington.UFPs shown on this map include areas of 4047 m 2 (1 acre) or more, found using contiguous 30m grid cells from NLCD forested land cover imagery that must contain at least 20% canopy cover (Coulston et al 2012; Wickham et al 2021).Figure3shows UFPs along the Creeks and Streams layer, which shows that many of Bloomington's UFPs are found near or along surface stream corridors.Few UFPs are found close to buried streams, as the stream gaps coincide with gaps in canopy cover.Figure4shows UFPs along Local Resolution Hydrology layer and shows fewer UFPs along waterways compared to the streams shown in Fig.3.
2000).Future research could look at the relationship between streams and UFPs in larger cities.Many of these cities contain multiple urban cores, commercial areas, larger streams, and in owing streams (Grove et al 2015).Unlike Bloomington, UFPs in suburban regions upstream of an urban core would likely bene t the urban core.Other areas of future research should include the combined ecosystem services of forested streams outside of ood regulation, economic evaluations of these ecosystem services, and the relationships of UFPs and urban streams in different ecoregions (Costanza et al 1997; Hale et al 2016; Herzog 2016; Kuehler et al 2017).
(Schnoebelen et al 1999;Storm Outfalls Map 2019)o observe the connections between streams and UFPs.The city contains about 79,000 residents and is located on rolling hills in Southern Indiana(Ladwig 2021;Souch and Souch 1993).The central and eastern parts of Bloomington have atter topographies.The westside of Bloomington sits atop karst topography, which is known to contain a number of sinking streams (Hasenmueller and Packman n.d.; White et al 1995).Bloomington has a land area covering 60.17 square kilometers with lakes and reservoirs covering an additional 0.48 square kilometers (U.S. Census Bureau n.d.).Bloomington's water is dispersed throughout ten subwatersheds that ow out of the city.These subwatersheds lie within two different larger watersheds.The Lower White River covers the northern third of Bloomington, and the Lower East Fork White River covers lower two thirds of the city(Schnoebelen et al 1999;Storm Outfalls Map 2019).Table

Table 2
Subwatersheds within the larger watersheds in Bloomington (Schnoebelen et al 1999; Storm Outfalls Map 2019).
Clear Creek, Jackson Creek, East Fork Jackson Creek (EFJC), West Fork Clear Creek (WFCC), Stephens Creek (not included), Sinking Creek (not included), Leonard Springs (not included) Both types of patches include several species which include Red Maple, Black Walnut, Black Cherry, and Elm species.Larger UFPs, like Griffy Woods, contain the gradient of highland to lowland assemblages.UFPs in Stout Creek and WFCC tended to contain higher species richness, as the karst topography provides both lowland and highland habitat in close proximity to each other.Bloomington were agricultural elds and had been deforested to clear land and provide timber for a large local furniture company before these areas experienced urbanization (History of Lawerence and Monroe counties, Indiana 1914).Urbanization has mixed results for streams and forests.Initial developments fragmented most of the remaining forests.However, the city and urban landowners provided spaces that grew new forests.Some areas, such as Griffy Creek and WFCC increased in forested area, due to formal and informal protection.
(Wickham et al 2021)ude Silver Maple, Sycamore, Cottonwood, and Swamp White Oak.UFPs on uphill from streams contained upland assemblages.Upland species include Yellow Poplar, Sugar Maple, Hickory species, and Oak species.Figures 7 and 8 show Bloomington ISC in 2001 and 2019, respectively.Slight change in ISC occurred between 2001 and 2019, with noticeable increases in ISC being observed in parts of WFCC and EFJC.NLCD ISC classi cations are used to categorize groups of percent ISC.Open space areas (OSAs) contain less than 20% ISC and is shaded black or blue.Low intensity developed areas (LIDAs) contain percent ISC between 20% and 49% ISC and is shaded purple or pink.Medium intensity developed areas (MIDAs) contain percent ISC between 50% and 79% and is shaded orange or yellow.High intensity developed areas (HIDAs) contain 80% or greater ISC and is shaded yellow(Wickham et al 2021).Areas shown in black in

Table 3
Characteristics of stream channels and forest cover in the Bloomington drainage basins

Table 4
shows which watersheds were urbanized by 1939 and 1967.Watersheds that show presence of Each watershed is categorized based on average percentage ISC, with these categorizations being shown in Table4.All watersheds contain areas of OSA, LIDA, MIDA, and HIDA.All watersheds increased in average percent ISC, with increases varying from 2-8%, but all watersheds have average percent ISC between 6% and 39% overall.Therefore, all watersheds have average classi cations of OSA or LIDA(Wickham etal 2021) (Wickham et al., 2021).These are lower ISC average than other cities with ISC studies (Lu & Weng 2006; Sung et al 2013).However, most watersheds have high enough average ISC to urbanization in any part of the watershed are considered urbanized.Watersheds that do not show presence of urban development are considered not urbanized.Between 1939 and 1967, the city of Bloomington expanded into four watersheds, with only EFJC and WFCC being completely rural in 1967.Watersheds that had development in 1939, such as Cascade Creek and Clear Creek experienced loss and fragmentation of historical UFPs along with the majority of arti cially buried streams in Bloomington were buried between 1939 and 1967.

Table 5
Ranking of drainage basins to show connections between stream and forest characteristics based on Table3 and Table 4 2/yr, evaporation bene ts are assumed to be 173.996kl/km 2 /yr, Interception bene ts are assumed to be 175.129kl/km 2 /yr, and Transpiration bene ts are assumed to be 164.760kl/km 2 /yr.Only avoided runoff has an economic evaluation.Avoided runoff refers to the prevention of water runoff, which reduces ooding.Evaporation, and Transpiration refer to moving water out of forest via water vapor.Transpiration only quanti es water exhaled by vegetation, whereas evaporation include any kind water that leaves the forest as water vapor.Interception is the amount of water that is being held in trees (USDA Forest Service et al 2022).
Connectivity between urban and their respective UFPs is heavily dependent on the amount of development on or around land that these ecosystems occupy.For streams, the amount of channelization and burial largest determining factor for connectivity with riparian forest cover(Booth etal 2016; Grove et al 2015; Phillips et al 2019; Wenger et al 2009).
Van Loon 2015)r 2001;Pickett et al 2001)ckett et al 2001) such as Griffy and Lower Jackson Creek.Other highly connected streams ow through private UFPs with areas of karst topography, such as Stout Creek and lower WFCC.These watersheds are protected by di cult to develop areas and presence of environmentally sensitive habitat.Additionally, stream reaches with perceived aesthetic or recreational value are usually less channelized(Capotorti etal 2019; de la Fuente et al 2018; Wenger 2009; White et al 1995).UFP connectivity to streams is likely dependent on several factors.Proximity of UFPs to the stream contributes the most to connectivity.This can be impaired if ISC separates the UFP from the stream.A UFP's ability to connect to a stream can be reduced if the forest soil is covered by ISC.This can occur by placement of paved trails, bridges, or other types of ISC.ISC increases storm runoff within UFPs and reduces the ability of UFPs to mitigate storm runoff.Another factor that can reduce UFP connectivity is less canopy cover and UFP fragmentation.This reduces the amount of amount of water that can be intercepted and provide less evaporation area.UFP fragmentation also reduces the amount of forested area that can connect with streams(Booth et al 2002;Phillips et al 2019;Pickett et al 2001).Additionally, buried streams lower local water tables which reduces UFP connectivity with streams, especially for upland UFPs.These ecosystems often become drier and can inhibit tree growth due to the lack of root access to water.Buried streams also reduce in ltration in these patches.These lowered water tables force riparian soils to become aerobic, which reduces denitri cation in riparian UFPs.This causes some riparian UFP to become sources for nitrogen, instead of sinks(Grove etal 2015; Sjoman et al 2015; Van Loon 2015).Separating streams and UFPs negatively affects both the stream and the UFPs.Disconnected streams and UFPs suffer some similar forms of ecosystem degradation.This includes increased contaminant loading, decreased species richness, habitat fragmentation, lowered water tables and possible ecosystem collapse(Paul and Meyer 2001;Pickett et al 2001).However, other symptoms of separated streams and UFPs differ.For separated streams both the physical and chemical characteristics are changed.In particular, these streams have faster rates of ow and increased amounts of nutrients(Wenger 2009).For separated UFPs, the changes include hydrologic drought, which manifests as limited tree growth in upland UFPs due to reduced soil moisture.In riparian UFPs, hydrologic drought reduces species richness and denitri cation.These forests can become sources of nitri cation as wetland obligate species decay(Grove etal 2015; Van Loon 2015).Overall, connecting streams to UFPs is usually more important because streams rely on UFPs to reduce stormwater runoff, provide habitat and allochthonous inputs, and reduce contaminant and nutrient loading.Urban streams with few UFPs are more prone to ooding and severe habitat degradation (Booth et al 2016; Roy et al 2005; Walsh et al 2005).Connecting streams to UFPs is more important for upland UFPs, which may not be able to connect to lowered water tables or UFPs in more drought prone areas.Riparian UFPs will still have access to the water table, but they may acquire characteristics of upland forests (Grove et al 2015; Rai et al 2019;Van Loon 2015). of UFPs outside of the urban core means that most of the UFP ood reduction and carbon sequestration occurs in the suburbs.This does not remedy potential ooding or pollution in or around the urban core, particularly because streams in the Bloomington area ow away from the city.Considering that most buried streams are found in the urban core and major shopping centers, this means that the sites most likely to ood are downstream areas for Clear Creek, Cascade Creek, Jackson Creek, and WFCC.However, Jackson Creek and WFCC have numerous UFPs that may reduce ooding in these downstream areas compared to Clear Creek and Cascade Creek.While Cascade Creek has Cascade Park, this UFP is separated from Cascade Creek with ISC in the forms of trails, roads, infrastructure, and a parking lot as well as a rock armored stream.Clear Creek has few UFPs to reduce downstream ooding.This is likely to cause property damage during rain events(Phillips etal 2019; Pickett et al 2001; Piedelobo et al 2019).Urbanization does not always cause degradation in connectivity between streams and forests.If rural areas are used for agriculture urban development can increase between urban streams and UFPs.Some UFPs have emerged due to urbanization of former elds, with many streams increasing in connectivity.Before Bloomington expanded into the Jackson Creek watershed, the watershed was used for agriculture.This usage removed most forests to grow as many crops as possible.After annexation, these lands saw forests emerge in spaces between infrastructure and in new designated spaces.A few current urban forests remain intact from before annexation.One of these forests is Latimer Woods, which shows up almost unchanged, since 1939.Crucial factors include designated land usage for UFPs and streams and governance of these resources(Gong etal 2019; Indiana Geological Survey 2011; Kowarik et al 2019; Teschner 2019; Booth et al 2002; Paul and Meyer 2001; Walsh et al 2005).The streams with higher connectivity were typically found in less developed areas in suburbia.Many of these stream reaches contain larger UFPs surrounding the stream and have less channelization.survival Streams must be directly remediated to regulate ooding (Avni and Teschner 2019; Phillips et al 2019; Rai et al 2019).Areas vulnerable to ooding are directly north and south of the urban core and south of College Mall and Whitehall Mall.Only one of these sites has a su cient UFP.This is Latimer Woods, south of College Mall.It currently reduces runoff for a similar high ISC drainage area in Jackson Creek.Other ways to reduce runoff is to break up sites with large uninterrupted ISC and reduce the area that buried streams drain.Most of high uninterrupted ISC coincides with arti cially buried streams.Break of these parking lots, daylighting streams, and planting street trees could help alleviate potential ooding (Langenheim and White 2022; length were found in areas with lower percentages of ISC, in areas with few buried streams, and areas that have been developed more recently.Conversely, areas with the highest percentages of ISC contained the most buried streams, highly channelized surface streams, and are found in historically developed areas in the urban core.Stream burial and channelizing occurred concurrently with the development of an area.These sites also contain little tree canopy and few UFPs.Many UFPs along streams have emerged more recently, as most of Bloomington's annexations have incorporated mostly former agricultural land with few forest parcels.Forest parcels that were present in 1939 often resulted in fragmented UFPs by 1967.As Bloomington continues to develop and grow in currently forested areas, many unprotected UFPs will disappear unless there are efforts to protect these UFPs.This may take the form of public ownership and conversion into parks or green infrastructure, private ownership and protections, or combinations of public and private ownership protections.These forested areas include riparian UFPs, which are often owned in a patchwork of public and private parcels.These UFPs could disappear if public or private entities decide to channelize a stream for urban development(Booth etal 2002; Grove et al 2015; Johnson et al 2020; Walsh et al 2005; Wenger et al 2009).Few studies have examined relationships between UFPs and urban stream ecosystems.Studies observing forest and stream interactions either take place in rural areas, analyze habitat connectivity, or focus on an urban forest system's ability to provide green stormwater infrastructure(Berland et al 2017; de la Fuente et al 2018; Grove et al 2015; Kuehler et al 2017; Piedelobo et al 2019; Phillips et al 2019; Weber and Wolf ConclusionStreams and forest are connected through the movement of water, but urban areas often reduce or disrupt this connectivity.Urban streams are often channelized and UFPs can be isolated by distance from streams and ISC(Miller etal 2014; Paul and Meyer 2001; Pickett 2001).Seven watersheds in Bloomington were ranked using hydrology, tree canopy and UFP, ISC, and historical aerial imagery.Watersheds with more forested stream