Elsevier

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume 145, January 2016, Pages 34-44
Landscape and Urban Planning

Perspective Essay
Thinking outside the channel: Challenges and opportunities for protection and restoration of stream morphology in urbanizing catchments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Stream restoration goals may be better achieved working with geomorphic processes.

  • Feasibility in an urban context requires addressing the causes not symptoms.

  • We discuss addressing stormwater runoff, riparian space and sediment loads.

  • Legacy land use and social/institutional barriers require greater consideration.

Abstract

Urbanization of catchments profoundly changes the morphology of streams by increasing stormwater runoff, altering sediment regimes, and limiting space for channel change. Management response commonly involves addressing the symptoms of urbanization by reconfiguration and partial hard-lining of the channel. Mounting evidence suggests, however, that stream restoration goals may be better achieved by addressing the causes of channel degradation at a catchment scale, increasing opportunities to work with geomorphic processes. The challenges of this approach in urban catchments have not been comprehensively explored. In this perspective essay we describe how stream restoration in urban catchments might be better achieved by undertaking activities in the catchment or riparian zone to address the causes, rather than patch the symptoms. We describe the challenges that need to be overcome to address these causes including; excess stormwater runoff, lack of riparian space, altered sediment supplies, legacy impacts on streams from former land use, and social and institutional barriers. We discuss opportunities for each. A more sustainable urban stream solution may be achieved by addressing these issues to reduce the impact of urbanization on stream morphology.

Introduction

Contemporary stream management faces the challenge of restoring streams such that they “maintain or increase ecosystem goods and services while protecting downstream and coastal ecosystems” (Palmer et al., 2005), whilst also satisfying utilitarian functions such as flood and erosion protection (Gregory & Chin, 2002). The ultimate goal of stream restoration is to achieve these goals for least effort and cost. Nowhere is stream restoration more challenging than in streams that have a substantial portion of their catchments urbanized (Bernhardt and Palmer, 2007, Hatt et al., 2004, Vietz et al., 2014b, Walsh et al., 2012a). If current trends in population density continue then by 2030 urban land cover will increase by 1.2 million km2, nearly tripling the global urban land (Seto, Guneralp, & Hutyra, 2012). This means the planning for protection and restoration of streams in urbanizing catchments will require considerably greater effort and some thinking outside of current channel-based approaches.

Urban stormwater runoff is a highly effective geomorphic agent with increased magnitude, frequency and duration of disturbance flows (Burns, Fletcher, Walsh, Ladson, & Hatt, 2012). In concert with changed sediment supply and reduced floodplain interaction, streams in urban catchments often experience incision, enlargement, and homogenization of channel morphology (Vietz, Sammonds, et al., 2014). This not only has implications for infrastructure, but in conjunction with poor water quality these changes contribute to poor ecological condition (Walsh et al., 2005). The traditional management approach for many streams in urban catchments has been to address the symptoms by modifying the channel to cope with changes resulting from urban land use. This includes activities such as channelization, channel straightening, enlargement and armoring. In many cases this is still a valid approach given the value of urban land and the cost of flooding in cities. Channel reconstruction approaches to stream restoration are sometimes inevitable. It is reasonable to ask, however, whether the natural character of urban streams always has to be degraded in this way, and whether addressing the catchment-scale causes of stream degradation may provide greater opportunities for protecting or restoring channel morphology.

In this perspective paper we argue that application of the term ‘urban stream’ can sound the death knell for an otherwise naturally functioning stream. Rather, these streams should more appropriately be considered as streams affected by urban landuse and instead of ‘treating’ urban streams we should consider addressing the drivers of channel degradation. Addressing a driver of channel change to protect geomorphic form is not necessarily new thinking (e.g. stormwater management, Booth, 1991), but the novelty of this article lies in an investigation of the suite of opportunities that may be available. We, therefore, explore the opportunities for protecting and restoring streams in urban catchments by working with the drivers of change, rather than trying to combat change. We look outside the channel to opportunities for managing excess stormwater runoff, providing riparian buffer-space for streams, and managing sediment supply. We also consider the implications of former land uses (prior to urbanization) that may result in legacy channel morphology, and the role social and institutional drivers play in opportunities for stream protection and restoration.

The focus of this paper is on physical changes to streams (fluvial geomorphology) rather than on chemical and biological changes. Over the last two decades there has been increasing attention paid to the role channel morphology and geomorphic processes play in ecosystem health and how well restoration works endure (Grabowski et al., 2014, Newson, 2002). Failing to incorporate geomorphic processes as central to stream restoration has been suggested by some as a reason for the failings of current approaches (Elosegi et al., 2010, Newson and Large, 2006). However, achieving a geomorphologically functioning stream with appropriate rates of erosion and deposition in an urban setting, is only feasible if the significant stressors responsible for degradation are addressed.

Section snippets

Management responses to urbanization

Management responses to urbanization have been evolving from channelization, through to incorporating natural geomorphic features in channel reconstruction, and more recently, to protection and restoration (Chin and Gregory, 2009, Fletcher et al., 2014). For more than 5000 years streams flowing through population centers have been used for water supply and their channels managed to prevent inundation or erosion of usable land (Childe, 1950). Such an approach focused on modifying channels to be

Catchment-scale approaches

As a type of ‘stream restoration’ there is a movement toward activities in urban catchments that address the underlying causes of channel degradation. In particular there are calls to attenuate and reduce excess stormwater runoff to protect stream ecology (Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011, Burns et al., 2012, Fletcher et al., 2014, Walsh et al., 2005, Walsh et al., 2012a, Wenger et al., 2009) and stream geomorphology (Bledsoe, 2002, Booth, 2005, Hawley et al., 2011, Vietz et al., 2015).

Some challenges and opportunities

In the following section we explore stormwater management (4.1), providing riparian space (4.2), providing sediment to urbanizing streams (4.3), legacy impacts to streams (4.4) and social and institutional challenges (4.5). We discuss greenfield sites (where urbanization is just beginning), followed by brownfield sites (where much of the upstream catchment is already urbanized).

Catchment-scale activities are currently not considered ‘stream restoration’, despite their potential to improve the

Conclusion

The evolution of urban stream channel management is moving toward goals for dynamic and complex channels that are self-sustaining. In the urban catchment this is limited, if not unfeasible, unless managers and communities begin to address the causes of stream degradation at a catchment-scale. These causes include: reducing excess stormwater runoff through distributed stormwater harvesting (including use and infiltration of stormwater); ensuring streams have adequate riparian land for hydrologic

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bob Hawley for his review of an earlier version of this paper. Geoff Vietz was funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, an Australian Government Initiative, formerly the Cities as Water Supply Catchments Program. Tim Fletcher is funded by an ARC Future Fellowship (FT100100144). Chris Walsh is funded by Melbourne Water through the Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice partnership. Finally, we thank Professor Wei-Ning Xiang and two anonymous

References (105)

  • J.D. Allan

    Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems

    Annual Review of Ecological Systems

    (2004)
  • Australian Government

    Our Cities, Our Future, A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future, Canberra, Australia

    (2011)
  • J.R. Beagle et al.

    Anticipatory management for instream habitat: Application to Carneros Creek, California

    River Research & Applications

    (2015)
  • S.J. Bennett et al.

    The evolving science of stream restoration

  • E.S. Bernhardt et al.

    Restoring streams in an urbanizing world

    Freshwater Biology

    (2007)
  • E.S. Bernhardt et al.

    River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation

    Ecological Applications

    (2011)
  • E.S. Bernhardt et al.

    Syntheizing U.S. river restoration efforts

    Science Magazine

    (2005)
  • B.P. Bledsoe

    Stream erosion potential and stormwater management strategies

    Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management

    (2002)
  • B.P. Bledsoe et al.

    Framework and tool for rapid assessment of stream susceptibility to hydromodification

    Journal of the American Water Resources Association

    (2012)
  • D.B. Booth

    Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization

    Water Resources Bulletin

    (1990)
  • D.B. Booth

    Urbanization and the natural drainage system – Impacts, solutions, and prognoses

    The Northwest Environmental Journal

    (1991)
  • D.B. Booth

    Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams: A perspective from the Pacific Northwest of North Ameria

    Journal of the North American Benthological Society

    (2005)
  • D.B. Booth et al.

    Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation

    Journal of the American Water Resources Association

    (1997)
  • D.G. Bos et al.

    Overcoming barriers to community participation in a catchment-scale experiment: Building trust and changing behaviour

    Freshwater Science

    (2015)
  • G.H. Brundtland

    Report of the World Commission on environment and development (U. Nations, ed.)

    (1987)
  • M.J. Burns et al.

    Flow-regime management at the urban-parcel scale: A test of feasibility

    Journal of Hydrological Engineering

    (2014)
  • G.V. Childe

    The urban revolution

    The Town Planning Review

    (1950)
  • A. Chin et al.

    Linking theory and practice for restoration of step-pool streams

    Environmental Management

    (2009)
  • A. Chin et al.

    From research to application: Management implications from studies of urban river channel adjustment

    Geography Compass

    (2009)
  • B. Chocat et al.

    Urban drainage redefined: From stormwater removal to integrated management

    Water Science and Technology

    (2001)
  • City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services

    Johnson Creek Land Acquisition, Partnership and Implementation Strategy

    (2001)
  • S.J. Clarke et al.

    Linking form and function: Towards an eco-hydromorphic approach to sustainable river restoration

    Aquatic Conservation: Marine & Freshwater Ecosystems

    (2003)
  • D. Coleman et al.

    Effect of increases in peak flows and imperviousness on the morphology of Southern California Streams

  • M.F. Colosimo et al.

    Alluvial sedimentation and erosion in an urbanizing watershed, Gwynns Falls, Maryland

    Journal of the American Water Resources Association

    (2007)
  • A.M. Coutts et al.

    Watering our cities: The capacity for water sensitive urban design to support urban cooling and improve human thermal comfort in the Australian context

    Progress in Physical Geography

    (2013)
  • CSIRO

    Urban stormwater: Best practice environmental management guidelines, Stormwater Committee, Victoria

    (1999)
  • P.J. Davies et al.

    Urban rivers and riparian systems – direction and recommendations for legislators, policy makers, developers and community users

    Environmental Planning and Law Journal

    (2011)
  • I. Douglas

    Urban geomorphology

  • P.W. Downs et al.

    River channel management: Towards sustainable catchment hydrosystems

    (2004)
  • M.W. Doyle et al.

    Compensatory mitigation for streams under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing science and redirecting policy

    Journal of the American Water Resources Association

    (2012)
  • M. Driscoll et al.

    Urbanization effects on watershed hydrology and in-stream processes in the southern United States

    Water

    (2010)
  • H.P. Duncan et al.

    The feasibility of maintaining ecologically and geomorphically important elements of the natural flow regime in the context of a superabundance of flow: Stage 1 – Kororoit Creek study, Melbourne Waterway Research-Practice Partnership Technical Report 14.15

    (2014)
  • A.H. Elliot et al.

    Model application to assess effects of urbanisation and distributed flow controls on erosion potential and baseflow hydraulic habitat

    Urban Water Journal

    (2010)
  • A.J. Elmore et al.

    Disappearing streams: Patterns of stream burial due to urbanization

    Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

    (2008)
  • A. Elosegi et al.

    Effects of hydromorphological integrity on biodiversity and functioning of river ecosystems

    Hydrobiologia

    (2010)
  • S.J. Findlay et al.

    Why rehabilitate urban river systems?

    Area

    (2006)
  • T.D. Fletcher et al.

    Is stormwater harvesting beneficial to urban waterway environmental flows?

    Water Science & Technology

    (2007)
  • T.D. Fletcher et al.

    Protection of stream ecosystems from urban stormwater runoff; the multiple benefits of an ecohydrological approach

    Progress in Physical Geography

    (2014)
  • T.D. Fletcher et al.

    Restoration of stormwater retention capacity at the allotment-scale through a novel economic instrument

    Water Science & Technology

    (2011)
  • J.L. Florsheim et al.

    Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers

    BioScience

    (2008)
  • Cited by (66)

    • Faster than an urban stream: Evaluating morphodynamics in urban channel reaches that have undergone form-based channel enhancement

      2022, Geomorphology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Existing design approaches range in complexity from relatively simple ones based on stream classification and regional hydraulic geometry relationships to more complex two- and three-dimensional numerical models. Both Beechie et al. (2010) and Vietz et al. (2016) highlight the challenges in urban stream projects and the need to focus on geomorphic causes, rather than just symptoms. These projects need to focus on enhancing and recreating natural river processes and balancing forces, such that watercourses are more resilient to changing hydrology and urban stream syndrome disturbances (Wohl et al., 2005; Gurnell et al., 2007).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text