A06_Specs_LTPBR-Manual_Chptrs-1-3.pdf

D E S I G N M A N U A L

LOW-TECH

B Y J A S O N H . M C W R I G H T

PROCESS-BASED

RESTORATION

Riverscapes

OF

Edited by: Joseph M. Wheaton, Stephen N. Bennett, Nicolaas

Bouwes, Jeremy D. Maestas & Scott M. Shahverdian

RI

VE

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

UA

L

FRONT MATTER

LOW-TECH PROCESS-BASED

RESTORATION OF RIVERSCAPES

DESIGN MANUAL

March 2019 – Version 1.0

Edited by: Joseph M. Wheaton, Stephen N. Bennett, Nicolaas Bouwes, Jeremy D. Maestas & Scott M. Shahverdian

Contributions from: Stephen N. Bennett, Nicolaas Bouwes, Reid Camp, Christopher E. Jordan, William W.

Macfarlane, Jeremy D. Maestas, Elijah Portugal, Scott Shahverdian, Nicholas Weber & Joseph M. Wheaton

Utah State University Restoration Consortium, Department of Watershed Sciences, 5210 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-5210 http://restoration.usu.edu

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Funding:

This design manual was made possible with financial support from the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Working Lands for Wildlife through Pheasants Forever (USU Award: 201426), the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative through the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (USU Award: 130942, 150102, 200225, 200896), the Bureau of Land Management (USU Award: 201284), and Anabranch Solutions.

Recommended Citation:

Wheaton J.M., Bennett S.N., Bouwes, N., Maestas J.D. and Shahverdian S.M. (Editors). 2019. Low-Tech Process- Based Restoration of Riverscapes: Design Manual. Version 1.0. Utah State University Restoration Consortium. Logan, UT. Available at: http://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/manual

Contributor Information:

• Dr. Stephen N. Bennett, Adjunct Assistant Professor & Senior Research Scientist, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT; Principal Ecologist, Anabranch Solutions, Logan, UT; Ecologist, Eco Logical Research, Inc., Logan, UT

• Dr. Nicolaas Bouwes, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT; President, Eco Logical Research, Inc., Logan, UT; Principal Fish Ecologist, Anabranch Solutions, Logan, UT

• Reid Camp, Geomorphologist & Senior Biologist, Cramer Fish Sciences, Moscow, ID

• Dr. Christopher E. Jordan, Conservation Biologist, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA

• William W. MacFarlane, Senior Researcher & Lab Manager, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT; Spatial Ecologist, Anabranch Solutions, Logan, UT

• Jeremy D. Maestas, Ecologist, USDA-NRCS West National Technology Support Center, Portland, OR

• Elijah W. Portugal, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA

• Scott M. Shahverdian, Design Geomorphologist, Anabranch Solutions, Logan UT; Research Geomorphologist, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT

• Nicholas Weber, Designer and Fish Ecologist, Anabranch Solutions, Bend, OR; Fish Ecologist, Eco Logical Research, Inc.

• Dr. Joseph M. Wheaton, Associate Professor, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT; Principal Ecogeomorphologist, Anabranch Solutions, Logan, UT

Reviewers:

Timmie Mandish (USDA NRCS), Kent Sorenson (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources), Tyler Thompson (Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative), and Scott Nicolai (Yakama Nations Fisheries).

Graphical & Production Editor:

• Adrea Wheaton, Graphic Designer, Anabranch Solutions, Logan, UT

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

http://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/manual https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephen_Bennett8 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nick_Bouwes https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Reid_Camp https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Jordan3 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Macfarlane https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeremy_Maestas https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elijah_Portugal https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott_Shahverdian https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nick_Weber2 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Wheaton http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Background & Purpose

pp. 29 30 – 58

Chapter Two: Principles of Low-Tech Process-Based Restoration

pp. 30 59 – 88

Chapter Three: Planning for Low-Tech Process-Based Restoration

pp. 57 89 - 145

Chapter Four: Mimicking and Promoting Wood Accumulation & Beaver Dam Activity with Post-Assisted Log Structures & Beaver Dam Analogues

pp. 66 146 – 211

Chapter Five: Designing Low-Tech Restoration Projects

pp. 28 212 – 239

Chapter Six: Low-Tech Restoration Project Implementation

pp. 38 240 - 277

Chapter Seven: Call to Action, Additional Resources & Conclusions

pp. 7 278 - 284

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Stream and riverine landscapes or riverscapes are made up of a series of interconnected floodplain, groundwater, channel habitats, and their associated biotic communities that are maintained by physical and biological processes that vary across spatial and temporal scales (Ward, 1998). An over-arching goal of riverscape restoration and conservation is to improve the health of as many miles as possible, while ensuring those systems achieve and maintain their potential in self-sustaining ways. This design manual is intended to help the restoration community more efficiently maximize efforts to initiate self-sustaining recovery of degraded riverscapes at meaningful scales.

Structural-starvation of wood and beaver dams in riverscapes is one of the most common impairments affecting riverscape health. At a basic level, a riverscape starved of structure drains too quickly and efficiently, lacks connectivity with its floodplain and has simpler more homogenous habitat. By contrast, a riverscape system with an appropriate amount of structure provides obstructions to flow. What follows in the wake of structurally-forced hydraulic diversity are more complicated geomorphic processes that result in far more diverse habitat, resilience, and a rich suite of associated ecosystem services.

The purpose of this design manual is to provide restoration practitioners with guidelines for implementing a subset of low-tech tools—namely post-assisted log structures (PALS) and beaver dam analogues (BDAs)—for initiating process-based restoration in structurally-starved riverscapes. While the concept of process-based restoration in riverscapes has been advocated for at least two decades, details and specific examples on how to implement it remain sparse.

Here, we describe ‘low-tech process-based restoration’ as a practice of using simple, low unit-cost, structural additions (e.g., wood and beaver dams) to riverscapes to mimic functions and initiate specific processes. Hallmarks of this approach include:

• An explicit focus on the processes that a low-tech restoration intervention is meant to promote

• A conscious effort to use cost-effective, low-tech treatments (e.g., hand-built, natural materials, non-engineered, short-term design life-spans)

• ‘Letting the system do the work’, which defers critical decision making to riverscapes and nature’s ecosystem engineers

Importantly, the manual conveys underlying principles guiding use of low-tech tools in process-based restoration in systems impaired by insufficient structural complexity. Although intended to be simple, low-tech restoration still requires some basic understanding of watershed context, riverscape behavior and channel evolution, and careful planning. The manual provides interested practitioners with sufficient conceptual and applied information on planning, design, permitting, construction and adaptive management to get started, as well as references to additional information and resources. Detailed design and construction guidance is provided on two effective low-tech tools: 1) beaver dam analogues (BDAs) for mimicking beaver dam activity, and 2) post-assisted log structures (PALS) for mimicking wood accumulation in riverscapes. Throughout the manual, readers are reminded that the structures themselves are not the solution, but rather a means to initiate specific, desirable processes. Ultimately, embracing the design principles will help practitioners better understand the ‘why’ behind structural interventions and allow for more efficient and effective riverscape restoration.

“What if restoration was about stream power doing the work, not diesel power?”

— Jared McKee (USFWS)

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors and editors are indebted to many scientists and practitioners before us (see Chapter 1: Shahverdian et al., 2019). There are too many individuals not mentioned here specifically whom we owe gratitude to for their support, inspiration and collaboration. This includes many colleagues at Utah State University and the entire mix of the Wheaton Ecogeomorphology Topographic Analysis Lab’s past and present researchers, students and technicians. This design manual and the majority of the authorship team really grows out of two Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) efforts

– Asotin Creek, Washington and Bridge Creek, Oregon. There are at least 17 IMWs established across the Pacific Northwest in response to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed (Endangered Species Act) salmon and steelhead populations (Bennett et al., 2016). IMW projects are long-term (> 10 years), watershed-scale experiments with the purpose of i) testing if restoration is effective at increasing fish production (abundance, growth, and/or survival) and productivity (number of juveniles/female spawner), ii) determining the link(s) between physical or biological responses to restoration and changes in fish populations, and iii) extrapolating knowledge gained to other watersheds to help increase restoration effectiveness. This manual is, in part, a fulfillment of the third goal of IMWs – transferring the lessons learned about restoration of riverscapes from Asotin and Bridge IMWs into better, more effective restoration across a broad set of structurally-starved riverscapes.

Both the Bridge Creek and Asotin IMW projects focused on innovative, low-tech restoration methods of ‘how’ to restore habitat and understanding the processes that led to fish population responses. The Asotin IMW project in southeast Washington focused on restoring the processes of wood accumulation in a system starved of its natural wood loading rate, by using high-density large woody debris (HDLWD) and was primarily led by Stephen Bennett with help from Reid Camp, Joe Wheaton, Andrew Hill, Nicolaas Bouwes and an army of hard-working and talented construction and monitoring crews. The Asotin Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) began in 2008 and is a collaborative multi-agency initiative sponsored by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB). The majority of the IMW takes place on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and US Forest Service (USFS) land, and both agencies have supported the development and implementation of the project. We are particularly grateful for support from Steve Martin and John Foltz of the SRSRB, Bob Dice of the Blue Mountains Wildlife Management Area, Megan Stewart of the Asotin County Conservation District, the Koch and Thornton families, Ethan Crawford, Bruce Heiner and Mike Herr of WDFW, the Asotin County Public Utility Department, and Del Groat (now retired) and Billy Bowles of the USFS. Brad Johnson, of the Palouse Conservation District, deserves special mention for being an early adopter of PALS and instrumental in his efforts to promote low-tech restoration throughout southeast Washington. The Bridge Creek project in central Oregon focused on using beaver dam analogues (BDAs) to promote beaver dam activity, which would in turn accelerate recovery on an incised channel (Pollock et al., 2012; Pollock et al., 2014). The Bridge Creek IMW and was co-led by Chris Jordan, Nicolaas Bouwes and Michael Pollock with support from Nick Weber, Ian Tattam, Joe Wheaton, Carol Volk, Gus Wathan, Jake Wirtz, and many fantastic construction and monitoring crews, and many beaver. The broader motivation of the Bridge Creek project was to use those restoration treatments to produce a treatment effect large enough to produce a population level response in ESA-listed steelhead salmon, which Bouwes et al. (2016) were able to document (Goldfarb, 2018). Growing out of the Bridge Creek IMW, and in conjunction with the efforts by the Methow Beaver Project, Michael Pollock and Chris Jordan teamed up with a broader team to produce the Beaver Restoration Guidebooks (Pollock et al., 2015b; Pollock et al., 2018b), which have a more beaver-centric focus than this manual.

Our original attempt to develop this design manual emerged from concerted efforts to implement some low-tech process-based restoration demonstration projects (primarily focused on BDAs originally) in Utah beginning in 2014.

These efforts were in partnership with Kent Sorenson at the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and supported by the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative (USU Awards: 130942, 150102, 200225, 200896). The idea Kent pushed for was to provide some basic guidance on ‘how to’ do low-tech process-based restoration in streams in Utah through a mix of demonstration projects and some guidelines. In terms of a demonstration project, it took a few attempts to actually get projects on the ground. An initial effort in baseline monitoring, evaluation and design in Rich County was abandoned prior to construction after objections from neighbors due to misconceptions about beaver. A second start was a good project, with land owners that were happy to use beaver dam analogues and beaver to improve stream health and range health through sub-irrigation of valley bottoms, but understandably did not want to be in the ‘spotlight’ http://etal.joewheaton.org/ http://etal.joewheaton.org/

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

as the face of a demonstration project. Finally, in 2016 Utah State University began a partnership with the Tanner family and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). Jay and Diane Tanner were already very involved in upland watershed restoration efforts to improve habitat for sage grouse and overall range health. They were willing and wonderful partners. Together, we developed and implemented a trial stream restoration project to inform a greater demonstration project to show how low-tech stream restoration techniques can be used on actively managed grazing lands to benefit cattle, downstream water users, and stream and riparian condition. Using lessons learned from the trial project, a full-scale restoration plan treating approximately 6+ miles (10+ km) of stream along three creeks in the Grouse Creek watershed was developed (Shahverdian et al., 2017b). In April 2017, Anabranch Solutions LLC was contracted to develop and implement a restoration design plan based on the restoration proposal developed by Shahverdian et al. (2017b). Development of a detailed design plan and implementation took place between April and July 2017 (Shahverdian and Wheaton, 2017c). The Shahverdian et al. (2017b) restoration proposal and the Shahverdian and Wheaton (2017c) design advocated and relied on the future translocation of beaver into the Grouse Creek Watershed. Restoration treatments were specifically designed to promote the successful translocation of beaver in areas with high quality beaver habitat (Shahverdian and Wheaton, 2017b). In 2018, beaver were finally reintroduced to the Grouse Creek watershed, in accordance with the updated Utah Beaver Management Plan, and appear to be successfully recolonizing. We are grateful to ranchers and land owners like Jay Tanner, Diane Tanner, Jay Wilde, Rebecca Patton and many others across the Western states who have had the foresight to try out some innovative approaches to conservation like those discussed here. Their willingness to try out low-tech restoration approaches helped pave the way for others to follow in their footsteps, and is actively giving practitioners the confidence to try these low-tech approaches.

Starting in 2015, Elijah Portugal (formerly Utah State University and Anabranch Solutions; currently California Department of Fish & Wildlife) and Joe Wheaton (Utah State University) began an effort, funded by the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative (USU Awards: 130942, 150102, 200225, 200896), to put a design manual together. Much of the material from that effort is in this manual. Parallel to that, a separate process focused more narrowly on beaver restoration was led by Janine Castro, Michael Pollock, Chris Jordan, Kent Woodruff and Gregory Lewellan. Their effort culminated in a ‘Beaver Restoration Guidebook’, a version 1 that was published in 2015 (Pollock et al., 2015b) and a version 2 was published in 2018 (Pollock et al., 2018b). Some of the content of that guidebook came out of the abovementioned Bridge Creek collaboration (work with Pollock, Jordan, Bouwes, Weber and Wheaton), but it also provides critical background on beaver ecology (§1), and a range of beaver restoration and management considerations (§2) including beaver translocation (Woodruff and Pollock, 2015). A brief chapter on beaver dam analogues appears in Chapter 6 of both versions of the guidebook (Pollock et al., 2015a; Pollock et al., 2018a), which was co-authored by Nick Weber (a contributor to this manual). A ‘place-holder’ chapter on ‘Comparison of BDAs with Other, Similar Structures’ by Portugal and Pollock (2015) was in the first version of the guidebook. We are grateful to Kent Woodruff, Gregory Lewellan and Michael Pollock for many conversations and debates that have helped refine this manual. We are careful here not to duplicate that effort, but rather provide a complimentary resource that places beaver-assisted restoration and beaver-mimicry in a broader context.

One of the other visionaries behind this push for low-tech process-based restoration was Justin Jimenez at the Utah Bureau of Land Management. Justin was an early supporter and proponent of low-tech restoration and was the driving force behind getting demonstration projects going in Utah. For example, a desert river restoration led by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) on the San Rafael River (Laub et al., 2015;

Shahverdian et al., 2017a) was an excellent test of these techniques and the underlying principles in a new environment. These efforts extended to another joint demonstration project with BLM, the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative and UDWR on Birch Creek (Shahverdian and Wheaton, 2017a) and the extension of the Grouse Creek project from private to public lands.

The timing of the release of this manual and the expansion from an effort just focused on providing guidance on BDAs was delayed by the recognition that these approaches were part of a broader suite of low-tech restoration approaches beyond just beaver. Bill Zeedyk’s pioneering work on ‘induced-meandering’ and use of low-tech structures are excellent examples of low-tech process-based restoration (Maestas et al., 2018). The Zeedyk and Clothier (2009) book ‘Let the

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Water do the Work’ was an inspiration for this manual. We are grateful to the hundreds of willing participants of over 40 workshops and short-courses we have now taught on the topics covered in this design manual who acted as guinea pigs for different ways to convey the messages and technical material found in this manual. Their patience with different metaphors, different ways of teaching and explaining these concepts, and waiting for this manual was much appreciated. While some of the specific restoration actions we had been taking were clear enough (e.g., building post-assisted log structures (PALS), beaver dam analogues (BDAs) and moving beaver around), it took us a while to find the threads and narrative that weave together these related activities into a broader, coherent framework.

We are also grateful to several peer reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments that greatly improved the manual. These include Timmie Mandish (USDA NRCS), Kent Sorenson (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources), Tyler Thompson (Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative), and Scott Nicolai (Yakama Nations Fisheries).

Finally, this first release of this design manual is in thanks to the generous support of the USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service's Working Lands for Wildlife Initiative through Pheasants Forever (USU Award: 201426). As part of that effort through the Sage Grouse Initiative, we were able to deliver a series of workshops to NRCS conservationists and their partners throughout the west and produce this design manual. This series was envisioned by Jeremy Maestas (NRCS/SGI) and is possible thanks to partner matches by various local organizations and matching funds from Utah State University. This grew out of the successful 2016 Enhancing Mesic Habitat Resilience in Sagebrush Ecosystems Workshop at Utah State University (USU Award 200499). To everyone else who has helped along the way, we are grateful.

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=steldevb1027671 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=steldevb1027671 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/plantsanimals/fishwildlife/?cid=stelprdb1046975 https://www.pheasantsforever.org/ https://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/ http://beaver.joewheaton.org/2018---nrcs-pf-sgi.html http://beaver.joewheaton.org/2016---sgi-workshop.html http://beaver.joewheaton.org/2016---sgi-workshop.html

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

GLOSSARY OF RIVERSCAPE TERMS

The following is a list of technical terms, scientific jargon and phrases used in the manual and/or common synonyms for terms we use in this manual. We have attempted to be consistent in our use of terminology throughout the manual, and we provide this glossary of riverscape terms for the reader. Since the audience of this manual comes from very mixed disciplines and backgrounds, we have tried to minimize our unnecessary use of jargon. However, some technical terminology is unavoidable. If these terms have well established definitions and uses, we use those definitions (with source cited), if the terms have poorly defined definitions or have multiple definitions we define how we have used the terms for the purposes of the manual. Most of the definitions below are from a mix of Osterkamp (2008), Skidmore et

al. (2011), dictionary definitions, and NRCS (2007). Where not citation is provided, we have defined the term.

A Adaptive management noun An iterative process of decision making in the face of uncertainty, with the intent of reducing uncertainty through system monitoring, and continually moving toward a stated goal through ongoing actions informed by monitoring. From: Skidmore et al. (2011)

Adjustment (capacity) noun

1. Adjustment, as applied to geomorphology in general and to fluvial systems in particular, is the tendency of non-rigid landforms, such as stream channels, to change in size and shape in response to the changing effects (mostly fluxes) of water, sediment, dissolved solids, and organic matter that alter them or pass through them.

From: Osterkamp (2008)

Alluvial fan noun

1. A wedge-shaped deposit of recent stream alluvium (erosion products) or poorly consolidated rock debris that radiates outward and downslope as, in plan view, an open fan from a site draining an area of high relief or topography, such as the mouth of a mountain valley, onto a gentler slope, typically a pediment or an alluvial plain; the deposit is thickest at the fan apex, near the valley mouth, and thins to a feather edge at the distal edge of the fan. Active alluvial fans are surfaces of net deposition whereas inactive alluvial fans generally exhibit erosion and stream incision at the apex, the depth of incision decreasing with distance downslope to the distal edges of the fan. From Osterkamp (2008)

Alluvium noun

1. A general term for sediment deposited in a streambed, on a flood plain or other bottomland feature, delta, or at the base of a mountain during comparatively recent geologic time. From: Osterkamp (2008)

2. A deposit of clay, silt, sand, and gravel left by flowing streams in a river valley or delta, typically producing fertile soil. From: Dictionary

Anabranch (channel) noun anabranch; plural noun: anabranches; adjective: anabranching

1. An anabranch is a secondary or alternative channel that branches off from a river or stream and later rejoins the mainstem channel (or primary anabranch) downstream. – From: Anabranch Solutions

2. A separate channel that has diverged from the main channel and rejoins the stream at some downstream site;

an anabranch is a discrete, semi-permanent channel that may be of equal or smaller size as the main channel, https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&hl=en&authuser=0&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS595US595&biw=1684&bih=882&q=Dictionary#dobs=alluvium http://www.anabranchsolutions.com/

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

thereby distinguishing it from channel braids that are not discrete and may be highly ephemeral. From:

Osterkamp (2008)

3. Jackson, an English geographer, introduced the term ‘ana-branches’ in 1834 as a contraction of ‘anastomosing branches’, referring to defined channels that leave the mainstem and then re-enter downstream, with non-flooding islands formed of floodplain material separating the individual branches (Jackson, 1834). – From (Carling et al., 2013), which provides an excellent review of multi-threaded river terminology and history.

synonym(s): anastomosing and braided channels

Anastomosing (channels) noun

1. Channels which are multithreaded but split around vegetated islands (i.e., floodplain) and tend to be more stable than braided channels (split around active bars).

2. Composed of two or more interconnected channels that enclose floodplain.

3. A planform distinct from classic braiding systems was provided by Schumm (1968) to mean a multichannel suspended-load-dominated system with large, stable islands between channels that are excised within the neighbouring floodplain. – From (Carling et al., 2013), which provides an excellent review of multi-threaded river terminology and history.

synonym(s): braided channels and anabranching channels

Aquifer noun

Any rock body or geologic deposit of alluvium or similar rock debris that is partially or fully saturated with ground water and has properties of permeability (transmissivity) and porosity that enable it to yield the ground water to a well or spring at a rate significantly high to fulfill a specified purpose; aquifers are grouped as unconfined, those controlled by near-surface gravitational and atmospheric-pressure conditions, and artesian, those that are poorly connected to the land surface due to an impermeable layer separating it from the land surface. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Avulsion noun

1. An avulsion is a process by which a flowing channel (or anabranch) either switches its position and sends flow down a different channel or shuts off flow to one of two channels at a diffluence.

2. Anabranch avulsion within braided rivers involves three main mechanisms: choking avulsion caused by blockage of one channel by a sediment lobe, constriction avulsion produced by deflection, confinement and subsequent diversion of the flow by a barform and apex avulsion following erosion at the outside of sinuous thalwegs and confined meander bends. From: Leddy et al. (1993)

3. A rapid change in the course or position of a stream channel, especially by incision (erosion) of lowland alluvium, to bypass a meander and thereby shorten channel length and increase channel gradient; avulsion commonly occurs during floods but also can occur by normal processes of lateral migration of a stream channel during non-flood discharges. For legal purposes, bottomland areas, including channel islands, repositioned relative to the prior channel by avulsion belong to the previous owner and remain in the political jurisdiction (state or county) to which they had formerly belonged. From: Osterkamp (2008)

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

B Backwater noun Refers generally to natural hydrologic systems, is any volume of water that is backed up or prevented from moving downslope or downstream by any barrier obstructing movement; in hydrology, backwater often is the slowing or reversal of flow in a stream or tributary upstream from its confluence with another stream that is at flood stage. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Bank-attached adjective

1. A differentiating attribute of structural elements (natural or man-made) describing the relative position of the structural element with respect to the channel – namely, that it is connected or physically touching the margins of the bankfull channel. From: Wheaton et al. (2015a)

Bankfull discharge noun

A hydrologic term, is the flow rate (m3 s-1) when the stage (height) of a stream is coincident with the uppermost level of the banks -- the water level at channel capacity, or bankfull stage. Thus, the concept of bankfull discharge, which often approximates the mean annual flood for perennial streams, includes the flood plain as a unique, identifiable geomorphic surface, all higher surfaces of alluvial bottomlands being terraces, and acknowledgement that bankfull discharge occurs only when stream stage is at flood-plain level. From Osterkamp (2008) synonym: ordinary high water mark

Bankfull stage noun The stage at which flow starts to leave the channel, overtops its banks and spreads out onto an adjacent floodplain surface.

A fluvial-geomorphic term, is the water-surface level at the tops of alluvial- stream banks that corresponds to the level of adjacent flood-plain surfaces, if present. Thus, bankfull stage is the level at which bankfull discharge occurs, the upper limit of channel capacity. As such, the concept of bankfull stage requires an interpretation of site-specific landforms, especially bank. Although bankfull stage can refer to various channel-bank levels, it generally applies to alluvial-stream channels (1) having sizes and shapes adjusted to recent fluxes of water and sediment, (2) that are principal conduits for discharges moving through a length of alluvial bottomland, and (3) that are bounded by flood plains upon which water and sediment spill when the flow rate exceeds that of bankfull discharge. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Bar noun

A geomorphic unit, defined topographically by its convex shape (curving outward), representing a deposit of alluvium in a channel. From: Wheaton et al. (2015a)

In-channel sediment of relatively coarse bed material, typically coarse sand through cobbles in size, that is generally deposited during the recession of a high flow and is mostly exposed during periods of low flow; the upper surface of bars of perennial streams is typically equivalent to a stage of about 40-percent flow duration.

From: Osterkamp (2008) antonym: pool, concavity

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Baseflow

Sustained, low, or fair-weather flow of a stream; baseflow (m3 s-1) generally is derived from ground-water inputs to the stream channel. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Bed noun

The bottom surface of a water course, generally of a stream channel, upon which water and sediment move during periods of discharge. From: Osterkamp (2008) synonym: streambed

Bedload noun The sediment that is moved by saltation, rolling, or sliding on or near the streambed, essentially in continuous contact with it. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Braided stream noun

One with a wide, relatively horizontal channel bed over which water during low flows forms an interlacing pattern of splitting into numerous small conveyances that again coalesce a short distance downstream; the conveyances, or sub-channels, lack channel characteristics, are highly ephemeral, and thereby are distinguishable from anabranches. From: Osterkamp (2008)

A stream characterized by flow within several channels, which successively meet and divide. From: Skidmore et al. (2011) see: anastomosing (channel) and anabranching (channel)

C Catchment noun Is a synonym for drainage basin, or watershed, but the term often has the connotation of a smaller area than that of a drainage basin (a sub-basin). Catchment is more commonly used in British English and outside the United States. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Channel noun

A natural or constructed passageway or depression of perceptible linear extent containing continuously or periodically flowing water and sediment, or a connecting link between two bodies of water; channel; physical feature consisting of a bed and banks that conveys water and sediment.

Channelization noun: channelization; verb: channelized, channelizing

Process of changing (i.e., straightening) the course of a natural stream channel. From: Skidmore et al. (2011)

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Channel head

The location representing the transition from overland flow to concentrated channel flow. Channel heads form on floodplain surfaces where overbank flows find their way back to main channels upon re-entry into the lower channel. The waterfall, tends to erode headwards and, pull back upstream opposite to the direction of flow on the floodplain. Headcuts are an important mechanism for reworking floodplain topography and can lead to avulsions.

Colluvium noun

A layer, generally less than 10 ft (3 m) in thickness, of unconsolidated and heterogeneous weathering products (soil material and sediment) and rock fragments deposited following sheet erosion by unconcentrated surface runoff and by gravitational processes, especially soil creep, other types of mass wasting, physical weathering, and bioturbation; colluvium generally occurs as a blanket of poorly sorted sediment and rock fragments on the lower parts of hillslopes underlain by bedrock. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Complex noun

Cluster or group of restoration structures (e.g., wood structures or beaver dam analogues) designed to work together to mimic and/or promote specific processes to achieve specific restoration objective(s). The term comes from the concept of a beaver dam complex typically consisting of a primary dam with a lodge and secondary dams extending downstream and/or upstream to extend the foraging range. See Chapters 4 & 5.

Confinement noun

A measure of the degree that a channel is confined or in contact with a confining margin along either bank

(𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = �∑ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈

𝐷𝐷𝑈𝑈 @𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇⁄ � ∙ 100). From: (Fryirs et al., 2015)

Channel(s) that is (are) physically limited by physiography, bedrock, or other geologic features. From:

Skidmore et al. (2011)

Confined adjective

The state (of a channel reach) of having greater than 90% of the length of the channel in contact with a confining valley bottom margin (e.g., hillslopes, terraces, fans), which limits its capacity to adjust its position laterally. From: (Fryirs et al., 2015)

Channel(s) that is (are) physically limited by physiography, bedrock, or other geologic features. From:

Skidmore et al. (2011)

Confining margin noun

Any section of channel bank (either bank) that abuts against a valley margin, valley bottom margin or anthropogenic margin. From: (Fryirs et al., 2015)

Confluence noun

The junction of two channels flowing joining to form one channel downstream.

Constriction

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

The proportion of the bankfull channel that is laterally covered by a structural element. For example, if a PALS is 8.5 feet wide in a 10 foot wide channel, the constriction of the PALS is 85%.

A special case of confinement where the channel’s ability to adjust its position laterally is confined on both sides. From: (Fryirs et al., 2015)

Conveyance noun

A measure of the amount of water that can pass through a stream-channel section without spilling onto higher surfaces as flood flow. From: Osterkamp (2008)

D Diffluence noun Refers to the junction where a single channel splits or bifurcates into two or more channels.

Deposition noun

The geomorphic process of a surface raising its elevation by way of sediment depositing.

The constructive process of accumulation into beds or irregular masses of loose sediment or other rock material by any natural agent; it is especially the mechanical settling of sediment from suspension or tractive movement in water. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Design noun

1. In context of low-tech restoration, the form, location, type, and functional objectives of complexes or structures.

Design life noun

1. The period of time during which the structure or feature is expected by its designers to work within specified parameters; in other words, the life expectancy of the structure. In traditional engineering design, design life is typically communicated with regards to the maximum flow that a structure or feature was meant to withstand (e.g., a 25-year recurrence interval flood event). In reality, many structures and features outlast their design life, but it communicates what it was designed to withstand. With low-tech restoration, we typically promote processes and don’t design structures to withstand much more than the typical annual flood. Therefore, a structure with a design life of <1 year means that the structure should hold up to most typical floods, but it might mobilize, breach or blow out -none of which is necessarily interpreted as a ‘failure’ in low-tech restoration design. See Chapter 5.

Distributary noun

A channel network system that splits or bifurcates at diffluences and is characterized by having more diffluences than confluences, such that flow is distributed laterally into different channels.

As a fluvial-geomorphic term, typically refers to the spitting of a stream channel into two or more segments that leave the main channel and do rejoin it, as generally occurs on deltas; less commonly the term is used to characterize the individual channels of an alluvial fan that split from a main, up-slope, channel and again coalesce downslope. From: Osterkamp (2008)

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Drainage basin

An area of land surface, upslope from a specified channel site to topographic divides separating the basin from adjacent drainage basins, over which water that results from precipitation moves and converges through a system of channels to (and past) the specified channel site.

synonyms: catchment, watershed

E Ecosystem services noun Benefits that are generated and/or maintained by natural ecosystem processes and provide a free benefit to humans. A classic example is the free service to agriculture that bees and other insects provide by pollinating crops and natural vegetation. Another example is biofiltration provided by root mats and riparian vegetation near water courses.

The production of renewable natural resources through processes yielding clean water, soil, vegetation, and wildlife. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Ecoregions noun

Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems (and the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources) are generally similar. From: USEPA

A major ecosystem defined by distinctive geography and receiving uniform solar radiation and moisture.

From: Dictionary

Ephemeral (streams) adjective

Describes streamflow within a normally dry channel; the streamflow occurs inconsistently or infrequently and, except during periods when the ephemeral streamflows occur, the channel bed is directly underlain by unsaturated alluvium. From Osterkamp (2008)

Ephemeral-stream channel noun

A channel in which streamflow occurs inconsistently or infrequently and, except during periods of streamflow, is directly underlain by unsaturated alluvium or rock; ephemeral-stream channels are most common in arid and semiarid regions and typically have a rectangular to steeply sided trapezoidal cross section, banks a meter or more in height formed of fine-grained, poorly consolidated over-bank sediment, and a nearly flat, sandy bed. From: Osterkamp (2008) synonyms: dry wash, arroyo (northern Mexico and southwestern United States), and wadi (southwestern Asia, Arabian Peninsula, and northern Africa)

F Floodplain noun Flat area adjoining a river channel constructed by the river in the present climate and that overbank flows inundate during bankfull discharge (ordinary high water) events;

https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS823US823&biw=1600&bih=1008&ei=j7qOXLu3OqzMjgTqrqbAAg&q=ecoregion&oq=ecoregion&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.303480.304877..305048...0.0..0.110.897.4j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j0i131j0i67j0i131i67.ZfAVPW-Oz5o

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

A strip of relatively smooth land bordering a stream incision, built of sediment carried by the stream and dropped in slackwater beyond the influence of the swift current of the channel; the level of the flood plain is generally about the stage of the mean annual flood, and therefore one and only one flood-plain level can occur in a limited reach of bottomland. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Flow duration noun

Refers to the percentage of time that a specified discharge is equaled or exceeded. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Fluvial adjective

From the Latin word, fluvius, for river, refers to or pertains to streams; included are stream processes (fluvial processes), fluvial landforms, such as fluvial islands and bars, and biota living in and near stream channels.

Common usage is often extended by geomorphologists to hydrologic processes on hillslopes. From:

Osterkamp (2008)

G Geomorphic processes noun Any processes that influence channel form, primarily including erosion and deposition. From: Skidmore et

al. (2011)

Gully noun

A small hollow or channel worn in earth or unconsolidated material, as on a hillside, by running water and through which water runs only after a rain or the melting of ice or snow; it is larger than a rill and smaller than a stream channel. From: Osterkamp (2008)

H Headcut noun, verb Identifiable point of active incision where a break in grade occurs from a lower to a higher elevation. An active headcut point migrates in an upstream direction.;

A type of knickpoint, is a vertical or near-vertical face, or drop, on the bed of a stream channel that interrupts the channel gradient and, through processes of channel erosion, progressively moves up-channel. From:

Osterkamp (2008)

Hydraulic noun, adjective

In the study of open channel fluid dynamics, the hydraulics are characterized by depth (a scalar quantity) and velocity (a vector quantity with direction and magnitude). Thus, hydraulics characterize the nature of flow.

The forces of moving water. From: Skidmore et al. (2011)

Hydraulic geometry

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Describes, for a given cross section of a stream channel, the graphical relations among plots of hydraulic characteristics (width, depth, velocity, gradient, roughness coefficient, particle sizes) as simple power functions of river discharge. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Pertains to the water in a channel as opposed to the geometry of the channel. Hydraulic- geometry relations can be developed both for the at-a-station condition and the downstream-direction condition. From:

Osterkamp (2008)

Hydraulic purchase noun

Refers to the amount of contact (in terms of surface area normal to the flow field) a structural element has with flowing water; the more the structure obstructs flow, the greater influence the structural element has on velocity (direction and speed) of flow.

Hydrologic regime noun

Spatial and temporal variation in stream flow in a river system, usually characterized by magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change statistics. From: Skidmore et al. (2011)

I Incision noun: incision; verb: incise; adjective: incised Stream channel in which the bed has dropped and as a result, the stream is disconnected from its floodplain.

Incised channels are often referred to as degraded channels. Stage II, III, and IV in Schumm’s Channel Evolution Model and Stage 1-3 in Cluer and Thorne’s Stream Evolution Model.

synonym: degraded channel

Infrastructure

Buildings, power, or transportation corridors (e.g., roads, trails, power lines, etc.) within a riverscape that could be negatively impacted by restoration actions.

Instream fish habitat noun

Habitat features important to fish for concealment, feeding, and shelter from high water velocities and temperature; these features include large wood within the stream banks, boulders, undercut banks, and tree roots.

Intermittent (streams) adjective

Streams that only flow during part of the year (such as in the spring and early summer after snowmelt) or in direct response to precipitation.

(Of streams, lakes, or springs) recurrent; showing water only part of the time. From Dictionary

J https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intermittent?s=ts

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

K Knickpoint noun Any interruption or break of a channel gradient, especially a headcut site of abrupt change or inflection in the longitudinal profile of a stream channel or its valley. From: Osterkamp (2008)

L Landscape noun Area made of a variety of landforms (hills, valleys, plateaus, floodplains, etc.); less specific than riverscape but can include riverscapes and occurring at scales multiple spatial scales.

Large wood noun

Relative expression of wood in a stream channel sufficient in size to be immobile at most flows and to interfere with channel hydraulics. From: Skidmore et al. (2011) synonym: large woody debris (LWD)

Low-tech process-based restoration

A practice of using simple, low unit-cost, structural additions (e.g., wood and beaver dams) to riverscapes to mimic functions and promote specific processes. Hallmarks of this approach include an explicit focus on the promoting geomorphic and fluvial processes, a conscious effort to use cost-effective, low-tech treatments (e.g., hand-built, natural materials, non-engineered, short-term design life-spans) because of the need to efficiently scale-up application, and ‘Letting the system do the work’, which defers critical decision making to riverscapes and beaver.

M Margin-attached bars noun Bars attached to channel banks.

Meander noun: meander; verb: meande;r adjective: meandering

As in meander bend, following a series of winding, loops, turns along a sinuous course of a channel in an alluvial valley. A meandering reach type is a special case of a sinuous planform, in which the channel meanders and laterally migrates across its valley bottom via the process of point-bar growth on inside bends, and bank erosion on outer bends. This is contrast to sinuous planforms that result from deflecting off of confining margins (e.g., partly-confined valley setting).

Mid-channel adjective

1. A differentiating attribute of structural elements (natural or man-made) describing the relative position of the structural element with respect to the channel – namely, that it is not connected or physically touching the margins of the bankfull channel and positioned in the middle of the channel. From: (Wheaton et al., 2015a)

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

Multi-threaded adjective

The attribute of a riverscape that has two or more channels or anabranches. Multi-threaded channels are characterized by having a large number of diffluences that are equal to the number of anabranch plus channel head confluences.

synonyms: anabranching; special cases of multi-threaded include braided and anastamosing

N

O

P Perennial streams noun Continuously flowing water in a natural stream channel; the surface of a perennial stream fluctuates at or near the upper level of the zone of saturation in the adjacent water-bearing alluvium or rocks. From:

Osterkamp (2008)

Streams that flow throughout the year.

Pilot noun

A small scale or trial restoration project initiated before implementing a large-scale restoration project; used when first using low-tech restoration in a new area or with a new group of partners.

synonym: trial project

Pinyon-juniper

An open-woodland plant community, ecosystem, or habitat, of semiarid parts of North America (especially piedmont areas of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah) that are dominated by pinyon pine (Pinus edulis and/or P. cembroides) and various species of juniper (especially oneseed juniper, Juniperus monosperma, and Rocky Mountain juniper, J. scopulorum); a pinyon-juniper community is comprised of one or more indicator species of pinyon and juniper genera, and generally occurs on well-drained sandy to gravelly soils of moderately to steeply sloping pediments and alluvial fans that have mean-annual precipitation range of 250 to 400 mm. From: Osterkamp (2008)

Planform noun

Shape and geometric character of a channel’s position on its valley bottom in map view.

The configuration of a river in plan view, provides a reach-scale summary of the channel and floodplain characteristics of an alluvial river. Channel planform is differentiated on the basis of three inter-related criteria, namely the number of channels, their sinuosity, and their lateral stability From: Brierley and Fryirs (2005)

Pool noun

A geomorphic unit, defined topographically by its concave shape (curving inward), representing relatively deeper water in a channel. If the water in a channel stopped flowing and drained away, the puddles left over would be the residual pools. From: Wheaton et al. (2015a)

RS

CA

PE

R

ES

TO

RA

TI

ON

M

AN

antonym: bar

Process-based restoration

Aims to reestablish normative rates and magnitudes of physical, chemical, and biological processes that create and sustain river and floodplain ecosystems (e.g., rates of erosion and deposition, channel migration, growth and succession of riparian vegetation). From: Beechie et al. (2010)

Q

R Rangelands noun Open country used for grazing or hunting animals.

Reach (type) noun

The specific category or (type) of channel pattern or riverscape type, typically differentiated on the basis of valley setting, planform geometry, slope and/or flow regime.

synonyms: River Style, reach classification, channel pattern

Reach (segment)

Section of stream having relatively uniform physical attributes, such as slope, sinuosity, bedforms, and dominant bed material.

synonyms: segment Refuge noun Place of safety where organisms can hide from predators, flood flows, fires or other threats.

Resilience noun

Ability of a river to buffer the effects of natural or anthropogenic disturbances through natural fluvial…