EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 42, 191–213 (2017)

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/esp.4073

State of Science

Evaluating a process-based model for use in

streambank stabilization: insights on the Bank
Stability and Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM)
Kate Klavon,1 Garey Fox,1* Lucie Guertault,1 Eddy Langendoen,2 Holly Enlow,1 Ron Miller1 and Anish Khanal1
1
Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK USA
2
USDA-ARS, National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS USA

Received 14 May 2016; Revised 20 October 2016; Accepted 21 October 2016

*Correspondence to: Garey Fox, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, 120 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078-6016, USA. E-mail:
garey.fox@okstate.edu

ABSTRACT: Streambank retreat is a complex cyclical process involving subaerial processes, fluvial erosion, seepage erosion, and
geotechnical failures and is driven by several soil properties that themselves are temporally and spatially variable. Therefore, it can
be extremely challenging to predict and model the erosion and consequent retreat of streambanks. However, modeling streambank
retreat has many important applications, including the design and assessment of mitigation strategies for stream revitalization and
stabilization. In order to highlight the current complexities of modeling streambank retreat and to suggest future research areas, this
paper reviewed one of the most comprehensive streambank retreat models available, the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model
(BSTEM), which has recently been integrated with several popular hydrodynamic and sediment transport models including the Hy-
drologic Engineering Centerˈs River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). The objectives of this paper were to: (i) comprehensively review
studies that have utilized BSTEM and report their findings, (ii) address the limitations of the model so that it can be applied appropri-
ately in its current form, and (iii) suggest directions of research that will help make the model a more useful tool in future applications.
The paper includes an extensive overview of peer reviewed studies to guide future users of BSTEM. The review demonstrated that the
model needs further testing and evaluation outside of the central United States. Also, further development is needed in terms of ac-
counting for spatial and temporal variability in geotechnical and fluvial erodibility parameters, incorporating subaerial processes,
and accounting for the influence of riparian vegetation on streambank pore-water pressure dynamics, applied shear stress, and erod-
ibility parameters. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEYWORDS: Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model; borehole shear test; fluvial erosion; geotechnical parameters; jet erosion test; modeling;
streambank retreat

Introduction there are still important questions related to accurately model-

Numerous studies have highlighted the significant level of sed-
iment contributed to surface waters through channel erosion
and failure (e.g. Walling et al., 1998; Bai and Lung, 2005;
Simon and Rinaldi, 2006; Triplett et al., 2009; Miller et al.,
2014; United States Environmental Protection Agency [US
EPA], 2015). Sediment negatively impacts aquatic life, reduces
recreational values of waters, increases the cost of water
treatment, and can impair navigation (Clark et al., 1985).
Streambank retreat rates have been reported to range over
several orders of magnitude (Schumm and Lichty, 1963; Simon,
1989; Simon et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2014) and can contribute
as much as 90% of total sediment loads to surface waters
(Grissinger and Murphey, 1982; Fox et al., 2016b). One prom-
ising strategy for reducing sediment loads to surface waters is
through controlling streambank erosion and failure; however,
ing erosion processes and the practices designed to control
them (Fox et al., 2016a). For example, stabilizing specific
reaches of streams may have little impact on total sediment
loads reaching downstream waters and in some cases stabiliza-
tion could exacerbate other problems downstream. Moreover,
ecological and water quality benefits of stream stabilization
may be limited by constraining rivers into a fixed planform.
Numerical models have become increasingly applied for
simulating streambank retreat and river evolution at various
spatial and temporal scales, ranging from the century scale for
meander migration to annual, monthly, or daily scales for river
engineering studies such as stream stabilization (Rinaldi and
Darby, 2007; Coulthard and Van De Wiel, 2012). Thus, bank
erosion models fall along a range from empirical to process-
based approaches. Empirical approaches attempt to predict
channel instability from simple variables (Piégay et al., 2005).
192 KLAVON K. ET AL.
For example, the bank erosion hazard index (BEHI) is a com-
monly applied example of an empirical approach, which at-
tempts to relate short-term measurements of bank erosion and
estimates of ‘near-bank stress’ to create a risk estimate of future
bank erosion (Rosgen, 1996, 2001; Heeren et al., 2012; Newton
and Drenten, 2015). The estimation of the ‘near-bank stress’ is
based on the calculation of vertical velocity profiles and shear
stress for subsequent distribution of energy calculations in the
near-bank region (Rosgen, 1996). Factors in BEHI are assigned
a rating based on both quantitative and qualitative assessments
of the streambank. Relationships are then derived between
bank erosion rate and near-bank stress, but separated into
applied stress categories called bank erosion risk ratings. How-
ever, considerable variability is typically reported for these
relationships. An alternative empirical approach is the channel
stability index, CSI (Simon and Downs, 1995; Simon and
Klimetz, 2008; Heeren et al., 2012). While BEHI is a local site
examination of a bankˈs condition, CSI is a reach-scale rapid
assessment incorporating form- and process-based sub-metrics
and the stage of channel evolution, as determined based on
morphological criteria, to indicate stability.
Process-based models aim at simulating physical processes
responsible for bank retreat. Simpler process-based approaches
generally only consider one of the major driving processes
leading to streambank retreat, typically fluvial erosion pro-
cesses. Bank erosion models of this type, and in particular most
meander migration models, commonly utilize a bank erodibil-
ity coefficient calibrated to historical retreat rates in a stream
usually multiplied by a factor related to stream flow, power,
or shear stress (Posner and Duan, 2012). More complex
process-based streambank models combine fluvial processes
and geotechnical failure. Such spreadsheet based tools origi-
nated with the work of Thorne and Tovey (1981), Osman and
Thorne (1988), and Thorne and Abt (1993) and modeled bank
instability caused primarily by fluvial erosion of the bank toe.
This approach was further developed by Darby and Thorne
(1996), Rinaldi and Casagli (1999), Darby et al. (2000), Simon
et al. (2000), and Darby et al. (2002). All of these studies incor-
porated geotechnical failure processes and highlighted the im-
portance of near-bank pore-water pressures on streambank
migration, leading to the current versions of more advanced
process-based models used today (Rinaldi and Darby, 2007;
Rinaldi and Nardi, 2013). Examples of these more recent
models include numerous versions of one-dimensional or
two-dimensional models for hydrodynamics and/or river mean-
der migration with physically-based bank evolution (Rinaldi
et al., 2004; Rinaldi and Darby, 2007; Darby et al., 2010; Motta
et al., 2012; Nardi et al., 2013; El Kadi Abderrezzak et al.,
2014; Lai et al., 2015).
The Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM), devel-
oped by the National Sedimentation Laboratory in Oxford,
Mississippi, USA, has been described by several to be one of
the most advanced and commonly used tools for modeling
streambank retreat (Simon et al., 2000; Simon et al., 2011;
Curran and Hession, 2013; Rinaldi and Nardi, 2013; Lai
et al., 2015; Daly et al., 2015c). Since its creation, the model
has transformed from a simple model able to analyze the stabil-
ity of a streambank at one particular time to a robust tool with
the capability to dynamically predict fluvial erosion and geo-
technical failures over time for streams with various geometries,
soils, groundwater dynamics, and stream flow conditions
(Simon et al., 2000; Simon et al., 2011) by adopting features
of its companion channel evolution computer model, the Con-
servational Channel Evolution Pollutant and Transport System,
CONCEPTS (Langendoen and Simon, 2008). Consequently,
the bank erosion simulation methodology of BSTEM is similar
to that of CONCEPTS. The model has been used in a variety
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
of studies related to the factors influencing the processes of
streambank erosion and failure. A list of peer reviewed papers
that used BSTEM as a part of their study and a summary of
modeling objectives and findings are presented in Table I,
and detailed reviews of several of these studies are presented
by topic.
Although the model has already proven highly useful in
certain areas of stream stability research and engineering, those
applications can be significantly expanded with additional re-
search and model development. The objectives of this paper
were to: (i) comprehensively review studies that have utilized
BSTEM and report their findings, (ii) identify the limitations of
the model so that it can be applied appropriately in its current
form, and (iii) suggest research directions that will help make
the model a more useful tool in future applications. The paper
is organized in the following sections:
• Section 2 – Description of BSTEM internal processes includ-
ing geotechnical failure, fluvial erosion, and vegetation;
• Section 3 – Estimation and future research needs of model
inputs for BSTEM including geotechnical parameters from
the borehole shear test (BST), fluvial erodibility parameters
from the jet erosion test (JET), and default parameters in
BSTEM;
• Section 4 – Example application of BSTEM to estimate sedi-
ment loads from streambanks at the watershed scale;
• Section 5 – Suggested improvements to BSTEM including (1)
model run time and uncertainty/sensitivity analysis improve-
ments, (2) complex near-bank flow and applied shear stress,
and (3) subaerial processes and pore-water pressures;
• Section 6 – Alternative models for stream-scale predictions
and current developments with BSTEM, including integra-
tion of BSTEM with the Hydrologic Engineering Centerˈs
River Analysis System (HEC-RAS).
This review paper focused on BSTEM instead of several other
integrated bank erosion and stability models because its algo-
rithms have recently been integrated, using modifications from
the CONCEPTS model when appropriate, with several popular
hydrodynamic and sediment transport models, including
HEC-RAS (Gibson et al., 2015), RVR Meander (Motta et al.,
2012), SRH-2D (Lai et al., 2015), and TELEMAC (Langendoen
et al., 2016). The reader will please note that ‘the model’ in
the following sections will be in reference to BSTEM.
BSTEM Internal Process Modeling
Modeling geotechnical bank failure
Geotechnical failure occurs when the driving forces applied to
a bank exceed the resisting forces. In BSTEM, the process-based
calculation of bank stability takes the form of the computation
of a factor of safety (FoS) ratio of driving forces to resisting
forces for a given failure plane. The FoS is calculated using sev-
eral methods: horizontal layers, vertical slices, and cantilever
shear failures. The model iteratively considers several failure
planes and shear emergence elevations until the failure plane
with the lowest FoS is determined. A detailed explanation of
current BSTEM stability calculations is available in several pub-
lications (Langendoen and Simon, 2008; Simon et al., 2009;
Midgley et al. 2012; Daly et al., 2015c).
The user input necessary to evaluate geotechnical stability in
BSTEM includes bank geometry and layering; effective cohe-
sion, cˈ; effective internal angle of friction, ϕˈ; the angle that
describes the relationship between matric suction and shear
strength, ϕ b; and parameters quantifying the dynamics of pore
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 Table I. Summary of peer reviewed studies using the Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM) as a component of the research
Study
Simon et al. (2000)
Simon and Collison (2002)
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Simon and Thomas (2002)
Simon et al. (2002b)
Pollen and Simon (2005)
Simon et al. (2006)
Wilson et al. (2007)
Cancienne et al. (2008)
Parker et al. (2008)
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
Version of BSTEM Location Purpose
a
BSM Goodwin Creek, MS Show that a dynamic bank stability
algorithm can be used in combination
with specific field data to accurately
represent the timing of bank failures
BSM Goodwin Creek, MS Quantify mechanic and hydraulic
effects of various riparian vegetative
species from BSM predictions
BSM Yalobusha River, MS Assess the impact of debris plug
removal on upstream bank stability
BSM Missouri River, MT Determine the effects of dam removal
on stability, identify key factors
impacting stability, and compare
the BSM algorithm to another
stability model
BSM Fictitious Channel, MS Assess two root failure modelsˈ
(instantaneous and root bundle
progressive model) impact on
bank FoS
3.4 Upper Truckee River, CA Quantify mechanical and hydrologic
effects of two riparian vegetative
species on streambank stability
BSM Little Topashaw Creek, MS Evaluate model ability to account
for streambank failure due to
seepage erosion
4.1 Little Topashaw & Determine importance of seepage
Goodwin Creeks, MS undercutting relative to several
parameters (bank shear strength,
bank angle, soil pore water pressure,
and root reinforcement)
— Goodwin Creek, MS Determine how variability in soil
parameters within and between sites
impacts BSTEM predictions and how
to best incorporate uncertainty into
modeling
Validation of results
Compared known bank failure times
to model predicted FoS
Compared known bank failure timing
under different riparian covers to
predictions of FoS
Not reported
Not reported
Compared both modelsˈ predicted
increased shear strengths to direct
shear tests completed on soils with
and without roots
Compared known bank failure timing
under different riparian covers to
model predicted FoS
Compared laboratory measured to
model predicted sediment loads
BSTEM sensitivities matched previous
studies for several parameters
Compared known bank failures to
range in predicted FoS
Major findings
The bank stability algorithm sufficiently
represented the timing of bank failures.
The hydraulic and mechanical effects of
riparian vegetation were both significant
to bank stability.
The rapid removal of the debris plug
caused all upstream banks to be at
risk of instability according to model
predictions.
The key factors affecting bank stability
were frequency and duration of flow
events and both algorithms predicted
similar stability for the same hydraulic
conditions.
The root bundle progressive model
improved estimates of root shearing
resistance and therefore has the
potential to improve estimation of
streambank stability in BSM.
BSTEM showed the effect of different
riparian species on the frequency of
bank failures and delivery of sediment.
Lemmonˈs Willow withstood steeper
slopes and more saturated conditions.
The model simulated increased instability
of banks due to seepage erosion and
did not account for sediment loss
due to sapping.
BSTEM is most sensitive to pore water
pressure distribution, small degrees
INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
of undercutting can counteract effects
of root reinforcement, and streambank
stability models need to account for
site-specific failure mechanisms.
Variability in soil parameters produced
a significant range in FoS, the current
addressing of uncertainty in BSTEM is
not suitable, and a probabilistic
approach is more appropriate than
deterministic approaches.
(Continues)
193
 Table 1. (Continued)
Study Version of BSTEM
Lindow et al. (2009)
Pollen-Bankhead and
Simon (2009)
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Simon et al. (2009)
Heinley (2010)
Pollen-Bankhead and
Simon (2010)
Simon et al. (2011)
Simon et al. (2011)
Simon et al. (2011)
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
Location Purpose
4.1 Fictitious Channel, NC Analyze and model laboratory
experiments to determine the
effect of seepage, pore water
pressure, and bank geometry
on stability
BSM Fictitious Channels Evaluate bank stability with
variations of root density with
depth to correctly apply RipRoot
estimates to BSTEM layering
4.1 Upper Trucke River & Evaluate effectiveness of three bank
Blackwood & Ward stability treatments (toe protection,
Creeks, CA top of bank vegetation, and
decreased bed slope) by quantifying
sediment load reductions
5.2 Osage River, Missouri Determine the influences of reservoir
releases on the rate and amount of
streambank erosion
5.1 Ficticious Channels, MS Incorporate effect of root permeated
bank and toe material on soil
erodibility and hydrologic effect of
evapotranspiration into stability model
5.1 Goodwin Creek, MS Determine bank stability conditions under
a range of hydraulic and geotechnical
conditions and erosion-control strategies,
design sustainable bank stabilization
measures
5.1 Lower Tombigbee River, AL Use iterative modeling to quantify
sediment loads of existing conditions
and mitigation strategies
5.1 Upper Truckee River & Use iterative modeling to quantify
Blackwood & Ward sediment loads of existing conditions
Creeks, CA and mitigation strategies
Validation of results
Compared known bank failures to
predicted FoS
Not reported
Not Reported
Validated with data from Rinaldi
et al. (2004) for Seine River in Italy
Effects of vegetation appeared to
compare well to similar studies
Simulations of existing conditions
matched 10 years worth of
observations at the site, post
project monitoring
Known average 29 year retreat rate
at the site for existing conditions
Not reported
194
Major findings
The model could not predict the observed
failures due to lateral seepage forces,
therefore near bank groundwater flow
processes should be incorporated.
Combining RipRoot and BSTEM models
allowed for analysis of spatial and
temporal variations on bank stability
for various riparian vegetative species.
Toe protection reduced sediment loads
by 69–100% and bank failures to a
single episode, while other stability
treatments reduced loads by 42–54%,
on average. Results demonstrated
importance of toe protection.
Most common failure mechanism is
mass wasting or cantilever failures,
which can be reduced through toe
protection of the banks to limit the
impact of releases
The change in matric suction from
evapotranspiration showed the greatest
potential benefit to FoS but only in
the summer. Root reinforcement was
KLAVON K. ET AL.
the most important contributor to
FoS during the critical spring and
winter months.
BSTEM was successfully used to design
a stable bank with a constrained 1:1
slope requirement. The type of vegetation
required and rock toe protection were
tested until a stable design was
determined.
User should simulate at least a one year
“worst case” flow hydrograph (including
drawdown conditions) in order to quantify
sediment loads and load reductions.
BSTEM can be used to calculate
volumetric and retreat reductions from
various mitigation strategies.
RGAs can be used to assess the percent
of the banks considered highly or
moderately erosive to estimate
(Continues)
 Table 1. (Continued)
Study
Simon et al. (2011)
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
b
Midgley et al. (2012)
Motta et al. (2012)
Langendoen et al. (2014)
Polvi et al. (2014)
b
Daly et al. (2015c)
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
Version of BSTEM Location Purpose
5.1 Big Souix River, SD Determine average annual rates of
streambank erosion and the
effects of mitigation strategies
5.2 Barren Fork Creek, OK Evaluate BSTEMˈs ability to predict
long term retreat and determine
the importance of accurate
geotechnical, fluvial, and near
bank pore water pressure
parameters
— Various Propose new approach that
calculates rates of meander
migration using physically-based
streambank erosion formulations
with RVR Meander and bank stability
routines in CONCEPTs (BSTEM)
5.4 Debre Mawi, Ethiopia Design stable gully head and bank
profiles to halt gully expansion in
the sub-humid northern Ethiopian
highlands
— North Joe Wright and Use RipRoot within BSTEM to
Corral Creeks, CO determine the added cohesion
due to roots for various sediment
textures and plant species
— Barren Fork Creek, OK Assess model sensitivity to
root cohesion and performance
in predicting bank retreat.
Validation of results
Results of spatially extrapolated loads
were compared to suspended sediment
loads from USGS gauge data
Compared observed bank retreat and
failure timing to model retreat
predictions for both default and
measured fluvial and geotechnical
properties
Application to several test cases for
idealized and natural planform
geometry
Compared observed stable and unstable
gully banks to model predictions for
various soil hydrologic conditions
using both default and measured
geotechnical properties
Not Reported
Compared observed bank retreat and
failure timing to model predictions,
Major findings
stream-scale loads. Load reductions and
unit cost per ton of soil for implementing
rock toe protection were calculated. Load
reductions to the lake and unit costs
ranged from 33 to 87% and $267 to

1
$2500 t respectively.
Loads were calculated for different
percentile annual flows. Bank failures
were typically only predicted during
90th percentile years. Loads for lower
percentile flows were dominantly from
fluvial erosion. Rock toe protection
resulted in 85–100% reduction in load.
Loads from streambanks contributed
10–25% of suspended sediment.
BSTEM was able to accurately predict
the timing of bank failures, BSTEM
under predicted retreat for both default
and measured soil parameters, and
BSTEM predicted a more accurate
retreat with measured soil parameters
using the JET.
Improved physically-based method is
required to capture migration patterns
of natural channels, not predicted from
hydrodynamics only
Expansion of gullies up to six meters deep
can be halted by regrading gully head
and banks to 45 degrees and protecting
the surfaces with rock and vegetation
INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
Reported added root cohesion of four
major vegetation types (tree, forb,
graminoid, and shrub) on 6 different
soil textures. The highest added
cohesion was for Salix geyeriana
due to a large number of large roots
for the species.
Calibration of erodibility parameters
enabled the model to match both timing
and amount of retreat for sites with and
(Continues)
195
 Table 1. (Continued)
Study Version of BSTEM Location Purpose
Evaluate a simple method for
incorporating riparian practices
into the model
Gibson et al. (2015) — Goodwin Creek, MS Integrate BSTEM with the sediment
transport methods in HEC-RAS 5.0
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Kheiralla and Siddeg (2015) — Demonstrate methodologies for
streambank erosion control
Lai et al. (2015) — Goodwin Creek, MS Develop a coupled flow, sediment
transport, and bank stability model
that includes a geotechnical model,
appropriately distributes failed
bank material to the toe, can
predict complex turbulent flow,
simulates fluvial erosion, and
simulates sediment transport.
b
Khanal et al. (2016b) 5.4 Barren Fork Creek, OK Compare model performance
for predicting fluvial erosion
when a non-linear detachment
model is used versus linear excess
shear stress equation
Konsoer et al. (2016) — Wabash River, IL Evaluate the effect of lateral and
vertical variability in
resistance parameters of streambanks
on the rates and mechanisms
of retreat
Thapa (2016) 5.4 Kodku River, Nepal Determine the causes of unstable
streambanks to protect infrastructure,
agricultural land, and settlements
a
BSM = Bank Stability Model, the original form of BSTEM including only the bank stability algorithm.
b
The device used to estimate fluvial erodibility parameters in situ was the ‘mini’ jet erosion test (JET) not the original JET.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
Validation of results
calibrated erodibility parameters
based on imagery
Compared model predictions to historical
bank migration times and magnitude
of lateral retreat
Not Reported
Compared predicted retreat geometry to
measured and previously modeled data
Compared observed bank
retreat to model predictions for
different fluvial erosion models
and solution techniques
Compared known retreat and failure
mechanisms to BSTEM predictions,
RipRoot results were similar to
previous studies
Not reported
196
Major findings
without vegetative cover. BSTEM was
not sensitive to additional soil cohesion
due to roots.
Integration included BSTEM using HEC-RAS
hydraulics to determine water surface
profiles, HEC-RAS updated cross-sections
when failure was predicted by BSTEM,
and HEC-RAS added failed bank material
to the transport model. Location and
shape of the final cross-sections matched
observed.
Most common failure mode was cantilever
failure during drawdown conditions
due to toe erosion of a non-cohesive
sand layer
For five year modeling period the difference
between predicted and modeled retreat
was 0.2–5.2%, developed model shows
the benefit of multi-dimensional models
in streambank erosion, model was robust
and easy to apply, future need for
improving modeling of complex streams.
A non-linear detachment model predicted
KLAVON K. ET AL.
retreat closest to the observed retreat.
Linear models both over and under
predicted retreat, depending on the
solution technique used to evaluate
the JET data.
Erodibility coefficients derived from JETs
were up to four orders of magnitude
higher than BSTEM default parameters.
BSTEM predicted erroneous bank profiles
with JET parameters. Model simulations
predicted mechanisms of failure. BSTEM
retreat and failure mechanisms are highly
sensitive to lateral and vertical variability
in erosion resistance, geometry, and
hydraulic conditions.
Suitable bioengineering techniques are
possible to limit bank toe erosion
and failure
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
water pressure distributions including the saturated hydraulic
conductivity and van Genuchten soil moisture characteristic
curve parameters. Geotechnical parameters, cˈ and ϕˈ, can
be determined using four techniques: Iowa BST for in situ mea-
surements (Lohnes and Handy, 1968; Lutenegger and Hallberg,
1981), direct shear test (DST), triaxial shear test (TST), or the
BSTEM default parameters. The BST is the most commonly used
technique for estimating geotechnical parameters in previous
BSTEM studies and will be discussed further in the next section.
Modeling fluvial erosion
Process-based fluvial erosion modeling was introduced to
BSTEM in version 3.3 (United States Department of Agriculture
[USDA], 2016). Of the studies in Table I, seven studies used the
model to predict both fluvial erosion and geotechnical failures.
The model typically uses the excess shear stress equation
(Ariathurai and Arulanandan, 1978; Simon et al., 2000) to
quantify the erosion rate, εr (in m s
1):
εr ¼ k d ðτ
τ c Þa (1)
where τ is the average applied shear stress (in pascals), τ c is the
critical shear stress (in pascals) that must be exceeded for ero-
sion to occur, kd is the coefficient of erodibility (in m3 N
1 s
1),
and a is an exponent assumed to be unity.
An accurate computation of the boundary τ applied on the
bank profile is necessary to predict fluvial erosion rates. The
boundary τ distribution across a channel cross-section is
governed by a three-dimensional flow field and depends on
the channel form, roughness distribution and secondary cur-
rents. Generally, calculation of the τ distribution remains a
difficult task and ideally requires the computation of the
three-dimensional flow and turbulence. In BSTEM, an analyti-
cal method is used to estimate the reach-scale τ from the
cross-section geometry, stage, and channel slope assuming a
uniform and steady flow. It is shown as τ = γRhS, where γ is
the specific weight of water, Rh is the hydraulic radius, and S
is the energy slope assumed to be the bed slope (S0) for uniform
steady flow. The hydraulic-radius separation method (Einstein,
1942) is used to divide the cross-section into regions where
the flow is governed by a local hydraulic radius and a local
roughness coefficient. The division line between those regions
is controlled by the bisector of the wetted bank and bed pro-
files. For each region, the hydraulic radius is estimated as the
ratio between the wetted area and the wetted perimeter.
Khodashenas et al. (2008) performed a comparison among
several analytical methods for computing the τ distribution
and laboratory data for several channel shapes (rectangular,
trapezoidal, and compound) and roughness. They came to
the conclusion that analytical methods similar to the one used
in BSTEM provide a suitable estimation of the τ distribution,
except near corners and at the edge of the cross-section. This
weakness was attributed to the fact that they do not consider
the effect of secondary flows developing in cross-sections
with corners.
Kean and Smith (2006) and Darby et al. (2010) investigated
hydraulic erosion of bank toe materials by estimating boundary
shear stress for irregular bank topography. Bank topographic
features induced form roughness and significantly influenced
the total applied shear stress. Further, Papanicolaou et al.
(2007) investigated the effects of secondary flows on cohesive
bank erosion in straight channels, finding two-fold increases
in average boundary shear stress. To take into account the ef-
fect of stream curvature on the τ distribution, a correction for
near-bank τ has been implemented in BSTEM 5.4, based on
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
197
the no-lag kinematic model (Crosato, 2007). Accordingly,
BSTEM users should be aware that the τ distribution methods
used in BSTEM may be limited in being able to represent actual
field conditions.
When considering the quantification of fluvial erodibility pa-
rameters for input into BSTEM, some studies suggest an empir-
ical relationship between τ c and the soil silt-clay content (Julian
and Torres, 2006). However, Simon et al. (2011) suggested
using the JET or default parameters for cohesive soils. For
non-cohesive soils, little information exists in the literature for
parameters of the excess shear stress equation (Criswell et al.,
2016). The particle size distribution can be used to estimate
the τ c and then empirical relationships can be used to estimate
kd. For example, Hanson and Simon (2001) noted an inverse re-
lationship between the erodibility parameters based on JETs
from Midwestern US streams. Alternatively, default parameters
in BSTEM can be used for non-cohesive soils. All of the seven
studies in Table I that incorporated the fluvial erosion predic-
tion capabilities of BSTEM used JETs to quantify the erodibility
of the cohesive soils. Use of the JET and derivation of its erod-
ibility parameters will be discussed further later.
Additionally, fluvial erodibility parameters are suggested to
be temporally variable, dependent on subaerial processes, hy-
drologic events, and vegetation cover (Daly et al., 2015b;
Konsoer et al., 2016). Yet, no studies have suggested an ap-
proach for adjusting fluvial erodibility parameters with time.
Therefore, one major research need is to study the temporal ef-
fects on fluvial erodibility parameters and incorporate the find-
ings into the model.
Khanal et al. (2016b) highlighted other issues with modeling
fluvial erosion within BSTEM. Their research incorporated an
alternative to the excess shear stress equation, a non-linear,
mechanistic model (Wilson 1993a, 1993b), to quantify the de-
tachment rate in BSTEM. The model, referred to as the Wilson
model, is based on the balance of all forces and moments driv-
ing and resisting detachment of a two-dimensional particle or
aggregate:
pffiffi    
b0 τ b1
εr ¼ 1
exp
exp 3
(2)
ρb τ
where ρb is the bulk density of soil (in g m
3) and b0 (in g
m
1 s
1 N
0.5) and b1 (in pascals) are mechanistically defined
parameters of the Wilson model. Retreat predicted with the
Wilson model was closer to the actual observed retreat in
comparison to the retreat predicted with the excess shear
stress equation. The Wilson model parameters can be derived
as easily as excess shear stress parameters using the JET
(Al-Madhhachi et al., 2013b). Khanal et al. (2016b) also
demonstrated that the solution methodology used to analyze
JET results for excess shear stress parameters significantly
altered BSTEM predicted profiles, highlighting a need to deter-
mine which solution methodology should be used for deriving
fluvial erodibility parameters. More studies on a variety of
streambank conditions are needed to confirm the results of
Khanal et al. (2016b).
Modeling the effects of vegetation
According to Millar (2000), bank vegetation has several im-
pacts on bank stability as it reduces the near-bank velocity
and effective bank τ, increases the bankˈs strength through
binding of the sediment by root masses, and enhances intersti-
tial deposition of fine washload sediment. Simon and Collison
(2002) found that the hydraulic and mechanical effects of
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
198 KLAVON K. ET AL.
riparian vegetation were both significant to bank stability. In
BSTEM, extensive work has been done to model the effects of
vegetation on soil geotechnical parameters and apply findings
to integrate a user friendly sub-model called RipRoot (Simon
and Collison, 2002; Pollen and Simon, 2005; Simon et al.,
2006; Pollen-Bankhead and Simon, 2009, 2010; Polvi et al.,
2014). The sub-model predicts added cohesion caused by roots
for 22 common riparian species and allows users to either esti-
mate root distributions based on the age of the species or enter
measured root diameter class data. However, the RipRoot
sub-model was only designed and tested for top of bank vege-
tation, not vegetation covering an entire bank slope. Addition-
ally, when applied to long-term modeling on highly erodible
streams, Daly et al. (2015c) found that BSTEM was not sensitive
to the minimal added cohesion due to roots in rapidly migrat-
ing composite banks with gravel toes, and that adjusting fluvial
erodibility parameters was a better approach when calibrating
BSTEM input parameters for vegetation.
In channels with vegetated banks, additional drag forces due
to the stems and branches of the vegetation increase the
hydraulic resistance (Kean and Smith, 2004). Traditional one-
dimensional modeling approaches combine vegetation drag
and boundary roughness into a single roughness coefficient
based on reference values (James et al., 2004; Wilson et al.,
2006; Schoneboom et al., 2010), such as given by Chow
(1959). In BSTEM, a lumped α factor can be included in the
excess shear stress equation to indirectly correct the applied τ
to account for vegetation and other effects (Langendoen and
Simon, 2008, 2009; Daly et al., 2015c):
τc
data are plotted. Lutenegger and Tierney (1986) noted a range
εr ¼ k d ðατ
τ c Þ ¼ αk d τ
(3)
α of pressures across the shear head during the application of
This results in one additional calibration parameter. Signifi-
cant research efforts are needed to mechanically estimate the
reduction of applied τ and incorporate the findings into the
model, as was done for the effect of vegetation on soil strength
parameters. For instance, more sophisticated two- and three-
dimensional models allow for representing resistance induced
by bed roughness and form drag on the vegetation and can pro-
vide a more realistic τ distribution over the river section (Naot
et al., 1996; López and García, 1998; Wilson et al., 2006).
The roughness of the riparian vegetation also affects the
secondary flow pattern and alters the distribution of scour and
deposition across the channel. Numerical studies have shown
that the local effects of vegetation can propagate downstream
due to the interactions between the channel, flow, and bed
response (Van de Wiel and Darby, 2004).
Estimating Model Input
Estimating geotechnical parameters using the BST
A variety of techniques have been used to obtain geotechnical
parameters for use in a wide range of streambank stability and
erosion models. The majority of studies used only the BST,
others used a combination of techniques for different soil layers
(i.e. BST and DST, BST and TST, or BST and default parameters),
some used solely default parameters, and a few did not state
parameters or methods used for obtaining geotechnical param-
eters (Table I). Because of the large number of studies that used
BSTs to obtain geotechnical parameters in previous BSTEM
studies, the BST will be the focus on this review paper. The
BST manual makes no recommendation for the number of test
replications (Handy Geotechnical Instruments, 2013). Of those
that used the BST, most did not report the number of BSTs
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
performed per soil layer. The number of tests reported in some
of the studies inconsistently ranged from one to 16. One study
stated that at a minimum duplicates were necessary for each
soil layer (Daly et al., 2015c), but no explanation was given
for this requirement. The potential advantages of BSTs are
that tests are conducted in situ and the short test duration,
with test completion commonly within one hour (e.g. Handy
and Fox, 1967; Lutenegger, 1987); however, some studies
have highlighted key BST research needs.
While the BST device is an alternative to a direct shear labo-
ratory test, interpretation of BST results has been problematic in
many cases. One essential difference is that in a laboratory
setting the pore pressure (μ) is controlled, while in the field it
is unknown. Accordingly, interpreting the results of BSTs
appears to have been most straightforward with fine-grained
or stiff clay soils at or close to saturation (Handy et al., 1985;
Handy, 1986). When soil is nearly or completely saturated, cˈ
and ϕ 0 are functions of the normal stress. When testing soils be-
low the water table, it is necessary to include the weight of wa-
ter. However, it is possible that the application of normal stress
at the shear head will create an unknown degree of excess pore
pressure in the soil. The BST methods specify consolidation
times, which are intended to allow that excess pore-pressure
to dissipate from around the shear plates. Demartinecourt and
Bauer (1983) found that a consolidation time of 1.5 hours was
required before excess pore pressure completely dissipated in
testing of sensitive, soft clay with a BST specifically fitted with
a pore pressure sensor. Lutenegger and Hallberg (1981) noted
that excess pore-pressure can accumulate during testing creat-
ing a secondary, shallower friction angle evident when shear
shear stress, with the highest pore pressures encountered at
the leading edge and lower pore pressures near the center of
the shear head.
In unsaturated soils, an isometric component of soil strength
is provided by matric suction. The theoretical formulation by
Fredlund et al. (1978) postulates that ϕ b will be constant and
that increased matric suction will increase the apparent cohe-
sion. Laboratory direct shear unsaturated soil strength testing
includes a range of soil moisture including saturation, so that
cˈ, ϕ 0 , and ϕ b can be established. Experimental evidence
shows apparent cohesion increasing with matric suction and
with the apparent angle of friction remaining constant or in-
creasing slightly (e.g. Lu and Likos, 2004; Gallage and
Uchimura, 2015). In contrast, unsaturated strength testing of
soils with the BST shows a decrease in apparent cohesion and
a large increase in apparent angle of friction (Miller et al.,
1998; Miller and Khoury, 2012).
The soil shearing during a BST occurs along a shear plane
within the soil, and staged tests with increasing normal stress
act to move this shear zone farther from the shear head and into
undisturbed soil (Handy and Fox, 1967; Lohnes and Handy,
1968). Handy and Fox (1967) suggested that the sheared soil
becomes compacted and adhered to the shear head, and that
subsequent tests at increased normal stress move the shear sur-
face away from this compacted zone and thus each test occurs
in essentially undisturbed soil. However, the nature and geom-
etry of this zone of compaction remains unknown in BSTs. Im-
portantly for interpreting BST results, the compacted zone at the
shear head is also an essential difference from laboratory direct
shear testing, where no such unknown compaction exists.
Lutenegger and Tierney (1986) noted that the compacted zone
introduces an unknown with respect to the distribution of pore-
water pressure along the shear zone. This can affect interpreta-
tion of results for unsaturated soils (Miller et al., 1998) and can
alter conditions from test to test (Bechtum, 2012).
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
In many fields of science and in geotechnical investigations
there is a need for acquiring soil strength data, and in situ test-
ing offers the ability to evaluate soil secondary properties and
site variability that may be important in reaching conclusions
about a locale. The BST promises to be a relatively rapid
method to supply those data. However, as noted earlier, there
are important unknowns about BST-acquired data that raise
questions about interpreting results as equivalent to laboratory
soils testing. The theory and analytical methods required to as-
sess the components of soil strength are based on the controlled
outputs of laboratory tests. However, many of the variables
which are carefully controlled in a laboratory setting are un-
known and/or uncontrolled in BSTs. So, despite the linear ap-
pearance of the BST failure envelope, it is uncertain what the
test is actually measuring. Some important research areas still
need to be addressed in order to reliably interpret BST soil
strength test results including the effect of BSTs on soil moisture
surrounding the test zone, the size of the undisturbed soil zone
in which shearing occurs, the nature of the consolidated zone
to which normal stress is applied, and the number of tests re-
quired to appropriately represent soil shear strength parameters
in process-based models. This paper specifically calls for future
research that can indicate the extent to which geotechnical pa-
rameter diverge and under what conditions with data derived
from both the BST and laboratory methods. Research is also
needed to explore the extent that these quantified uncertainties
are then significant in forcing uncertainty within BSTEM
simulations.
Estimating fluvial erodibility parameters
As with the BST, several research areas still need to be ad-
dressed in order to appropriately determine fluvial erodibility
parameters. Several techniques have been employed to esti-
mate the fluvial erodibility parameters for different streambank
erosion and failure models like BSTEM. Examples of these tech-
niques include flumes, rotating cylinder apparatus (Moore and
Masch, 1962), hole erosion test (HET) (Wan and Fell, 2004), co-
hesive strength meters (CSM) (Tolhurst et al., 1999) and JETs.
Flume tests involve creating open-channel flow conditions with
soil at the bed of the flume and visually or graphically deter-
mining τ c (Clark and Wynn, 2007). Several studies utilize this
more traditional method of estimating erodibility parameters
(Kamphuis and Hall, 1983; Hanson, 1990; Sutarto et al.,
2014). Flumes have also been modified specifically to measure
the fluvial erodibility of sediments as in the cases of SEDflume
(McNeil et al., 1996) and erosion function apparatus (EFA)
(Briaud et al., 2001). Flume studies have the advantage of
allowing the test to be conducted in a controlled environment,
but it is difficult to collect and place a sample in the flume with-
out some disturbance to the sample. The majority of BSTEM
studies report deriving erodibility parameters using the JET,
likely because in situ testing is preferred for streambank erosion
studies. Consequently, only JET testing and analysis will be
discussed further in the following section.
During a JET, a submerged jet of water generated under a
constant hydrostatic pressure impinges on a soil surface. The
jet exerts a shear pressure on the soil causing the soil particle
to detach and soil to scour. The depth of the scour is measured
periodically and the data is used to estimate the erodibility pa-
rameters. Currently there are two forms of JETs in operation:
the original JET and mini-JET. The original JET is described in
detail by Hanson and Cook (2004), and the mini-JET, a minia-
turized version of the original-JET, was first described by
Simon et al. (2010). Al-Madhhachi et al. (2013b) compared
the results obtained from these two forms of the JET and
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
199
concluded that results were comparable to each other and
values obtained from flumes with an adjustment factor
(Al-Madhhachi et al., 2013a).
The experimental data obtained from the JETs have been an-
alyzed using three different solution routines to derive the
erodibility parameters for Equation (1), which will be referred
to as ‘Blaisdell’, ‘scour depth’, and ‘iterative’ in the following
discussion. The Blaisdell solution method is oldest, and is cur-
rently the most popular method of analysis (Blaisdell et al.,
1981; Hanson and Cook, 2004). It first determines the τ c based
on the equilibrium depth of the scour hole by fitting a hyper-
bolic function to the data to estimate the scour depth as time
approaches infinity. The kd is then iteratively solved to mini-
mize the error between the measured and predicted dimen-
sionless time based on an integrated solution of the excess
shear stress equation.
In contrast to the Blaisdell solution, the more recently devel-
oped scour depth and iterative solutions solve for both τ c and kd
simultaneously through iteration. The scour depth solution
minimizes the squared error between the observed JET erosion
rate and the predicted erosion rate computed by the excess
shear stress equation to calculate τ c and kd (Daly et al., 2013).
The iterative solution solves for the parameters in a similar
manner, but places an upper bound on τ c by assuming the
scour depth reaches an equilibrium depth at the end of the test
(Simon et al., 2010). Note that the parameters (b0, b1) of the
Wilson model, shown in Equation (2), are also estimated from
the JET data using the scour depth technique as described in
Al-Madhhachi et al. (2013b).
The Blaisdell solution estimates lower τ c and kd than the scour
depth and iterative solutions (Simon et al., 2010; Daly et al.,
2013). At higher applied τ, εr predicted by the scour depth solu-
tion and the iterative solution are thus much higher due to their
higher estimated kd values (Khanal et al., 2016b). When used in
stability models such as BSTEM, kd is frequently used as a cali-
bration parameter, and it has been observed that kd estimated
from JETs using the scour depth and iterative solutions requires
significant scaling down to match the predicted and observed
bank retreat (Daly et al., 2015a). This necessity raises questions
about the assumption of linearity between εr and τ and the ad-
vantage of a non-linear detachment model as discussed by
Khanal et al. (2016b). A consensus on which solution technique
should be used for deriving the parameters for streambank
erosion modeling has not been reached. In fact, deriving these
parameters may be dependent on regional soil properties and
there may not be a single solution approach.
One of the other major issues concerning the JET has been
the wide variability in the erodibility parameters estimated from
the JETs. The parameters varied by as much as three orders of
magnitude when tests are compared at the site scale (Daly
et al., 2015a) and by as much as four orders of magnitude at
the watershed scale (Wynn and Mostaghimi, 2006; Wynn
et al., 2008; Karmaker and Dutta, 2011; Daly et al., 2015b).
Certain variability in the parameters is expected due to the in-
herent spatial heterogeneity of the soil properties and other ex-
trinsic factors influencing the erosion (Hanson and Simon,
2001); much less variability is typically observed under labora-
tory conditions across all the post-processing techniques
(Khanal et al., 2016a). However, the high degree of variability
is problematic, especially when simulation models like BSTEM
use single values of the estimated parameters (Karmaker and
Dutta, 2015). Simon et al. (2006) reported two JETs per bank
layer, Daly et al. (2015c) suggested at least triplicates, and Lai
et al. (2015) completed 16 JETs on different soil layers and used
the average for the BSTEM simulation. No consensus has been
reached on the number of JETs needed to adequately account
for this variability.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
200 KLAVON K. ET AL.
Numerous user-dependent factors, including head setting,
initial reading time interval, and termination reading time inter-
val have been found to influence the parameters of the erodibil-
ity models. Khanal et al. (2016a) recommended an initial time
interval of no more than 30 seconds and a termination interval
of at least 300 seconds for highly erodible soils. These recom-
mendations are a step forward in the direction to standardizing
the operation of JET and similar studies should be conducted to
include other soil types.
Another major criticism of the JET apparatus is the confine-
ment of the fluid field and the alterations in the τ distribution
within the submerged jet due to the confinement (Ghaneeized
et al., 2015). The confined conditions of the JET apparatus raise
questions about the assumption of a free jet and unconfined
flow used in deriving the equations that predict the τ distribu-
tion. Ghaneeized et al. (2015) recommended investigating
the effect of confinement in the JET and the mini-JET and
redefining the apparatus constants and relationships to im-
prove the erosion assessments. Another consequence of the
confined conditions could be the effect on the suspension of
the detached soil particle due to recirculation and their even-
tual resettlement at low τ. The JET assumes that the scouring
is a continuous process during the test and all the detached
particles are ejected from the flow. While the smallest particles
indeed are transported out of confinement with the waste
water, the authors have observed that the heavier particles
can remain in the immersion canister for a longer time, and
eventually detached larger particles may not leave the scour
hole as the applied τ decreases. The influence of such effects
on the erodibility parameters must be investigated further.
Although the JET is a unique device for measuring erodibility
parameters in situ and compares favorably to flume tests under
controlled conditions, there remains uncertainty when it is
applied in field conditions.
Finally, fluvial erodibility parameters are typically used as
calibration factors, with the JET results being used as a starting
point. Several calibration methods exist, for instance Lai et al.
(2015) recommend calibrating kd only, with the justification
that field measurements produce highly uncertain kd estimates.
Other studies suggested calibrating fluvial erodibility parame-
ters using a lumped α factor shown in Equation (3) to account
for spatial and temporal changes in soil resistance to fluvial
forces due to several factors: roots, moisture content, and sub-
aerial processes (Langendoen and Simon, 2008, 2009;
Rousselot, 2009; Daly et al., 2015c).
Figure 1. Box and whisker plots of measured geotechnical parameters of papers listed in Table I versus default BSTEM parameters (triangles). Infor-
mation on soil texture provided by the paper was used to lump geotechnical parameters into sand, silt, and clay default categories.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Default BSTEM parameters
In addition to uncertainties on the method of deriving geotech-
nical parameters, default parameters listed in Simon et al.
(2011) are available for a very limited selection of soil types:
gravel, sand and gravel, sand, loam, and clay. A sensitivity
analysis of the stability algorithm in BSTEM by Parker et al.
(2008) revealed that the FoS is highly sensitive to input geo-
technical parameters and most sensitive to cˈ. The sensitivity
analysis was performed for nine separate hydrologic events
on a single bank profile. Model FoS predictions were compared
to known information on whether or not bank failure actually
occurred for the given event. When the means of default geo-
technical parameters were used, BSTEM predicted bank fail-
ures for three of the five banks known to be stable, and stable
banks for all of the banks that had known failures. When the
least- and most-resistant geotechnical parameters within a rea-
sonable range were used for each bank, the FoS ranged from
stable to unstable for all banks. This study highlights the effect
of geotechnical parameter variability within a single bank layer
on BSTEM FoS (Parker et al., 2008). While this research was
conducted specifically using BSTEM, the conclusions would
be valid for any integrated fluvial erosion and mass wasting
model utilizing a mechanistic approach.
Geotechnical parameters can be highly variable and are also
extremely important to determining bank stability, and users
should be aware of the implications of choosing default param-
eters. Measured geotechnical parameters and information on
soil texture were gathered from studies listed in Table I, and
then separated into BSTEM soil default categories (sand, silt,
and clay). In most cases, the BSTEM default value did not cor-
respond to the median of in situ values, and in some cases,
was among the most extreme values (Figure 1). Users should
measure geotechnical parameters when possible instead of re-
lying on BSTEM default parameters for the most accurate repre-
sentation of their study site.
BSTEM also gives default parameters for fluvial erodibility
parameters. Figure 2 shows the range of JET results when cate-
gorized by BSTEM default soil textures for the studies in Table I
that reported parameters used for fluvial erodibility. Konsoer
et al. (2016) noted that erodibility parameters derived from JETs
were several orders of magnitude different than BSTEM default
parameters; however, the default parameters were sufficient at
predicting the failure type over long time periods. In contrast,
Midgley et al. (2012) found that solutions from the JET were
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
Figure 2. Box and whisker plots of measured fluvial erodibility parameters of papers listed in Table I versus default BSTEM parameters (triangles).
Information on soil texture provided by the paper was used to lump parameters into sand, silt, and clay default categories. Note that BSTEM default
parameters for silt and clay are classified as resistant, moderately erodible, or erodible, and hence have multiple values.
better at predicting retreat than the default parameters for long-
term simulations. Daly et al. (2015c, 2016) also warned of over
reliance on relationships constructed between erodibility pa-
rameters and soil texture such as the Julian and Torres (2006)
relationship: using empirical equations to predict erosion prop-
erties based on soil characteristics will likely contain high un-
certainty and thus should be used with caution. From
research on three streambanks of varying erodibility, Daly
et al. (2016) reported no consistently significantly correlated
variables in terms of erodibility and soil physical properties
from multiple linear regression and principal components
analysis.
BSTEM Applications
Applying BSTEM to stream stabilization
In recent years, BSTEM has shown potential for being an alter-
native to methods such as classification systems for stream
stabilization design (Simon et al., 2009; Simon et al., 2011).
The appeal of BSTEM is that it is a process-based method,
and therefore can potentially be used to predict actual bank
response to various erosion mitigation strategies, and future
conditions. BSTEM is capable of aiding in the design of site
specific bank stabilization practices by determining minimum
conditions for bank stability, and quantifying retreat rates and
sediment loads of various bank conditions including conditions
after stabilization.
Simon et al. (2011) discussed using BSTEM for streambank
stabilization by presenting a case study of the model for such
purposes. The following guidelines were recommended for
using the model as part of a stream stabilization project: (i)
worst case conditions (e.g. no riparian protection, high water
table, and no toe protection) should be tested to first determine
if stabilization is even necessary; (ii) if stabilization is necessary,
BSTEM simulations can be completed with various mitigation
strategies for worst case conditions until a stable design is deter-
mined for the site specific characteristics; (iii) after a stable de-
sign is determined for worst case scenarios, long-term
simulations should be performed to quantify retreat and sedi-
ment load reductions due to various mitigation strategies; and
(iv) BSTEM reductions can be combined with reach information
to determine reach scale sediment load reductions. The model
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
201
has been shown to simulate the effects of reducing bank slope
by regrading, reducing bed slope (i.e. constructing a meander
bend), covering the bank top with a variety of riparian vegeta-
tion species, and protecting the bank with rock.
Theoretically, everything seems to be in order for BSTEM to be
a practical tool for stream stabilization. However, BSTEM has yet
to reliably quantify long-term sediment loads without significant
calibration (Simon et al., 2009; Simon et al., 2011; Midgley
et al., 2012; Daly et al., 2015c). For example, Simon et al.
(2011) completed a study on the Lower Tombigbee River in
Alabama. Detailed site information was known including geo-
technical parameters, fluvial parameters, stage, and several
years of measured bank retreat. The stream was expected to
experience an average retreat of 1.2 m yr
1. Stabilization
practices, including combinations of rock toe and vegetation,
were modeled and compared to simulations of no treatment
over a one-year simulation period. However, the no-treatment
simulation predicted a retreat of over 40 m during the
simulation, which was not even close to the known average of
1.2 m yr
1. The model results were stated to not represent actual
volumes of failures, but only should be used to highlight relative
differences between the existing, no-treatment case and various
stabilization strategies (Simon et al., 2011). If it is to be used as
a design tool by engineers and conservationists, the model
should be able to predict more reliable loads and retreat rates.
Watershed-scale sediment load estimation
A potential use of BSTEM for stream stabilization includes com-
bining site-scale BSTEM bank erosion predictions based on
bank stabilization strategies with wide-scale reach information
to determine watershed scale sediment load reductions. Re-
search is needed to understand when and how to extrapolate
site-specific BSTEM simulations to calculate stream-scale sedi-
ment loads and load reductions. An example based on a previ-
ous study and data from the Fort Cobb Reservoir watershed in
southwest Oklahoma (Klavon, 2016) is presented to demon-
strate both the potential and the uncertainty in using this
method to extrapolate the results of calibrated BSTEM simula-
tions. Sediment from unstable streambanks in the watershed is
one of the primary contributors of loading to the reservoir
(Figure 3). Four monitoring sites in the watershed were selected
along two tributaries, Fivemile and Willow Creeks, to the
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
202 KLAVON K. ET AL.
Figure 3. Unstable streambank in the Fort Cobb Reservoir watershed. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
reservoir from which the fluvial and geotechnical properties of
the streambank were estimated.
The range of stream-scale sediment loads and load reduc-
tions for three different stabilization practices simulated in
BSTEM was performed using a Monte Carlo simulation (Dunn
and Shultis, 2011). The practices included rock toe protection,
vegetation and grading only, and a combination of rock toe
protection, grading, and vegetation. Further details on the
BSTEM study, including site information, data collection,
model setup and calibration, and stabilization practice model-
ing is reported in Klavon (2016). Statistical distributions were fit
to the independent parameters in Minitab 16 (Minitab, 2009),
and were considered an acceptable fit if the p-value was
greater than 0.05. When two or more distributions were accept-
able, the one with the lowest Anderson–Darling (AD) statistic
was chosen. In addition, distributions were checked to ensure
that negative values were not reflected in the distribution for
non-negative parameters. Once distributions were determined,
probability density function (PDF) and cumulative density func-
tion (CDF) of the parameters were obtained. Simulation param-
eter data were then generated with a minimum of 1000 random
numbers between zero and one (Driels and Shin, 2004), setting
the random number equal to the previously determined CDF,
and back calculating the associated simulation parameter.
A 10-year sediment load was calculated using two different
approaches along the two tributaries. The first approach
utilized aerial imagery to estimate the 10-year load, L10yr (in
kilograms):
L10yr ¼ Laerial l s
where ls is the length of the stream (in meters) and Laerial is
the 10-year sediment load per meter of bank from aerial im-
ages (in kg m
1) calculated as the product of BH, τ b, and lr,
where BH is the bank height (in meters), ρb is the average
bank bulk density (in kg m
3), and lr is the average lateral
bank retreat along the stream determined from aerial imagery
(in meters). The BH and ρb are unknown variables based on
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
sampling at a number of sites in the watersheds and therefore
were generated using Monte Carlo methods. The ls and aver-
age lr were assumed known, and the same values were used
for all simulations. The second approach utilized calibrated
BSTEM simulations to calculate L10yr:
L10yr ¼ LBSTEM l s (5)
where LBSTEM is the 10-year sediment load per meter of bank
predicted by calibrated BSTEM models on nine sites in the
watershed (in kg m
1). For each monitoring site of the two
tributaries, 10-year simulations were performed to generate
LBSTEM using the Monte Carlo methods. The ls was again
known. Table II shows Monte Carlo distributions for the three
Monte Carlo parameters (BH, ρb, and LBSTEM for both Willow
and Fivemile Creeks) used to calculate sediment loads for
both methods. Note that both approaches did not account
for bed sediment dynamics due to the method of bank retreat
estimation and limitations of BSTEM.
Figure 4 shows the results of the Monte Carlo simulation for
calculating sediment loads. The range of sediment loads was
much smaller for the aerial imagery method (Equation (4)) for
both creeks; however, average loads were within the same
order of magnitude. To potentially decrease the range of pre-
dicted loads for the BSTEM method (Equation (4)), more sites
would need to be modeled. For Fivemile Creek, the BSTEM
method (Equation (5)) predicted higher loads than the aerial im-
agery method (Equation (4)). For Willow Creek, the opposite
(4)
was true. For all but the Fivemile Creek BSTEM method
(Equation (5)), using average data nearly matched the Monte
Carlo simulation averages.
Three mitigation strategies (toe riprap, vegetation and grad-
ing only, and a combination of the two) were modeled at sites
experiencing retreat as part of another Monte Carlo analysis
for potential total load reduction. The following equation was
used to calculate the maximum 10-year load reduction, LR10yr
(in kilograms), for each stream:
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM) 203

Table II. Parameter distributions and Monte Carlo inputs for bank height, BH; bulk density, ρb; and BSTEM predicted 10-year sediment loads,
LBSTEM, based on predictions from Klavon (2016)

Variable Creek Distribution Inputs for Monte Carlo* p Value AD value

BH Fivemile Weibull αa = 4.67; βb = 4.33 > 0.25 0.368

Willow Gamma α = 57.88; β = 0.07 0.061 0.725
ρb Fivemile Loglogistic β = 0.04 ; μc = 0.37 > 0.25 0.368
Willow 3-Parameter Weibull α = 5468.55; β = 527.89; γd =
526.47 0.383 0.340
LBSTEM Fivemile Uniform ae = 128; bf = 111919 — —
Willow Uniform a = 350; b = 25528 — —
a
α = shape.
b
β = scale.
c
μ = location.
d
γ = threshold.
e
a = minimum value.
f
b = maximum value.

Figure 4. Histogram results of the Monte Carlo simulation to estimate total sediment loads to the reservoir over the 10-year simulation. Note that MC
stands for Monte Carlo and No MC is the load if site average values were used to calculate loads.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
204 KLAVON K. ET AL.

constructed where established riparian vegetation was not

LR10yr ¼ BHρb l sf l r R % (6)
where lsf is the length of stream without a forested riparian area
(in meters) and R% is the BSTEM-simulated percent load reduc-
tions for the different mitigation techniques at the nine sites.
The R% was an independent variable and was generated using
Monte Carlo methods. Distributions for R% are shown in
Table III. Because the amount of R% data was limited, simple
distributions (triangular or uniform) were used. The assump-
tion was made that mitigation practices would only be
Table III. Parameter distributions and Monte Carlo inputs for percent
load reduction, R%, for each of the stabilization practices modeled in
Klavon (2016)
already present; therefore, lsf was determined using aerial im-
agery and was considered a known. The other parameters
match those in Equation (4).
The results of the Monte Carlo analysis for determining max-
imum load reductions are shown in Figure 5. The average load
for all the Monte Carlo simulations was almost identical to the
load reduction using solely averages. However, the ranges of
load reduction were over an order of magnitude different,
suggesting that stochastic methods should be considered when
using BSTEM to predict sediment load reduction for stabiliza-
tion practices. It is important to note that these simulations
do not include the impact of stabilization practices on
sediment transport capacity due to the one-dimensional con-
straint of BSTEM.

Stabilization Distribution Inputs for

Suggested improvements to BSTEM
practice Monte Carlo
General model improvements
Toe riprap only Triangular aa = 53.9; bb = 100;
mc = 100 In order to improve BSTEM as a tool for streambank stabiliza-
Toe riprap + vegetation Triangular a = 95.4; b = 100; tion design the following research and development are sug-
and grading m = 100 gested. First, from experience with BSTEM, the model runtime
Vegetation and grading Uniform a = 75.9; b = 99.9 was long and therefore the calibration process for long-term
only simulations was time intensive. Advancements have been re-
a
a = minimum value. cently made that significantly reduce simulation run time;
b
m = mode. therefore, users need to be ensure that they are using the very
c
b = maximum value. latest version of the model. With a reduced simulation time,

Figure 5. Histogram results of the Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the maximum sediment load reduction to the reservoir using the 10-year
BSTEM simulation. Note that MC stands for Monte Carlo and No MC is the load if averages were used to calculate loads.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
one potential improvement to simulation capability would be
an option for stochastic analysis to account for uncertainty in
input parameters. Second, most studies that have utilized
BSTEM routines are focused on streams in the central United
States (Table I). While this is not surprising as this is where the
model was developed, future research should evaluate the
model across a range of conditions nationwide and worldwide.
Most previous research suggests that failed material from
previous bank collapses can protect the bank toe until that
deposited sediment is removed during subsequent streamflow
events (Parker et al., 2011). However, Hackney et al. (2015),
while investigating the influence of submerged blocks from pre-
vious mass failures, reported that such blocks may also deflect
flow onto the bank and increase the local applied shear stress.
The model currently lacks a routine for estimating the protec-
tion and/or flow deflection onto the bank. With that said, in-
cluding such capabilities could lead to being able to simulate
temporally-varying erodibility properties of various streambank
layers. Note, such capabilities have been incorporated in the
BSTEM-like bank erosion algorithms of the CONCEPTS,
TELEMAC and RVR Meander models (Motta et al., 2014).
More studies on a variety of streambank conditions are
needed to confirm the results of Khanal et al. (2016b) relative
to the use of linear versus non-linear detachment models for
cohesive sediment. Such confirmations will require updated
versions of BSTEM to include options to use multiple detach-
ment models. As part of such an update, it may be valuable
for BSTEM to alert the user if simulated applied shear stress ex-
ceeds the maximum applied shear stress used to derive erod-
ibility parameters in field tests.
Also, guidance is needed on how to parameterize the model
to represent stabilization practices, especially combined ‘hard’
(e.g. riprap toe) and ‘soft’ (e.g. bioengineering stabilization)
practices. Being able to incorporate several practices at once,
including practices both installed on the bank and also in-
stream practices, would be a significant benefit to the user
community.
Complex near-bank flow
BSTEM currently represents an individual cross-section, and
calculations are based on uniform and steady flow assumptions
on a straight reach. Further development and validation of the
analytical method is still needed to better simulate τ distribu-
tions for various channel shapes, roughness, and the presence
of small-scale topographic features in the streambed. Second-
ary flows that can form due to the cross-section shape, stream
curvature, and common obstructions such as woody debris or
failed bank material are not taken into account directly in
BSTEM without the use of the τ factor in Equation (3). Vegeta-
tion is currently simulated in the model from only the perspec-
tive of geotechnical instability. Routines to estimate the impact
of vegetation and above-ground biomass on τ are needed.
Roots and sub-surface biomass also influence the detachment
of cohesive sediment and should be considered in the model.
Numerical studies have shown that the local effects of vegeta-
tion can propagate downstream due to the interactions be-
tween the channel, flow, and bed response (Van de Wiel and
Darby, 2004). A site analysis, as provided by BSTEM is limited
in determining the net impact (beneficial or adverse) of riparian
vegetation on channel morphology beyond the site-specific
critical bank being simulated.
Several recent studies have addressed some of these limita-
tions. Konsoer et al. (2016) applied BSTEM 5.4, which includes
a correction for near-bank τ due to the effect of curvature, to
two meander bends on the lower Wabash River, Illinois. This
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
205
correction factor method is an interesting step forward, but
has yet to be fully validated. Lai et al. (2015) combined BSTEM
with a two-dimensional model to more appropriately model
sediment transport, failed material as bank protection, second-
ary flow, and turbulent flow. The study demonstrated the
benefits of pairing BSTEM with a two-dimensional model by
reproducing the bank retreat process as well as the formation
of the new bank shape with tension cracks on Goodwin Creek
in northern Mississippi, one of the most extensively monitored
streams in the country. An important benefit of these integrated
models may be the ability to model in-stream stabilization
structures such as J-hooks or bendway weirs. These integrated
models show good promise for resolving BSTEMˈs weakness
at inaccurately quantifying long-term sediment loads; however,
future studies are needed to validate the integrated models for a
variety of stream conditions.
Subaerial processes
Subaerial processes refer to freeze–thaw cycling, desiccation
cracking, and seepage processes that weaken the bank material
to fluvial erosion and geotechnical failure. Additional advance-
ments are needed in BSTEM to account for these preparatory
processes to erosion and mass failure. For example, seepage
erosion, or the erosion of unconsolidated sand above a more re-
strictive bank layer, is known to be an important erosion process
in certain incised streams and can significantly contribute to
bank failure (Fox et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2007; Fox and Wil-
son, 2010). Two studies were completed to evaluate BSTEMˈs
ability to account for erosion due to seepage which highlighted
the fact that BSTEM was missing capabilities to fully predict
seepage erosion (Wilson et al., 2007; Lindow et al., 2009). They
found the model could accurately predict failures of the typical
seepage geometries, but in order to fully incorporate the seep-
age erosion process, the model needed to consider near bank
groundwater flow (Wilson et al., 2007; Lindow et al., 2009).
Chu-Agor et al. (2009) proposed empirical techniques for incor-
porating seepage undercutting processes for bank failure predic-
tions. Midgley et al. (2013) noted the importance of seepage and
fluvial processes acting in concert to create unstable
streambanks. Fluvial erosion was noted as a potential mecha-
nism to prevent permanent self-healing of seeps. Relationships
for seepage undercutting can be incorporated into the bank sta-
bility analysis, but will require integration with the groundwater
flow component of BSTEM. In order to fully integrate such
modeling capabilities, additional research is needed to identify
appropriate methodologies for simulating bank pore-water
pressures and groundwater flow dynamics. For instance, is there
an advantage to modeling Darcian flow versus simpler water
balance approaches in BSTEM? In summary, BSTEM could be
further developed to include an option for accounting for
subaerial processes, groundwater flow, and pore-water pres-
sures (Rinaldi et al., 2004). Such advancements will also require
infiltration and evapotranspiration routines and begin to expand
the model into considering rainfall/runoff processes. With that
said further general research will then be needed to consider
the role of vegetation in controlling pore-water pressure distri-
butions in the bank.
Alternatives to BSTEM for Stream-scale
Predictions
As estimating sediment transport and sediment load reductions
due to streambank stabilization practices on a stream scale be-
comes more and more valuable for several applications, such
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 206

Table IV. Summary of peer reviewed studies, Masterˈs theses, conference proceedings, and reports using the CONservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport System, CONCEPTS) as a component of the
research or application

Study Publication type Location Purpose Major findings

Langendoen et al. (1999) Conference Proceedings Goodwin Creek, MS Evaluate the process-based bank CONCEPTS under predicted basal
failure algorithm in CONCEPTSa scour, but accurately predicted
and validate predictions using timing and dimensions of failure.
field data Slight differences in failure
dimensions were due to CONCEPTS
not modeling cantilever failure
Langendoen and Report West Papillion Simulate the effects of channel Depth of incision decreased with

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Simon (2000) Creek, NB roughness and grade control decreased roughness and grade
structures on channel incision control could reduce level of incision
and widening
Simon et al. (2002a, b) Conference Proceedings James Creek, MS Determine in-stream sediment Combined models can be used to
load, sediment sources, and predict actual and reference
“reference” condition for sediment transport rates
sediment loads using CONCEPTS
and AnnAGNPSb
Thomas et al. (2002) Conference Proceedings Yalobusha River, MS Determine stream channel Thalweg profile and channel top
response to channelization width were in close agreement
within the river system to observed data and there was
some discrepancy between
observed and simulated deposited
bed sediment.
Simon et al. (2004) Project Report Shades Creek, AL Evaluate the effects of urbanization CONCEPTS could simulate a
KLAVON K. ET AL.

on stream channel erosion with reduction in bank erosion with

AnnAGNPS and CONCEPTS added bank protection and the
combined models could provide
adequate predictions of suspended
sediment loading for planning
purposes
Thames (2005) Masterˈs Thesis Beaver Creek, TN Conduct sensitivity analysis of CONCEPTS was not sensitive to
CONCEPTS and evaluate the τ c or kd c of the bed or ϕˈd and only
effect of urbanization on stream sensitive to cˈe approaching zero
channel bed sediment
Staley (2006) Conference Proceedings Stroubles Creek, VA Compare channel erosion CONCEPTS and GWLF under predicted
predictions from SWATf, GWLFg, the sediment load from channel
and CONCEPTS to field data erosion, SWAT significantly over
predicted channel erosion, and
CONCEPTS under predicted erosion
due to subaerial processes dominating
in the watershed and the modelˈs
inability to simulate subaerial processes
Yuan et al. (2006) Conference Proceedings James Creek, MS Combine AnnAGNPS and CONCEPTS
to determine sources and magnitudes

(Continues)

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)

 Table 4. (Continued)
Study
Carter (2007)
Langendoen (2007)
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wells et al. (2007)
Langendoen and
Alonso (2008)
Nieber et al. (2008)
Peterson et al. (2010)
Schwartz and Drumm (2010)
Ramirez-Avila et al. (2011)
Daly et al. (2013)
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
Publication type Location Purpose
of sediment loads in a watershed to
assist in the development of a TMDLh
Masterˈs Thesis Abrams Creek, TN Compare predictions of stability of a
stream reach using empirical and
analytical approaches
Conference Proceedings Goodwin Creek, MS Integrate CONCEPTS with REMMi
Journal Article Kalamazoo River, MI Investigate impact of dam removal
on sediment dynamics
Journal Article Flume study Validate CONCEPTS simulation
of stream flow hydraulics and
evolution of graded streams
Final Project Report Knife River, MN Determine sediment sources and
Submitted to Minnesota compare CONCEPTS and BEHIj
Pollution Control Agency
Conference Proceedings Mower County, MN Coupled CONCEPTS
with SWMMk to evaluate the
stability of a two stage drainage
ditch that conveys agricultural
drainage
Report to US Department New River, TN Use CONCEPTS along with
of Interior, Office of AnnAGNPS and fine sediment
Surface Mining sampling to develop a sediment
budget
l
and conduct a CHIA for surface
mining permitting
Conference Proceedings Yonaba Creek, MS Assess the performance of
CONCEPTS in simulating temporal
and spatial changes in streambanks
Conference Proceedings Barren Fork Creek, OK Evaluate CONCEPTS for use
in areas with composite streambanks
and perform a sensitivity analysis
on input parameters
Major findings
70–90% of sediment originated from
the erosion of unstable streambanks
with in the James Creek Watershed
Natural Channel Design and CONCEPTS
had high degrees of uncertainty due
to professional judgement of field data
collection and interpretation of output
Combined model simulated effects of
vegetation on pore water pressures
and there was a need for improved
groundwater model in CONCEPTS
Dam removal scenario predicted
twelve times the amount of sediment
compared to no dam removal
CONCEPTS accurately simulated bed
and water surface profiles and bed
grain size distributions
CONCEPTS over predicted bed erosion
when uncalibrated, CONCEPTS and
BEHI were in reasonable agreement,
and both models had great uncertainty
with respect to input data
CONCEPTS simulated greatest amount
of incision in the upstream reaches,
but did not simulate any bank
instabilities within the drainage
channel.
Combined models helped to identify
major sediment contributors and
understand the impact of BMPsm
on the watershed scale
CONCEPTS accurately predicted top
INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
bank retreat and the timing and
magnitude of streambank failures
Erodibility parameters could be
modified to represent sinuosity, ϕ’
was the most sensitive parameter,
and CONCEPTS could be used to
select stabilization sites and evaluate
various stabilization practices
(Continues)
207
 208

Table 4. (Continued)

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Study Publication type Location Purpose Major findings

Sutarto et al. (2014) Journal Article Clear Creek, IA Investigate bank heterogeneity and Bulk density, cohesion, internal angle
estimate bank retreat as a result of of friction, erodibility, and porosity
fluvial erosion, mass wasting, or varied in the vertical direction;
the combination of both processes heterogeneity must be accounted
for to accurately simulate bank stability;
and fluvial erosion was an important
factor in bank stability analysis.
a
CONservational Channel Erosion and Pollutant Transport System (CONCEPTS).
b
Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model (AnnAGNPS).
c
τ c and kd are erodibility parameters of the excess shear stress equation (Ariathurai and Arulanandan, 1978) of the soil.
d 0
ϕ is the effective angle of friction of the soil.
e
cˈ is the effective cohesion of the soil.
KLAVON K. ET AL.

f
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT).
g
Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF).
h
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
i
Riparian Ecosystems Management Model (REMM).
j
Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI).
k
Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).
l
Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHAI).
m
Best Management Practice (BMP).

Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)

 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
as developing total maximum daily loads, transitioning to a
model developed for stream-scale use may be more appropri-
ate than extrapolating BSTEM results. The USDA-ARS devel-
oped the CONCEPTS model, with bank erosion algorithms
similar to BSTEM, to be used as a tool to evaluate stream stabi-
lization techniques (Langendoen, 2000, 2011; Langendoen
and Alonso, 2008). CONCEPTS models bank stability and
fluvial erosion processes using the same routines as BSTEM,
but considers the entire cross-section and includes sediment
transport of the bed, allowing for vertical bed adjustment.
Additionally, CONCEPTS considers multiple cross-sections
and incorporates sediment transport processes between cross-
sections and is therefore more appropriate for predictions at a
larger scale. While BSTEM relies only on the stage of the water
in the channel, CONCEPTS simulates one-dimensional, un-
steady flow along the centerline of the channel using the Saint
Venant equations. A more detailed description of CONCEPTS is
available in previously published work (Langendoen, 2000;
Langendoen and Alonso, 2008).
CONCEPTS requires information on channel and floodplain
geometry, soil properties, soil layering, and channel and flood-
plain roughness for each cross-section as well as water and
sediment discharge information at the upstream boundary.
Streambank soil parameter inputs are the same as those used
in BSTEM and are also used to describe the bed sediment.
CONCEPTS can be integrated with a watershed model, such
as AnnAGNPS (Simon et al., 2002a; Thames, 2005; Yuan
et al., 2006; Schwartz and Drumm, 2010), SWMM (Peterson
et al., 2010), or SWAT to determine the water and sediment
discharge at the upstream boundary. CONCEPTS predicts
changes in cross-sectional geometry and bed elevation,
sediment discharge and yield, velocity, stage, factor of safety,
average τ, and bed sediment size (Langendoen, 2000).
CONCEPTS has been used in a variety of different applica-
tions (Table IV) including the evaluation of two-stage drainage
ditch design (Peterson et al., 2010), investigation of the impact
of dam removal on sediment transport rates (Wells et al., 2007),
determining the response of a stream to channelization
(Thomas et al., 2002), and evaluating the effectiveness of stabi-
lization practices (Langendoen and Simon, 2000; Langendoen,
2007; Daly et al., 2013).
Studies have also shown CONCEPTS to accurately predict
streambank retreat and flow hydraulics. Langendoen et al.
(1999) determined that CONCEPTS accurately predicted timing
and geometry of failure. Ramirez-Avila et al. (2011) also
showed that CONCEPTS predicted top bank retreat and the
time and magnitude of streambank failures that were observed
from field data. Thomas et al. (2002) determined that CON-
CEPTS accurately predicted hydraulics parameter and erosion
and deposition patterns without calibration. General rates and
trends of morphological changes were also correctly simulated.
In some cases CONCEPTS does not agree with measured re-
sults, which highlights an area where future work is needed
(Staley, 2006).
As an alternative solution to CONCEPTS, Gibson et al.
(2015) recently integrated BSTEM 5.4 with HEC-RAS 5.0, and
showed that the two models were able to appropriately predict
observed cross-sections over a long-term simulation. This code
offers several advantages over CONCEPTS, as it is a common
tool used in engineering with several online support forums
and includes greater modeling capabilities, such as multi-
reaches and hydraulic structures modeling.
As with any hydraulic model, it is important to consider the
limitations of the model. For instance, CONCEPTS and HEC-
RAS were designed to model straight channels or channels
with low sinuosity and should be used with caution in highly
sinuous channels. CONCEPTS does not simulate subaerial
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
209
processes and may under predict erosion in parts of the water-
shed where subaerial processes dominate (Langendoen,
2000). The authors suggest keeping the limitations of single
cross-section models for uses in determining the sediment
transport dynamics and bank erosion rates on a stream net-
work scale.
Recently, the BSTEM/CONCEPTS suite of bank erosion algo-
rithms have also been implemented in the two-dimensional,
depth-averaged computer models of river morphodynamics:
RVR Meander (Motta et al., 2012, 2014), SRH-2D (Lai et al.,
2015), and TELEMAC (Langendoen et al., 2016). Two-
dimensional models can more accurately simulate the applied
τ acting on streambanks and at higher spatial resolution. Impor-
tantly, unlike one-dimensional models, two-dimensional
models can simulate the interactions between laterally-varying
bed morphodynamics (such as bar dynamics) and bank ero-
sion. Such improvements in quantifying the applied forces act-
ing on streambanks necessitates improved measuring
techniques to characterize the spatial distribution and magni-
tude of bank-material resistance-to-erosion properties.
Conclusions
BSTEM in its current form is one of the most robust, compre-
hensively studied, and widely used process-based models
available for predicting streambank erosion and failure, but still
has several areas that need to be addressed so that the model
can be even more broadly applicable and accessible to a wider
range of users. Major technical issues that need to be addressed
include accounting for spatial and temporal variability in geo-
technical failure and fluvial erodibility parameters, incorporat-
ing subaerial and other site specific processes into the model,
and accounting for the effect of riparian vegetation and roots
on bank shear stress distributions and erodibility parameters. Is-
sues to address that affect BSTEM usability and inclusion in
stream stability practice include decreasing run-time for long-
term modeling, incorporating and parametrizing a larger suite
of both in-stream and streambank practices, and confirming
the preliminary results of integrated multi-dimensional models.
Several streambank erosion and failure studies have been com-
pleted using BSTEM, ranging from specifically bank stability
modeling to evaluating several factors that influence erosion
and failure such as the vegetation, pore-water pressures, seep-
age, and streambank stabilization practices. In recent years
the model has been integrated with multi-dimensional flow
and sediment transport models to address some of the major is-
sues associated with the one-dimensional nature of the model.
Two-dimensional hydraulic models combined with BSTEM
show promise in addressing some of the one-dimensional re-
lated problems within BSTEM, such as determining shear stress
distributions due to sinuosity and vegetation. The model in de-
sign is limited to the site scale and extrapolating site-specific re-
sults to larger scales introduces uncertainty. When larger scale
predictions are desired, models that incorporate sediment
transport mechanisms such as CONCEPTS may be preferred.
Acknowledgements—The authors acknowledge the financial support
of the Buchanan Family Trust through the Buchanan Endowed Chair
and the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station at Oklahoma State
University. This project was also supported by National Integrated Wa-
ter Quality Program Project Grant No. 2013-51130-21484 from the
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The authors acknowl-
edge the USDA-ARS Grazingslands Research Laboratory for providing
flow input data for the BSTEM simulations in the Fort Cobb reservoir.
The authors acknowledge Amanda Fox for reviewing an earlier version
of this manuscript and two anonymous reviewers.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
210 KLAVON K. ET AL.
References
Al-Madhhachi AT, Hanson GJ, Fox GA, Tyagi AK, Bulut R. 2013a. Mea-
suring soil erodibility using a laboratory “mini” JET. Transactions of
the ASABE 56(3): 901–910.
Al-Madhhachi AT, Hanson GJ, Fox GA, Tyagi AK, Bulut R. 2013b. De-
riving parameters of a fundamental detachment model for cohesive
soils from flume and jet erosion tests. Transactions of the ASABE
56(2): 489–504.
Ariathurai R, Arulanandan K. 1978. Erosion rates of cohesive soils. Jour-
nal of the Hydraulics Division 104(HY2): 279–283.
Bai S, Lung WS. 2005. Modeling sediment impact on the transport of
fecal bacteria. Water Research 39(20): 5232–5240.
Bechtum TM. 2012. Automation and further development of the bore-
hole shear test. Masterˈs thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Blaisdell FW, Clayton LA, Hebaus CG. 1981. Ultimate dimension of lo-
cal scour. Journal of the Hydraulics Division – ASCE 107(3): 327–337.
Briaud J, Ting F, Chen H, Cao Y, Han S, Kwak K. 2001. Erosion function
apparatus for scour rate predictions. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(2): 105–113. DOI:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:2(105).
Cancienne RM, Fox GA, Simon A. 2008. Influence of seepage under-
cutting on the stability of root-reinforced streambanks. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 33(11): 1769–1786. DOI:10.1002/
esp.1657.
Carter DL. 2007. Stream Restoration Assessment of Abrams Creek in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park: Management Implications
and Comparison of Empirical and Analytical Physical Assessment Ap-
proaches, Masterˈs Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Chow VT. 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Chu-Agor ML, Fox GA, Wilson GV. 2009. Empirical sediment transport
function predicting seepage erosion undercutting for cohesive bank
failure prediction. Journal of Hydrology 377: 155–164.
DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.020.
Clark LA, Wynn TM. 2007. Methods for determining streambank criti-
cal shear stress and soil erodibility: implications for erosion rate pre-
dictions. Transactions of the ASABE 50(1): 95–106.
Clark EH, Haverkamp JA, Chapman W. 1985. Eroding Soils: The Off-
farm Impacts. Conservation Foundation: Washington, DC; 252 pp.
Coulthard TJ, Van De Wiel MJ. 2012. Modelling river history and evo-
lution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370(1966):
2123–2142.
Criswell DT, Al-Madhhachi AT, Fox GA, Miller RB. 2016. Deriving
erodibility parameters of a mechanistic detachment model for
gravels. Transactions of the ASABE 59(1): 145–151. DOI:10.13031/
trans.59.11490.
Crosato A. 2007. Effects of smoothing and regridding in numerical me-
ander migration models. Water Resources Research. DOI:10.1029/
2006WR005087.
Curran JC, Hession WC. 2013. Vegetative impacts on hydraulics and
sediment processes across the fluvial system. Journal of Hydrology
505: 364–376. DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.10.013.
Daly ER, Fox GA, Enlow HK, Storm DE, Hunt SL. 2015a. Site-scale var-
iability of streambank fluvial erodibility parameters as measured with
a jet erosion test. Hydrological Processes 29(26): 5451–5464.
DOI:10.1002/hyp.10547.
Daly ER, Fox GA, Al-Madhhachi AST, Storm DE. 2015b. Variability of
fluvial erodibility parameters for streambanks on a watershed scale.
Geomorphology 231: 281–291.
Daly ER, Miller RB, Fox GA. 2015c. Modeling streambank erosion and
failure along protected and unprotected composite streambanks. Ad-
vances in Water Resources 81: 114–127. DOI:10.1016/j.
advwatres.2015.01.004.
Daly ER, Fox GA, Fox AK. 2016. Correlating erodibility parameters
from jet erosion tests to soil physical properties at a site scale.
Transactions of the ASABE 59(1): 115–128. DOI:10.13031/
trans.59.11309.
Daly ER, Storm DE, Fox GA, Langendoen EJ. 2013. Evaluation of the
Conservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport System
(CONCEPTS) Applied to Composite Streambanks in the Ozark High-
lands Ecoregion, Paper 131620552, 2013 ASABE Annual Interna-
tional Meeting, St Joseph, MI. DOI. 10.13031/aim.20131620552
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Darby SE, Alabyan AM, Van de Wiel MJ. 2002. Numerical simulation of
bank erosion and channel migration in meandering rivers. Water
Resources Research 38(9): 1163. DOI:10.1029/2001WR000602.
Darby SE, Gessler D, Thorne CR. 2000. Computer program for stability
analysis of steep, cohesive riverbanks. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 25: 175–190.
Darby SE, Thorne CR. 1996. Stability analysis for steep, eroding, cohe-
sive riverbanks. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122: 443–454.
Darby SE, Trieu HQ, Carling PA, Sarkkula J, Koponen J, Kummu M,
Conlan I, Leyland J. 2010. A physically based model to predict hy-
draulic erosion of fine-grained riverbanks: The role of form roughness
in limiting erosion. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: F04003.
DOI:10.1029/2010JF001708.
Demartinecourt JP, Bauer GE. 1983. The modified borehole shear de-
vice. Geotechnical Testing Journal 6(1): 24–29.
Driels MR, Shin YS. 2004. Determining the Number of Iterations for
Monte Carlo Simulations of Weapon Effectiveness. No. NPS-MAE-
04-005. Naval Postgraduate School, Department of Mechanical
and Astronautical Engineering: Monterey, CA.
Dunn WL, Shultis JK. 2011. Exploring Monte Carlo Methods. Elsevier:
Amsterdam.
Einstein HA. 1942. Formulas for the transportation of bed-load. Trans-
actions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 107: 561–597.
El Kadi Abderrezzak K, Moran AD, Mosselman E, Bouchard J-P,
Haberscak H, Aelbrecht D. 2014. A physical, movable-bed model
for non-uniform sediment transport, fluvial erosion, and bank failure
in rivers. Journal of Hyro-Environment Research 8(2): 95–114.
Fox GA, Sheshukov A, Cruse R, Kolar RL, Guertault L, Gesch KR,
Dutnell RC. 2016a. Reservoir sedimentation and upstream sediment
sources: Perspectives and future research needs on streambank and
gully erosion. Environmental Management 57(5): 945–955.
DOI:10.1007/s00267-016-0671-9.
Fox GA, Purvis RA, Penn CJ. 2016b. Streambanks: a net source of sed-
iment and phosphorus to streams and rivers. Journal of Environmental
Management 181: 602–614. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.071.
Fox GA, Wilson GV. 2010. The role of subsurface flow in hillslope and
stream bank erosion: a review. Soil Science Society of America Jour-
nal 74(3): 717–733. DOI:10.2136/sssaj2009.0319.
Fox GA, Wilson GV, Simon A, Langendoen E, Akay O, Fuchs JW. 2007.
Measuring streambank erosion due to ground water seepage: corre-
lation to bank pore water pressure, precipitation, and stream stage.
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32(10): 1558–1573.
DOI:10.1002/esp.1490.
Fredlund DG, Morgenstern NR, Widger RA. 1978. The shear strength of
unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15(3): 313–321.
Gallage C, Uchimura T. 2015. Direst shear testing on unsaturated silty
soils to investigate the effects of drying and wetting on shear strength
parameters at low suction. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 142(3) 04015081-1–04015081-9.
DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.000141.
Ghaneeized SM, Atkinson JF, Benett SJ. 2015. Effect of flow confine-
ment on the hydrodynamics of circular impinging jets: implications
for erosion assessment. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 15(1):
1–25.
Gibson S, Simon A, Langendoen E, Bankhead N, Shelley J. 2015. A
physically-based channel-modeling framework integrating HEC-
RAS sediment transport capabilities and the USDA-ARS bank-
stability and toe-erosion model (BSTEM). Paper presented at the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, SedHyd Proceedings.
Grissinger EH, Murphey JB. 1982. Present ‘problem’ of stream channel
instability in the bluff area of northern Mississippi. Journal of the
Mississippi Academy of Sciences 27: 117–128.
Hackney C, Best J, Leyland J, Darby SE, Parsons D, Aalto R, Nicholas A.
2015. Modulation of outer bank erosion by slump blocks:
disentangling the protective and destructive role of failed material
on the three-dimensional flow structure. Geophysical Research Let-
ters. DOI:10.1002/2015GL066481.
Handy Geotechnical Instruments. 2013. Borehole Shear™ Test Instruc-
tions: Revised January 2013. Handy Geotechnical Instruments:
Madrid, IA.
Handy RL. 1986. Borehole shear test and slope stability. Proceedings of
In Situ 1986: ASCE Specialty Conference on Use of In-Situ Tests
Geotechnical Engineering, June 23–25. Blacksburg, VA; 161–175.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
Handy RL, Schmertmann JH, Lutenegger AJ. 1985. Borehole shear tests
in a shallow marine environment. In Strength Testing of Marine
Sediments: Laboratory and In Situ Measurements. ASTM Special
Technical Publication 883ASTM Publications: West Conshohocken,
PA; 140–153.
Handy RL, Fox NS. 1967. A soil bore-hole direct-shear test device.
Highway Research News 27: 42–51.
Hanson GJ. 1990. Surface erodibility of earthen channels at high
stresses part I – open channel testing. Transactions of the ASAE
33(1): 127–131.
Hanson GJ, Cook K. 2004. Apparatus, test procedures, and analytical
methods to measure soil erodibility in situ. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture 20(4): 455–462.
Hanson GJ, Simon A. 2001. Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess
area of the midwestern USA. Hydrological Processes 15(1): 23–38.
Heeren DM, Mittelstet AR, Fox GA, Storm DE, Al-Madhhachi AT,
Midgley TL, Stringer AF, Stunkel KB, Tejral RD. 2012. Using rapid
geomorphic assessments to assess streambank stability in Oklahoma
Ozark streams. Transactions of the ASABE 55(3): 957–968.
Heinley KN. 2010. Stability of Streambanks Subjected to Highly Vari-
able Streamflows: The Osage River Downstream of Bagnell Dam,
Masterˈs Thesis, Paper 5022. Missouri University of Science and
Technology, Rolla, MO.
James CS, Birkhead AL, Jordanova AA, OˈSullivan JJ. 2004. Flow resis-
tance of emergent vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic Research 42(4):
390–398.
Julian JP, Torres R. 2006. Hydraulic erosion of cohesive riverbanks.
Geomorphology 76(1–2): 193–206. DOI:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2005.11.003.
Kamphuis JW, Hall KR. 1983. Cohesive material erosion by unidirec-
tional current. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 109(1): 49–61.
Karmaker T, Dutta S. 2011. Erodibility of fine soil from the composite
river bank of Brahmaputra in India. Hydrological Processes 25:
104–111.
Karmaker T, Dutta S. 2015. Stochastic erosion of composite banks in al-
luvial river bends. Hydrological Processes 29: 1324–1339.
DOI:10.1002/hyp.10266.
Kean JW, Smith JD. 2004. Flow and boundary shear stress in channels
with woody bank vegetation. In Riparian Vegetation and Fluvial Geo-
morphology, Bennett SJ, Simon A (eds). American Geophysical
Union: Washington, DC; 237–252.
Kean JW, Smith JD. 2006. Form drag in rivers due to small-scale natural
topographic features: 1. Regular sequences. Journal of Geophysical
Research 111: F04009. DOI:10.1029/2006JF000467.
Khanal A, Fox GA, Al-Madhhachi AT. 2016a. Variability of erodibility
parameters from laboratory mini jet erosion tests. Journal of Hydro-
logic Engineering 21(10): 04016030. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-
5548.0001404.
Khanal A, Klavon KR, Fox GA, Daly ER. 2016b. Comparison of linear
and nonlinear models for cohesive sediment detachment: Rill ero-
sion, hole erosion test, and streambank erosion studies. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 142(9): 04016026. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0001147.
Kheiralla KM, Siddeg AS. 2015. Control over river bank erosion: a case
study of Ganetti Station, Northern States, Sudan. Journal of Earth Sci-
ence & Climatic Change 6: 287. DOI:10.4172/2157-7617.1000287.
Khodashenas SR, El Kadi Abderrezzak K, Paquier A. 2008. Boundary
shear stress in open channel flow: a comparison among six methods.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 46(5): 598–609.
Klavon KR. 2016. Advances in Modeling Cohesive Sediment Detach-
ment and a Process-Based Method for Stream Restoration to Deter-
mine Sediment Loads, Masterˈs Thesis. Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK.
Konsoer KM, Rhoads BL, Langendoen EJ, Best JL, Ursic ME, Abad JD,
Garcia MH. 2016. Spatial variability in bank resistance to erosion
on a large meandering, mixed bedrock-alluvial river. Geomorphol-
ogy 252: 80–97. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.08.002.
Lai YG, Thomas RE, Ozeren Y, Simon A, Greimann BP, Wu KW. 2015.
Modeling of multilayer cohesive bank erosion with a coupled bank
stability and mobile-bed model. Geomorphology 243: 116–129.
DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.07.017.
Langendoen EJ. 2000. CONCEPTS – CONservational Channel Evolu-
tion and Pollutant Transport System version 1.0, Research Report
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
211
No. 16. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, National Sedimentation Laboratory: Oxford, MS. https://
www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/60600505/TechnicalReports/
NSLTechnicalReport16.pdf [9 May 2016].
Langendoen EJ. 2007. CONCEPTS: A process-based computer model
of instream and riparian processes. Proceedings, World Environmen-
tal and Water Resource Congress 2006. DOI. 10.1061/
40856(200)328
Langendoen EJ. 2011. Application of the CONCEPTS channel
evolution model in stream restoration strategies. In Stream
Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems, Simon A, Bennett SJ,
Castro JM (eds). American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC;
487–502.
Langendoen EJ, Alonso CV. 2008. Modeling the evolution of incised
streams: I. Model formulation and validation of flow and streambed
evolution components. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 134(6):
749–762.
Langendoen EJ, Mendoza A, Abad JD, Tassi P, Wang D, Ata R, El Kadi
AK, Hervouet J-M. 2016. Improved numerical modeling of
morphodynamics of rivers with steep banks. Advances in Water Re-
sources 93(Part A): 4–14.
Langendoen EJ, Simon A. 2000. Stream Channel Evolution of Little
Salt Creek and North Branch West Papillion Creek, Eastern Ne-
braska, Report of USDA Agricultural Research Service. National
Sedimentation Laboratory: Oxford, MS. http://www.ars.usda.gov/
SP2UserFiles/Place/60600505/AGNPS/Concepts/Doc/Nebraska.pdf
[9 May 2016].
Langendoen EJ, Simon A. 2008. Modeling the evolution of incised
streams. II: Streambank erosion. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering –
ASCE 134(7): 905–915. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)
134:7(905).
Langendoen EJ, Simon A. 2009. Closure to ‘Modeling the Evolution of
Incised Streams. II: Streambank Erosion’ by Eddy J. Langendoen
and Andrew Simon. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering – ASCE
135(12): 1107–1108.
Langendoen EJ, Simon A, Curini A, Alonso CV. 1999. Field validation of
an improved process-based model for streambank stability analysis.
Proceedings of the 1999 International Water Resources Engineering
Conference, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Langendoen EJ, Zegeye AD, Tebebu TY, Steenhuis TS, Ayele GK,
Tilahun SA, Ayana EK. 2014. Using computer models to design gully
erosion control structures for humid northern Ethiopia. Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Hydroscience Engineering,
September 28–October 2, Hamburg; 1137–1145.
Lindow N, Fox GA, Evans RO. 2009. Seepage erosion in layered stream
bank material. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 34(12):
1693–1701. DOI:10.1002/esp.1874.
Lohnes RA, Handy RL. 1968. Slope angles in friable loess. Journal of
Geology 76(3): 247–258.
López F, García M. 1998. Open-channel flow through simulated vege-
tation: suspended sediment transport modeling. Water Resources Re-
search 34(9): 2341–2352. DOI:10.1029/98WR01922.
Lu N, Likos WJ. 2004. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ; 556 pp.
Lutenegger AJ. 1987. Suggested method for performing the borehole
shear test. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM 10(1): 19–25.
Lutenegger AJ, Hallberg GR. 1981. Borehole shear test in geotechnical
investigations. Laboratory Shear Strength of Soil: ASTM Special Tech-
nical Publication 740. R. N. Young and F. C. Townsend, Eds.
566–578.
Lutenegger AJ, Tierney KF. 1986. Pore pressure effects in borehole shear
testing. In-situ 1986. In Proceedings of ASCE Special Conference on
the Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Clemence SP
(ed) , Geotechnical Special Publication 6. ASCE: Blacksburg, VA;
752–764.
McNeil J, Taylor C, Lick W. 1996. Measurements of erosion of undis-
turbed bottom sediments with depth. Journal of Hydraulic Engineer-
ing 122(6): 316–324. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1996)
122:6(316).
Midgley TL, Fox GA, Heeren DM. 2012. Evaluation of the bank stability
and toe erosion model (BSTEM) for predicting lateral retreat on com-
posite streambanks. Geomorphology 145: 107–114. DOI:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2011.12.044.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
212 KLAVON K. ET AL.
Midgley TL, Fox GA, Wilson GV, Heeren DM, Langendoen E, Simon A.
2013. Seepage-induced streambank erosion and instability: In situ
constant-head experiments. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
18(10): 1200–1210. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000685.
Millar RG. 2000. Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel pat-
terns. Water Resources Research 36(4): 1109–1118.
Miller GA, Azad S, Haskell CE. 1998. Iowa borehole shear testing in
unsaturated soil. Geotechnical site characterization. Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Site Characterization, Robertson
PK, Wayne PW (eds), 19–22 April, Atlanta, GA; 1321–1326.
Miller GA, Khoury CN. 2012. Observations from borehole shear testing
in unsaturated soil. Proceedings of the Second European Conference
on Unsaturated Soils, Mancuso C, DˈOnza F, Jommi C (eds), June,
Naples; 113–122.
Miller RB, Fox GA, Penn C, Wilson S, Parnell A, Purvis RA, Criswell K.
2014. Estimating sediment and phosphorus loads from streambanks
with and without riparian protection. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment 189: 70–81. DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.016.
Minitab. 2009. Minitab Statistical Software. Version 16. Minitab Inc.:
State College, PA.
Moore WL, Masch FD, Jr. 1962. Experiments on the scour resistance of
cohesive sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research 67(4):
1437–1446. DOI:10.1029/jZ067i004p01437.
Motta D, Abad JD, Langendoen EJ, Garcia MH. 2012. A simplified 2D
model for meander migration with physically-based bank evolution.
Geomorphology 163–164: 10–25.
Motta D, Langendoen EJ, Abad JD, García MH. 2014. Modification of
meander migration by bank failures. Journal of Geophysical Re-
search: Earth Surface 119(5): 1026–1042.
Naot D, Nezu I, Nakagawa H. 1996. Hydrodynamic behavior of partly
vegetated open channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122(11):
625–633.
Nardi L, Campo L, Rinaldi M. 2013. Quantification of riverbank erosion
and application in risk analysis. Natural Hazards 69: 869–887.
DOI:10.1007/s11069-013-0741-8.
Newton SE, Drenten DM. 2015. Modifying the Bank Erosion Hazard In-
dex (BEHI) protocol for rapid assessment of streambank erosion in
northeaster Ohio. Journal of Visualized Experiments 96: e52330.
DOI:10.3791/52330.
Nieber JL, Wilson BN, Ulrich JS, Hansen BJ, Canelon DJ. 2008. Assess-
ment of Streambank and Bluff Erosion in the Knife River Watershed,
Final Report. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, University of Min-
nesota: St Paul, MN.
Osman MA, Thorne CR. 1988. Riverbank stability analysis: I. Theory.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 114: 134–150. DOI:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(1988)114:2(134).
Papanicolaou AN, Elhakeem M, Hilldale RC. 2007. Secondary current
effects on cohesive river bank erosion. Water Resources Research
43(12): W12418.
Parker C, Simon A, Thorne CR. 2008. The effects of variability in bank
material properties on riverbank stability: Goodwin Creek, Missis-
sippi. Geomorphology 101(4): 533–543. DOI:10.1016/j.
geomorph.2008.02.007.
Parker G, Shimizu Y, Wilkerson GV, Eke EC, Abad JD, Lauer JW, Paola
C, Dietrich WE, Voller VR. 2011. A new framework for modeling the
migration of meandering rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Land-
forms 36(1): 70–86.
Peterson JR, Wilson BN, Kramer G. 2010. Two-stage ditch assessment
using the CONCEPTS model. Proceedings, American Society of Agri-
cultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2010.
ASABE: St Joseph, MI.
Piégay H, Darby SE, Mosselman E, Surian N. 2005. A review of tech-
niques available for delimiting the erodible river corridor: a sustain-
able approach to managing bank erosion. River Research and
Applications 21(7): 773–789.
Pollen N, Simon A. 2005. Estimating the mechanical effects of riparian
vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber bundle model. Water
Resources Research 41(7): 11. DOI:10.1029/2004wr003801.
Pollen-Bankhead N, Simon A. 2009. Enhanced application of root-
reinforcement algorithms for bank-stability modeling. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 34(4): 471–480. DOI:10.1002/esp.1690.
Pollen-Bankhead N, Simon A. 2010. Hydrologic and hydraulic effects
of riparian root networks on streambank stability: is mechanical
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
root-reinforcement the whole story? Geomorphology 116(3–4):
353–362. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.11.013.
Polvi LE, Wohl E, Merritt DM. 2014. Modeling the functional influence
of vegetation type on streambank cohesion. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 39(9): 1245–1258. DOI:10.1002/esp.3577.
Posner AJ, Duan JG. 2012. Simulating river meandering processes using
stochastic bank erosion coefficient. Geomorphology 163–164:
26–36.
Ramirez-Avila JJ, McAnally WH, Langendoen EJ, Achury SLO, Martin
JL. 2011. The role of streambank erosion contributions to sediment
loads in the Town Creek Watershed in Mississippi. In International
Symposium on Erosion and Landscape Evolution (ISELE), 18–21 Sep-
tember 2011, Anchorage, Alaska. American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers: St Joseph, MI.
Rinaldi M, Casagli N. 1999. Stability of streambanks formed in partially
saturated soils and effects of negative pore water pressures: the Sieve
River (Italy). Geomorphology 26(4): 253–277.
Rinaldi M, Casagli N, Dapporto S, Gargini A. 2004. Monitoring and
modelling of pore water pressure changes and riverbank stability
during flow events. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29:
237–254.
Rinaldi M, Darby SE. 2007. Modelling of river-bank-erosion processes
and mass failure mechanisms: progress towards fully coupled simula-
tions. Developments in Earth Surface Processes 11: 213–239.
Rinaldi M, Nardi L. 2013. Modeling interactions between riverbank hy-
drology and mass failures. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 18(10):
1231–1240. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)he.1943-5584.0000716.
Rosgen DL. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology
Inc.: Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A practical method of computing streambank ero-
sion rate. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimenta-
tion Conference, March 25–29, Reno, NV; Vol. 2: 9–15.
Rousselot P. 2009. Discussion of ‘Modeling the evolution of incised
streams. II: Streambank erosion’ by Eddy J. Langendoen and Andrew
Simon. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering – ASCE 135(12):
1107–1107.
Schoneboom T, Aberle J, Dittrich A. 2010. Hydraulic resistance of veg-
etated flows: contribution of bed shear stress and vegetative drag to
total hydraulic resistance. Proceedings, International Conference on
Fluvial Hydraulics (River Flow 2010), 8–10 September,
Braunschweig.
Schumm SA, Lichty RW. 1963. Channel Widening and Flood-plain
Construction along Cimarron River in Southwestern Kansas, US Geo-
logical Survey Professional Paper 352–D. USGS: Reston, VA.
Schwartz JS, Drumm EC. 2010. Method Development for Watershed
Sediment Budgets to Support the CHIA/PHC Process: A Focus on Sed-
iment Modeling for Estimating Sediment Loads, Final Report. US De-
partment of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Appalachian Region,
Knoxville Field Office: Knoxville, TN. http://www.osmre.gov/pro-
grams/TDT/appliedScience/2007UT-SchwartzWatershedFR.pdf [9
May 2016].
Simon A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial
channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14(1): 11–26.
Simon A, Bingner RL, Langendoen EJ, Alonso CV. 2002a. Actual and
Reference Sediment Yields for the James Creek Watershed, Missis-
sippi, National Sedimentation Laboratory Research Report 31. Na-
tional Sedimentation Laboratory: Oxford, MS; 185 pp.
Simon A, Collison AJC. 2002. Quantifying the mechanical and hydro-
logic effects of riparian vegetation on streambank stability. Earth Sur-
face Processes and Landforms 27(5): 527–546. DOI:10.1002/
esp.325.
Simon A, Curini A, Darby SE, Langendoen EJ. 2000. Bank and near-
bank processes in an incised channel. Geomorphology 35(3–4):
193–217. DOI:10.1016/s0169-555x(00)00036-2.
Simon A, Downs PW. 1995. An interdisciplinary approach to evalua-
tion of potential instability in alluvial channels. Geomorphology
12(3): 215–232.
Simon A, Klimetz L. 2008. Magnitude, frequency, and duration rela-
tions for suspended sediment in stable (“reference”) southeastern
streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
44(5): 1270–1283.
Simon A, Langendoen EJ, Bingner R, Wells R, Yuan Y, Alonso C. 2004.
Suspended-sediment transport and bed-material characteristics of
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)
 INSIGHTS ON THE BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)
Shades Creek, Alabama and Ecoregion 67: Developing water-quality
criteria for suspended and bed-material sediment. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Research Service, National Sedimentation Laboratory,
Technical Report 43, Oxford, MS.
Simon A, Pollen N, Langendoen E. 2006. Influence of two woody ripar-
ian species on critical conditions for streambank stability: Upper
Truckee River, California. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 42: 99–113. DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb03826.x.
Simon A, Pollen-Bankhead N, Mahacek V, Langendoen E. 2009. Quan-
tifying reductions of mass-failure frequency and sediment loadings
from streambanks using toe protection and other means: Lake Tahoe,
United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
45(1): 170–186. DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00268.x.
Simon A, Pollen-Bankhead N, Thomas RE. 2011. Development and ap-
plication of a deterministic bank stability and toe erosion model for
stream restoration. In Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems,
Simon A, Bennett SJ, Castro JM (eds). American Geophysical Union:
Washington, DC. DOI. 10.1029/2010GM001006
Simon A, Rinaldi M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel
evolution: the roles of excess transport capacity and boundary mate-
rials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79(3): 361–383.
Simon A, Thomas RE. 2002. Processes and forms of an unstable alluvial
system with resistant, cohesive streambeds. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms 27(7): 699–718. DOI:10.1002/esp.347.
Simon A, Thomas RE, Curini A, Shields FD. 2002b. Case study: channel
stability of the Missouri River, eastern Montana. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering – ASCE 128(10): 880–890. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(2002)128:10(880).
Simon A, Thomas RE, Klimetz L. 2010. Comparison and experiences
with field techniques to measure critical shear stress and erodibility
of cohesive deposits. Proceedings, 2nd Joint Federal Interagency
Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Staley NA. 2006. Modeling Channel Erosion at the Watershed Scale: A
Comparison of GWLF, SWAT, and AGNPS/CONCEPTS, Paper num-
ber 062016, 2006 ASAE Annual Meeting. ASAE: St Joseph, MI.
Sutarto T, Papanicolaou AN, Wilson CG, Langendoen EJ. 2014. Stabil-
ity analysis of semicohesive streambanks with CONCEPTS: coupling
field and laboratory investigations to quantify the onset of fluvial ero-
sion and mass failure. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering.
DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000899.
Thames BA. 2005. The Effects of Urbanization on the Streambed Sedi-
ment Characteristics in a Ridge and Valley Watershed, Masterˈs The-
sis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Thapa I. 2016. Study of Streambank Erosion Processes and Bank Stabil-
ity Condition of the Kodku River, Kathmandu Valley, Central Nepal,
MSc Thesis. Tribhuvan University, Institute of Science and Technol-
ogy, Nepal. DOI. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1639.2727
Thomas RE, Langendoen EJ, Bingner RL, Simon A. 2002. Channel re-
sponses and management strategies in disturbed channels: a numerical
simulation approach. Proceedings, 2002 Conference on Water
Resources Planning and Management, Roanoke, VA. ASCE: Reston, VA.
Thorne CR, Abt SR. 1993. Analysis of riverbank stability due to toe
scour and lateral erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
18(9): 835–843.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
213
Thorne CR, Tovey NK. 1981. Stability of composite river banks. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 6(5): 469–484.
Tolhurst TJ, Black KS, Shayler SA. 1999. Measuring the in situ erosion
shear strength of intertidal sediments with the Cohesive Strength Me-
ter (CSM). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49(2): 281–294.
DOI:10.1006/ecss.1999.0512.
Triplett LD, Engstrom DR, Edlund MB. 2009. A whole-basin strati-
graphic record of sediment and phosphorus loading to the St. Croix
River, USA. Journal of Paleolimnology 41(4): 659–677.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Bank Stability
and Toe Erosion Model, v5.4, Model documentation. USDA-ARS:
Oxford, MS.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2015. Na-
tional Summary of State Information. https://ofmpup.epa.gov/wa-
ters10/attains_nation_cy.control#status_of_data [25 April 2016].
Van De Wiel MJ, Darby SE. 2004. Numerical modeling of bed topogra-
phy and bank erosion along tree-lined meandering. In Riparian Veg-
etation and Fluvial Geomorphology, Bennett SJ, Simon A (eds).
American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC; 267–282. DOI.
10.1029/008WSA19
Walling DE, Owens PN, Leeks GJ. 1998. The role of channel and flood-
plain storage in the suspended sediment budget of the River Ouse,
Yorkshire, UK. Geomorphology 22(3): 225–242.
Wan CF, Fell R. 2004. Laboratory test on the rate of piping erosion on
soils in embankment dams. Geotechnical Testing Journal 27(3):
295–303.
Wells RR, Langendoen EJ, Simon A. 2007. Modeling pre-and post-dam
removal sediment dynamics: the Kalamazoo River, Michigan.
JAWRA – Journal of the American Water Resources Association
43(3): 773–785.
Wilson BN. 1993a. Development of a fundamentally based detach-
ment model. Transactions of the ASAE 36(4): 1105–1114.
Wilson BN. 1993b. Evaluation of a fundamentally based detachment
model. Transactions of the ASAE 36(4): 1115–1122.
Wilson CA, Yagci O, Rauch HP, Stoesser T. 2006. Application of the
drag force approach to model the flow-interaction of natural vege-
tation. International Journal of River Basin Management 4(2):
137–146.
Wilson GV, Perketi RK, Fox GA, Dabney SM, Shields FD, Cullum RF.
2007. Soil properties controlling seepage erosion contributions to
streambank failure. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32(3):
447–459. DOI:10.1002/esp.1405.
Wynn TM, Mostaghimi S. 2006. The effects of vegetation and soil type
on streambank erosion, southwestern Virginia, USA. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 42(1): 69–82. DOI:10.1111/
j.1752-1688.2006.tb03824.x.
Wynn TM, Henderson MB, Vaughan DH. 2008. Changes in streambank
erodibility and critical shear stress due to subaerial processes along a
headwater stream, southwestern Virginia, USA. Geomorphology 97:
260–273. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.08.010.
Yuan Y, Bingner RL, Langendoen E, Wells R, Simon A, Alonso C. 2006.
Determination of Watershed Sediment Sources using USDA Water-
shed and Channel Models, Paper number 062048, 2006 ASAE An-
nual Meeting. ASAE: St Joseph, MI.
Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, Vol. 42, 191–213 (2017)