English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Stream channel erosion, enlargement, and habitat degradation are ubiquitous in urban watersheds with conventional stormwater management that increase channel-eroding flows relative to undeveloped watersheds. Hydrologic-based restoration aims to discharge a more natural flow regime via stormwater management interventions. Whether such interventions facilitate geomorphic recovery depends, in part, on the degree to which they restrict discharges that would otherwise contribute to channel erosion. Erosion potential (E), the ratio of post-developed to predeveloped sediment transport capacity, provides a simplified, mechanistic framework to quantify the relative influence of stormwater interventions on the geomorphic effectiveness of the flow regime. This paper compiles ca. five years of data following stormwater-based interventions in three distinct settings in the United States and Australia to demonstrate how the E framework can elucidate the role of hydrologic restoration interventions in facilitating trajectories of geomorphic recovery (or lack thereof). In a previously developed watershed with unstable streams, substantial reductions in E in one stream coincided with a trajectory of geomorphic recovery, whereas the control stream without E-reducing interventions exhibited continued instability. Furthermore, a stream downstream of a greenfield development that optimized their stormwater control measures to match the sediment transport capacity of the predeveloped regime (E = 1) was able to maintain a recovery trajectory in a legacy-impacted setting that is otherwise highly susceptible to hydromodification. Streambed material size, channel evolution stage, and the hydrogeomorphic setting also likely affect the level of E reduction necessary to promote geomorphic recovery, with coarser-grained and over-widened streams potentially needing less reduction than finer-grained and more entrenched channels. Although available space and funding will limit the ability to fully reduce E in previously developed watersheds, these case studies underscore the value of using stormwater control measures to maximize reductions in E if geomorphic stability is a goal of stormwater interventions.

Restoring geomorphic integrity in urban streams via mechanistically-based storm water management: minimizing excess sediment transport capacity