Natural Riparian Resources
Water
Landscape/Soil
Vegetation
King Hill Creek
Clover Creek
Mill Creek
Boulder Creek
Harney Lake
Wetted Soil
Russell Bar
Salmon River
Aerobic vs.
Anaeobic
Boulder Creek
Standard Checklist (lotic)
Yes
No
N/A
Erosion/Deposition
13) Flood plain and channel characteristics (i.e., rocks,
overflow channels, coarse and/or large woody material) are
adequate to dissipate energy
Rationale:
14) Point bars are revegetating with riparian-wetland
vegetation
Rationale:
15) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural
sinuosity
Rationale:
16) System is vertically stable
Rationale:
17) Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being
supplied by the watershed (i.e., no excessive erosion or
deposition)
Rationale
13) Floodplain and channel characteristics
(i.e. rocks, overflow channels, coarse and/or
large woody material are adequate to
dissipate energy
Purpose: To determine if the floodplain is
adequate to dissipate energy on systems that
should have a floodplain…
…or if the channel characteristics are adequate
on systems that dissipate energy within the
channel and/or overflow channels (do not and
won’t have a floodplain).




Appropriate channel size and shape
Fully developed floodplain
Adequate roughness in the channel
Relates to items 1 and 3
Is the floodplain fully developed (see question 1)?
Is there sufficient overflow channels, vegetation, rock, and woody debris to
handle high flows without degrading?
Is the sinuosity and width/depth ratio appropriate for the site (see Question
3)?
Yes, channel characteristics are adequately
dissipating energy (B2 channel)
Yes, channel is dissipating energy both in
the channel and with a floodplain
No, stream needs a floodplain but has
incised and abandoned it
No, stream needs a floodplain but has
incised and abandoned it
Yes, floodplain is necessary, fully
developed, and is currently being used!
14) Point bars are revegetating with riparianwetland vegetation
Purpose: To determine if a common depositional
feature of a stream (point bar) is being colonized
with riparian-wetland vegetation. It is important
that vegetation capture point bars to maintain
width/depth ratios and allow the channel to
evolve and become more efficient.


Applies only to stream types with point bars (some B
and most C channels) – NA for others
Vegetation must be stabilizing species
Is there a distinct and relatively continuous line of stabilizing
riparian vegetation on the point bar?
Is there sprout and/or young woody species on the point bar?
Is herbaceous stabilizing riparian species expanding?
Scour line or bankfull level
Is there a distinct and relatively continuous line of stabilizing riparian
vegetation on the point bar? YES
Is there sprout and/or young woody species on the point bar? YES
Is herbaceous stabilizing riparian species expanding? YES
Do not expect that portion of the bar within the bankfull
channel to revegetate!
Yes, spikerush and coyote willow are
colonizing the point bar
No, most of the point bar is unvegetated
15) Lateral stream movement is
associated with natural sinuosity
Purpose: To determine if lateral movement of the
channel is normal or if it has been accelerated.
Excessive lateral movement of the channel is
indicative of an unstable channel.


For yes answers, look for indicators of normal
movement such as a single thread channel,
appropriate w/d ratios, stable streambanks (esp. on
straight sub- reaches), no change in streambed
elevation
For no answers, look for multiple thread channels, very
high w/d ratios, unstable streambanks, aggrading
streambed
No, lateral stream movement
is not associated with
natural sinuosity
Do the streambanks have an adequate amount of stabilizing
vegetation (see Questions 9 & 11)? No
Is the channel widening? Yes, W/d ratio? Too High, Is the channel
aggrading? Yes
Is the channel multi-thread (“D” channel type)? Yes
Is sinuosity appropriate for the valley type (see Question 3)? No
Lateral Stream Movement Natural?
No
Yes, (Reference Reach)
No, lateral movement is excessive
No, excessive lateral movement
Yes, lateral movement
associated with natural
sinuosity
Yes, natural lateral movement
16) System is vertically stable
Purpose: To determine if channel
lowering adjustments are occurring at a
“natural” or accelerated rate.

Look for presence of a headcut(s)
Potential to move up through a wetland
 Does not refer to aggradation
 Many channels downcut in the past are
generally vertically stable (some aren’t)

Is there a head cut capable of moving upstream within or below the reach?
Are there hydrologic modifiers such as abandon beaver dams, logs, or
structures that have water moving under them?
Is sediment or debris accumulation causing the water to flow out of the
channel?
Stream
has
incised in
the past
and can
go
deeper!
Is there a head cut capable of moving upstream within or below the
reach?
Are there hydrologic modifiers such as abandon beaver dams, logs, or
structures that have water moving under them?
Is sediment or debris accumulation causing the water to flow out of the
channel?
Yes, channel is now vertically stable at
a new base elevation
Yes, system is vertically stable – channel is
now stable at a new base elevation although
there is very little floodplain development
17) Stream is in balance with the water and
sediment being supplied by the watershed
(i.e., no excessive erosion or deposition)
Purpose: To determine if the stream is
out of balance and degrading the
riparian-wetland area.
Increases or decreases in water
Channel degradation
 Sediment transport
 Channel erosion

Water/Sediment Balance
Rosgen, 1996
Is there evidence of increased water flow such as channel degradation or channel
erosion (see Question 5)?
Are there mid-channel bars, sediment filled pools, sand/silt/clay channel bottoms
(see question 3)?
Is there channel braiding?
Are streambanks stable (see Question 11)?
James Creek
Is there evidence of increased water flow such as channel degradation or channel
erosion (see Question 5)?
Are there mid-channel bars, sediment filled pools, sand/silt/clay channel bottoms
(see question 3)?
Is there channel braiding?
Are streambanks stable (see Question 11)?
Sand Creek
Is there evidence of increased water flow such as channel degradation or channel
erosion (see Question 5)?
Are there mid-channel bars, sediment filled pools, sand/silt/clay channel bottoms
(see question 3)?
Is there channel braiding?
Are streambanks stable (see Question 11)?