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

Hawley, Robert J.; MacMannis, Katherine R.; Wooten, Matthew S.; Fet, Elizabeth V.; Korth, Nora L.

doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.106998

Cited by 23 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The corresponding RBP changed from 151 in 2013 to 137 in 2019 (Appendix B), falling from average to poor habitat quality. The time series degradation captured at this site is consistent with other regional streams draining watersheds with more than ~5% TIA that tend to systematically undergo streambed instability, headcutting, bank erosion, and channel enlargement (Hawley, MacMannis, and Wooten 2013;Hawley et al 2020).…”

Section: Categorical Lifts In Habitat Qualitysupporting

confidence: 72%

“…The degradational trajectory of streams experiencing increasingly erosive bed-mobilizing ows has been observed by numerous researchers across a diversity of urban settings (Paul and Meyer 2001;Hawley et al 2012;Hawley et al 2020;Booth and Fischenich 2015), and is typically consistent with the "classic" Channel Evolution Model (CEM) of Schumm et al (1984) (Figure 3). Incision and downcutting (Stage 2) lead to taller, more unstable banks, which subsequently causes bank failure and channel widening (Stage 3).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Finally, the DS site, which drains both the Spur and the US sites, also experienced measurable improvements in bank stability and habitat quality. Cross section surveys between 2014 and 2017 documented substantial bench building at the toe of the right bank (Hawley et al 2020), which is visually apparent in photos (Figure 11). Similar to the Spur site, the RBP score at the DS site increased from 109 in 2013 to 146 in 2019 (Appendix B), coinciding with a habitat quality improvement from poor to average.…”

Section: Categorical Lifts In Habitat Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the detention retro t installation on December 21, 2013, geomorphic data compiled by Hawley et al (2020) documented a shift in the streambed material at the Spur site from a degradational (CEM Stage 3) to an aggregational/recovery trajectory (CEM Stages 4/5, Figure 3). The shift is also apparent in the photos from pre-retro t and post-retro t installation (Figure 9), which show bench development at the toes of formerly unstable banks.…”

Section: Categorical Lifts In Habitat Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 11 The reach downstream ("DS site") of the con uence with the Spur and US control site also experienced a recovery trajectory that followed the installation of the detention basin retro t. The photo on 4/29/13 (A) documents bank erosion, channel widening and habitat homogenization; however, the photo on 7/8/19 (B) documents bench development at the toe of a formerly eroding bank. Both photos are looking downstream (photo (B) adapted from Hawley et al (2020)).…”

Section: Figure 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Expanding catchment-scale hydrologic restoration in suburban watersheds via stream mitigation crediting—A Northern Kentucky (USA) case study

Hawley¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for hydrologic restoration is well established in stream ecosystems across the world; however, available funding for catchment-scale restoration typically falls far short of what is required to produce in-stream results. Hydrologic restoration can be particularly important for improving stream integrity in urban watersheds, but implementation can be challenging due to high property values and limited space for retroactive stormwater control measures. This Northern Kentucky (USA) case study summarizes how stormwater mitigation interventions could be, and have already been, used to credit stream mitigation projects via conventional US Army Corps of Engineers crediting protocols. Hydrologic restoration can generate stream mitigation credits by directly improving the flow class and/or by indirectly improving the habitat quality. For example, a stormwater intervention could create a shift from an ephemeral to intermittent flow class, while at the same time facilitating greater substrate stability, lower embeddedness, and other geomorphic improvements, that subsequently improve the categorical habitat rating. The ecological lift of such hydrologic interventions could be further expanded via concurrent in-stream mitigation measures such as re-establishing a jurisdictional stream in place of a drainage ditch or installing habitat structures such as toe wood and log steps, among other activities. Such process-based hydrologic restoration is consistent with the goals of the Clean Water Act and has the potential to be more beneficial to greater portions of stream networks and greater numbers of stakeholders than conventional habitat restoration alone.

show abstract

Section: Categorical Lifts In Habitat Qualitysupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Categorical Lifts In Habitat Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Categorical Lifts In Habitat Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Expanding catchment-scale hydrologic restoration in suburban watersheds via stream mitigation crediting—A Northern Kentucky (USA) case study

Hawley¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The heterogeneity of the hydromorphological responses of a stream to the urbanization of its basin

Milleville

Gob

Thommeret³

et al. 2022

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological adjustment mechanisms and controls of small urban rivers are rarely studied especially in France. We propose an original hydrogeomorphological approach based on a detailed study of a whole catchment using field data acquired systematically all along the river: (i) channel cross‐sections; (ii) riffle‐pool sequences and (iii) obstacles to flow and rainwater drainage pipes. The entire length of the river was surveyed and the channel geometry (depth and width at bankfull) was measured on a cross‐section every 180 m or at each riffle (depending on which of the two intervals happened to be the shortest). The 357 transects thus established constitute as many elementary units of measurement (EUM) of the hydrographic network. Nine hydromorphological variables were used as a basis to classify the profiles (principal component analysis/hierarchical clustering analysis). The types were compared with 12 anthropogenic constraining variables to explain longitudinal morphological variability and to link morphology to pressures on this scale. The results showed an average incision of 0.50 m (locally over 1 m), an average widening of nearly 1 m (locally over 3 m), and heterogeneous distribution of the riffle‐pool sequences (although not complete disappearance). Systematic analysis of within‐channel forms revealed high morphological diversity, the absence of a linear relationship between the rate of urbanization and incision/erosion, and the absence of longitudinal changes in response to urbanization. The constraints identified are commonly observed in urbanized basins, but the variety of responses to the constraints makes it difficult to understand the system as a whole and prevents uniform ecological restoration along the entire river.

show abstract

Geomorphic Signature of Urbanization: An Analysis of Four Streams in Southeastern Pennsylvania, USA

Jerez,

Smith,

Welker

et al. 2024

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of urbanization on streams, including higher discharges and changes in the sediment budget, have been well‐documented. However, the distinct geomorphic response of streams under varying degrees of development has not been studied sufficiently. Based on Lane's stream equilibrium model, this research projected stream bed elevation changes over the next 50 years in four streams with different degrees of watershed development in Southeastern Pennsylvania using the 1D aggradation–degradation model. This study also explored the role of geomorphic drivers on stream response by performing a sensitivity analysis. The input parameters to run this numerical model were determined: stream bankfull discharge (Qf), intermittency (If), bankfull width (B), as well as stream channel slope (S), median grain size (Ds50), and total annual average sediment input from upstream (Gtf). Results suggest that the stream geomorphic signature of urbanization is influenced by the magnitude and spatial arrangement of land cover types within the watershed. Chrome Run‐upstream, the most developed site of this study, has the potential of 4.21 m of total stream bed incision, with no armoring of the bed. The least developed site, Dismal Run, will remain in equilibrium over the next 50 years. This study also found Ds50, S, Qf, and B are the parameters most sensitive to stream bed changes regardless of the degree of watershed development. However, the negative or positive response depends on the current condition of the stream channel.

show abstract

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

Cited by 23 publications

References 41 publications

Expanding catchment-scale hydrologic restoration in suburban watersheds via stream mitigation crediting—A Northern Kentucky (USA) case study

Expanding catchment-scale hydrologic restoration in suburban watersheds via stream mitigation crediting—A Northern Kentucky (USA) case study

The heterogeneity of the hydromorphological responses of a stream to the urbanization of its basin

Geomorphic Signature of Urbanization: An Analysis of Four Streams in Southeastern Pennsylvania, USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About