{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02232796486090776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0010980966325036604, 'mean_word_length': 4.658385093167702, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Discussion

In his response to our article, Dr. Dave Rosgen explores the possibilities for our low streambank erosion rates as compared with previous studies (Table 4). Dr. Rosgen reiterated the fact that half of the study period was conducted during dry years. With the given time frame and expiration of funding for the project, we could not choose to forego surveying during dry years and wait for bankfull years. We did, however, consider excluding these data from analysis. We found that we would not have enough data to produce meaningful correlations and so decided to include all available data. Dr. Rosgen also reiterated our suggestion of continuing data collection. Doing so will help refine the model. We agree that with enough points, relationships for flood, bankfull, and drought stages may be established separately. Another possibility considered for our lower streambank erosion rates is the lack of variety in channel characteristics. As stated in our article, the study sites were limited to riffles. The sites were located in existing monitoring reaches. Cross sections at these reaches are almost always located within riffle features. It was an oversight to not have included other features such as pools and runs during data collection. Hence, we suggested in the conclusion section to explore these features in future studies. It would be interesting to see whether having various features in the same model would weaken or strengthen the relationship between BEHI/NBS/streambank erosion, as suggested by Dr. Rosgen. If erosion rates are much less at riffles, one might think having a mixture of channel features would weaken the model while making results more broadly representative of these streams. Dr. Rosgen also suggested that we may have higher erosional rates if we are able to relocate the lost pins, or take them into consideration. If bank pins were lost, but not the top or toe pins, we still surveyed the site. Efforts were made to recover buried toe pins; we often carry a metal detector for this reason. We did take cross sections (at permanent cross-section pins), as suggested, if all other streambank erosion-related pins were gone. However, this was rarely done due to the lack of precision. Moreover, we did not resurvey the site if we did not feel comfortable replicating the same survey with less precision due to loss of pins. There were 10 sites that fell into this category. We appreciate Dr. Rosgen for taking the time to read our article and provide suggestions. We wholeheartedly agree with the need for additional data to sort out some of the ideas discussed such as various stages of flow, various channel features, and using bank-height ratio as a rapid alternative.