CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesSoil erosion and sediment transportGeological formations and processes

Suburban stream erosion rates in northern Kentucky exceed reference channels by an order of magnitude and follow predictable trajectories of channel evolution

Open access
Hawley, Robert J., MacMannis, Katherine R., Wooten, Matthew S., Fet, Elizabeth V., Korth, Nora L.·2020·Geomorphology
DOI 10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106998
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper documents ranges of streambed and bank erosion observed across suburban northern Kentucky via time-series surveys at 61 stream monitoring sites from the last ~10 yr. Average erosion rates in streams draining undeveloped watersheds (<5% total impervious area, TIA) were nominal: 0.5 cm/yr of incision (range of −5.8 to 11 cm/yr) and 1.0 cm/yr of widening (range of −58 to 20 cm/yr). By contrast, streams draining developed watersheds (>5% TIA) averaged 1.5 cm/yr of incision (range of −9.2 to 36 cm/yr) and 9.4 cm/yr of widening (range of −11 to 61 cm/yr). The suburban streams also followed predictable patterns of evolution consistent with the “classic” Channel Evolution Model (CEM) of Schumm et al. (1984), with the initial incision period (Stage 2) coinciding with bed coarsening followed by widening (Stage 3). Out of 45 sites draining >5% TIA, only four were in a state of dynamic equilibrium (Stage 1), two of which were attributable to stabilization via stream restoration and another was attributable to an upstream stormwater retrofit that substantially restricted erosive discharges. The other stable suburban site drained a watershed that was only 6.5% TIA and was just upstream of a reach undergoing incision and headcutting, implying that it would likely be experiencing incision (Stage 2) soon. Although the suburban sites spanned a gradient of development age and extent, >90% fell into unstable CEM categories (Stages 2 through 4), with only one site exhibiting features emblematic of potential geomorphic recovery (Stage 4 trending to Stage 5), attributable to an upstream stormwater retrofit. This case study underscores the predictable nature of long-term channel instability in gravel/cobble streams draining conventionally-developed suburban watersheds in support of more mechanistically based stormwater management strategies tailored to prevent the geomorphic degradation commonly associated with the urban stream syndrome.

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 · 10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106998

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • A single large project (or a modification of an existing traditional SCM) may be cost-effective using modern modifications when land is available.

    “a single large project (or a modification of an existing traditional SCM) may be cost-effective using modern modifications when land is available (Smith et al. 2016;Hawley et al. 2020)”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hawley et al. 2020

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies retrofits of conventional detention basins as stormwater control measures and describes a pilot retrofit that improved conditions in a receiving stream. It does not assess whether a single large project or retrofit is cost-effective, or make that judgment conditional on land availability. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Smaller projects are not the most effective or affordable choice for every situation.

    “Smaller projects are not the most effective or affordable choice for every situation.”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hawley et al. 2020

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says stormwater controls must manage runoff from a large portion of a watershed to have a meaningful effect, and that some restoration projects are too costly to address watershed-scale instability sustainably. This supports the point that limited interventions may not suit every situation, but the paper does not establish that smaller projects are less effective or affordable than larger alternatives in general. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Urban landscapes tend to have more erosive flow regimes than rural counterparts, with erosion rates about 10 times higher.

    “urban landscapes tend to have more erosive flow regimes than their rural counterparts (e.g., erosion rates ~10 × higher; Hawley et al. 2020)”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hawley et al. 2020

  • Tangible benefits to local residents include reduced property loss and infrastructure impacts from excessive streambank erosion, increased property values, and the ability to use stormwater as an asset through groundwater recharge or rainwater reuse.

    “Reduced property loss and infrastructure impacts from excessive streambank erosion (Hawley et al. 2020), increased property values (Ward et al. 2008;Odefey et al. 2012;Mazzotta et al. 2014), and the ability to use stormwater as an asset through groundwater recharge or rainwater reuse (Odefey et al. 2012;Meng and Hsu 2019) are also tangible benefits to local residents”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Hawley et al. 2020

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Abernethy, B., Rutherfurd, I.D., 1998. Where along a river's length will vegetation most ef- fectively stabilise stream banks? Geomorphology 23 (1), 55-75.
  2. Bevan, V., et al., 2018. Enlargement and evolution of a semi-alluvial creek in response to urbanization. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 43 (11), 2295-2312.
  3. Bledsoe, B.P., Watson, C.C., 2001. Effects of urbanization on channel instability. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37 (2), 255-270.
  4. Bledsoe, B.P., Stein, E.D., Hawley, R.J., Booth, D.B., 2012. Framework and tool for rapid as- sessment of stream susceptibility to hydromodification. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 48 (4), 788-808.
  5. Bledsoe, B.P., et al., 2016. Design Hydrology for Stream Restoration and Channel Stability at Stream Crossings. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Pro- ject. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineer- ing, and Medicine, pp. 24-40.
  6. Booth, D.B., 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water Resour. Bull. 26 (3), 407-417.
  7. Booth, D.B., Henshaw, P.C., 2001. Rates of channel erosion in small urban streams. In: Wigmosta, M.S. (Ed.), Land Use and Watersheds: Human Influence on Hydrology and Geomorphology in Urban and Forest Areas, pp. 17-38.
  8. Booth, D.B., Jackson, C.R., 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 33 (5), 1077-1090.
  9. Brockman, R.R., Agouridis, C.T., Workman, S.R., Ormsbee, L.E., Fogle, A.W., 2012. Bankfull regional curves for the inner and outer bluegrass regions of Kentucky. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 48 (2), 391-406.
  10. Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37 (4), 1001-1014.
  11. Burns, M.J., Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Ladson, A.R., Hatt, B.E., 2015. A landscape measure of urban stormwater runoff effects is a better predictor of stream condition than a suite of hydrologic factors. Ecohydrology 9 (1), 160-171.
  12. Chin, A., Gregory, K.J., 2001. Urbanization and adjustment of ephemeral stream channels. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 91 (4), 595-608.
  13. Cole, J.N., Miller, A.J., Stapleton, E., Welty, C., 2017. Quantifying spatial patterns of channel geometry and stream incision in urban drainage network. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22 (2), 1-8.
  14. Fanelli, R., Prestegaard, K.L., Palmer, M.A., 2017. Evaluation of infiltration-based stormwater management to restore hydrological processes in urban headwater streams. Hydrol. Process. 31 (19), 3306-3319.
  15. Fanelli, R.M., Prestegaard, K.L., Palmer, M.A., 2019. Urban legacies: Aquatic stressors and low aquatic biodiversity persist despite implementation of regenerative stormwater conveyance systems. Freshwater Science 38 (4), 818-833.
  16. Finkenbine, J.K., Atwater, J.W., Mavinic, D.S., 2000. Stream health after urbanization. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36 (5), 1149-1160.
  17. Gregory, K.J., Chin, A., 2018. Evaluation of the imprint of urban channel adjustment and management. Geogr. J. 184 (3), 269-282.
  18. Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P., 1994. In: F.S. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest, Range Experiment Station (Eds.), Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245, Fort Collins, CO, p. 61. Hawley, R.J., 2018. Making stream restoration more sustainable: a geomorphically, eco- logically, and socioeconomically principled approach to bridge the practice with the science. BioScience 68 (7), 517-528.
  19. Hawley, R.J., Vietz, G.J., 2016. Addressing the urban stream disturbance regime. Freshwa- ter Science 35 (1), 278-292.
  20. Hawley, R.J., Bledsoe, B.P., Stein, E.D., Haines, B.E., 2012. Channel evolution model of semi- arid stream response to urban-induced hydromodification. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 48 (4), 722-744.
  21. Hawley, R.J., Wooten, M.S., MacMannis, K.R., Fet, E.V., 2016. When do macroinvertebrate communities of reference streams resemble urban streams? The biological relevance of Qcritical. Freshwater Science 35 (3), 778-794.
  22. Hawley, R.J., et al., 2017. Detention outlet retrofit device improves the functionality of existing detention basins by reducing erosive flows in receiving channels. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 53 (5), 1032-1047.
  23. Lammers, R.W., Dell, T.A., Bledsoe, B.P., 2019. Integrating stormwater management and stream restoration strategies for greater water quality benefits. Journal of Environ- mental Quality https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2019.02.0084. · DOI
  24. Lane, E.W., 1955. The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering. Pro- ceedings, ASCE 81 (745), 1-17.
  25. Leopold, L.B., Huppman, R., Miller, A., 2005. Geomorphic effects of urbanization in forty- one years of observation. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 149 (3), 349-371.
  26. Odemerho, F.O., 1992. Limited downstream response of stream channel size to urbaniza- tion in a humid tropical basin. Prof. Geogr. 44 (3), 332-339.
  27. Papangelakis, E., MacVicar, B., Ashmore, P., 2019. Bedload sediment transport regimes of semi-alluvial rivers conditioned by urbanization and stormwater management. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025126 (Accepted). · DOI
  28. Plumb, B.D., Annable, W.K., Thompson, P.J., Hassan, M.A., 2017. The impact of urbanization on temporal changes in sediment transport in a gravel bed channel in southern On- tario, Canada. Water Resour. Res. 53 (10), 8443-8458.
  29. Potyondy, J., Bunte, K., 2002. Sampling with the US SAH-97 hand-held particle size ana- lyzer. In: Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, W.E.S. (Ed.), Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project. Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, p. 6. Russell, K.L., Vietz, G.J., Fletcher, T.D., 2018. Urban catchment runoff increases bedload sediment yield and particle size in stream channels. Anthropocene 23, 53-66.
  30. Sengupta, A., Hawley, R.J., Stein, E.D., 2018. Predicting hydromodification in streams using nonlinear memory-based algorithms in southern California streams. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 144 (1), 040170079.
  31. Simon, A., Rinaldi, M., 2000. Channel instability in the loess area of the midwestern United States. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36 (1), 133-150.
  32. Sudduth, E.B., Hassett, B.A., Cada, P., Bernhardt, E.S., 2011. Testing the field of dreams hy- pothesis: functional responses to urbanization and restoration in stream ecoystems. Ecol. Appl. 21 (6), 1972-1988.
  33. Utz, R.M., et al., 2016. Ecological resistance in urban streams: the role of natural and leg- acy attributes. Freshwater Science 35 (1), 380-397.
  34. Vietz, G.J., Hawley, R.J., Sharma, A., 2019. Protecting and managing stream morphology in urban catchments using WSUD. In: Begbie, D., Gardner, T. (Eds.), Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design. Elsevier, pp. 249-267.
  35. Violin, C.R., Cada, P., Sudduth, E.B., Hassett, B.A., Penrose, D.L., Bernhardt, E.S., 2011. Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 21 (6), 1932-1949.
  36. Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Ladson, A.R., 2005. Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 24 (3), 690-705.
  37. Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Vietz, G.J., 2016. Variability in stream ecosystem response to ur- banization: Unraveling the influences of physiography and urban land and water management. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 40 (5), 714-731.
  38. Wohl, E., 2019. Forgotten legacies: Understanding and mitigating historical human alter- ations of river corridors. Water Resour. Res. 55. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2018WR024433. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hawley, R. J., MacMannis, K. R., Wooten, M. S., Fet, E. V., & Korth, N. L.
Corresponding author
Hawley, Robert J.
ORCID
Venue
Geomorphology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
352
Pages
106998
ISSN
0169-555X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106998
OpenAlex
W2995448694
Cited by
25
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Geomorphology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Northern Kentucky and Sustainable Streams, LLC
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Earth-Surface Processes › Geological formations and processes
Keywords
suburban streams, channel incision, channel widening, urbanization, impervious surfaces, stormwater management, urban stream syndrome, stream restoration, Northern Kentucky

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