Janine Castro

Defining a Stream Restoration Body of Knowledge as a Basis for National Certification

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000814IntroductionThe practice of stream restoration has become widely accepted asan essential component to improving ecosystem function andenhancing aquatic biodiversity (Wohl et al. 2005). Despite theabundance of projects being implemented, a lack of definitivetrainingrequirements,designprocedures,andmonitoringprotocolsremain for the practice of stream restoration. Given the lack ofconsistency, many restoration projects end in frustration, excessivecosts, and poor results (e.g., Williams et al. 1995; Kondolf 1998;Johnson and Brown 2001; Roni et al. 2002; Wohl et al. 2005;Bernhardt et al. 2007; Roni et al. 2008). The fact that methodand experience are both varied and even poorly defined in anew and emerging profession is not surprising; however, the com-bination of diverse and inconsistent training and methodologymakes progress in transforming the practice of stream restorationinto a mature profession difficult. The widespread practice of re-storation, now a billion dollar a year industry in the United States(Bernhardt et al. 2005), coupled with highly inconsistent results,demands its conversion into a profession with broadly acceptedprinciples and methods of tested reliability.As a profession advances, it must have ways to assess andassure the adequacy of education and training curricula and thecompetency of individual professionals (Ford and Gibbs 1996;Pomeroy-Huff et al. 2009). At the core of the process of maturinga profession is the establishment of a body of knowledge (BOK), adocument generated by experts to identify and delineate theconcepts, facts, and skills that practitioners in that profession areexpected to master (Morris et al. 2006; Pomeroy-Huff et al.2009). For example, project management professionals saw a clearneed to formulate a common and consistent set of core competen-cies on which they could base a project management certificationand advance their emerging profession (Morris et al. 2006; Winteret al. 2006). In the emerging profession of stream restoration, asimilar call exists for the establishment of consistent training stan-dards, standards of practice, and professional certification, drivenlargely by the lack of agreed on criteria for judging restoration suc-cess and highly inconsistent project results (Palmer et al. 2005;Marr 2009; Kite 2009; Fischenich 2009). The development of aprofession with standards of practice and/or certification first re-quires establishment of a training and education structure that pro-vides consistency and can support and incorporate advances inunderstanding (Morris et al. 2006).A fully effective symbiosis among research, training, andpractice has yet to emerge in stream restoration; however, severalattemptsweremadeduringthepast10yearstoestablishthecurrentandfutureneedsinstreamrestoration educationandtraining [RiverRestoration Northwest (RRNW) 2003; (AFS Curriculum WorkingGroup, unpublished data, 2003); P. Wilcock, unpublished internalreport, December 2006 RRNW, in cooperation with Oregon StateUniversity and Portland State University, sought to advance thequality of the river restoration practice by identifying restorationeducational needs (RRNW 2003). In 2003, RRNWand its partnersimplemented a survey to assess the job tasks, educational back-grounds, and training needs of professionals working on river re-storation projects in the northwestern United States and Canada.The key results are as follows.1. Available training is multidisciplinary with most universityand short courses focused on ecology, fluvial geomorphology,fisheries, restoration, and soils. Fisheries biologists and civilengineershavethegreatestrangeoftrainingacrossdisciplines.2. Improved skills and competence in fluvial geomorphology,field techniques, restoration techniques, and biology/ecologywere identified as important for a practicing professional.

Stream Habitat Restoration Opportunities Through Reclamation of Instream Gravel Mines in Western North America: Examples

Instream gravel mining includes various excavation methods within a streams boundaries as well as pits located within the meander belt on floodplains. Instream mining and stream restoration are often perceived to be mutually exclusive; however, careful planning, design, and implementation of a reclamation plan can allow restoration activities to occur concurrently with gravel mining operations. Hence, retiring mining operations, or those phasing out, can create various types of physical habitat which will result in more rapid ecologic recovery after mining ceases, leaving a healthy stream as their legacy. The greatest opportunities for habitat improvement through instream mine reclamation are associated with streams that are actively aggrading; where local accumulations of bed material represent opportunities to excavate aggregate while improving habitat values. This condition is sometimes found at tributary mouths and on alluvial fans Streams with habitat qualities that have been reduced by prior engineering works and/or land use, or those not in approximate equilibrium, may be candidates for improvement through careful planning and implementation of excavations. Examples of reclamation plans for instream gravel mining from California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska sites include: (1) planning for the eventual incorporation of gravel pits as stream-side wetland features, (2) direct habitat creation through designed excavation such as pool/bar/riffle formation and side channel formation, (3) creation of temporary refugia habitats such as alcoves and pools, (4) habitat enhancing structural elements added to mining excavations, (5) creation of floodplain benches in incised or channelized streams, and (6) development of tidal marsh in an estuary system.