The natural wood regime forms the third leg of a tripod of physical processes that supports river science and management, along with the natural flow and sediment regimes. The wood regime consists of wood recruitment, transport, and storage in river corridors. Each of these components can be characterized in terms of magnitude, frequency, rate, timing, duration, and mode. We distinguish the natural wood regime, which occurs where human activities do not significantly alter the wood regime, and a target wood regime when management emphasizes wood recruitment, transport, and storage that balance desired geomorphic and ecological characteristics with mitigation of wood-related hazards. Wood regimes vary across space and through time, but can be inferred and quantified via direct measurements, reference sites, historical information, and numerical modeling. Classifying wood regimes with respect to wood process domains and quantifying the wood budget are valuable tools for assessing and managing rivers.

No abstract

Instream and floodplain wood can provide many benefits to river ecosystems, but can also create hazards for inhabitants, infrastructure, property, and recreational users in the river corridor. We propose a decision process for managing large wood, and particularly for assessing the relative benefits and hazards associated with individual wood pieces and with accumulations of wood. This process can be applied at varying levels of effort, from a relatively cursory visual assessment to more detailed numerical modeling. Decisions to retain, remove, or modify wood in a channel or on a floodplain are highly dependent on the specific context: the same piece of wood that might require removal in a highly urbanized setting may provide sufficient benefits to justify retention in a natural area or lower-risk urban setting. The proposed decision process outlined here can be used by individuals with diverse technical backgrounds and in a range of urban to natural river reaches so that opportunities for wood retention or enhancement are increased.(KEY TERMS: instream wood; large woody debris; hazard; river restoration; recreation; floodplain management; habitat.)

Porosity, or void space, of large wood jams in stream systems has implications for estimating wood volumes and carbon storage, the impacts of jams on geomorphic and ecological processes, and instream habitat. Estimating porosity and jam dimensions (i.e. jam volume) in the field is a common method of measuring wood volume in jams. However, very few studies explicitly address the porosity values in jams, how porosity is calculated and assessed for accuracy, and the effect such estimates have on carbon and wood budgets in river corridors. We compare methods to estimate jam porosity and wood volume using field data from four different depositional environments in North America (jam types include small in-channel jams, large channel-margin jams, a large island apex jam, and a large coastal jam), and compare the results with previous studies. We find that visual estimates remain the most time-efficient method for porosity estimation in the field, although they appear to underpredict back-calculated porosity values; the accuracy of jam porosity, and thus wood volume, estimates are difficult to definitively measure. We also find that porosity appears to be scale invariant, dictated mostly by jam type, (which is influenced by depositional processes), rather than the size of the jam. Wood piece sorting and structural organization are likely the most influential properties on jam porosity, and these factors vary according to depositional environment. We provide a framework and conceptual model that uses these factors to demonstrate how modeled jam porosity values differ and give recommendations as a catalyst for future work on porosity of wood jams. We conclude that jam type and size and/or the study goals may dictate which porosity method is the most appropriate, and we call for greater transparency and reporting of porosity methods in future studies.