There has been an ongoing debate over the formulaic or “cookbook” approach to stream restoration currently being used across the United States.  Unfortunately, unlike a reliable recipe there have been sometimes spectacular and expensive failures on the ground resultant from this approach.  Recently some of these failures have been blamed on increased stream flows resultant from changes in climate.

Sadly, I’ve seen too many stream reaches degraded and damaged as a result of so-called “restoration projects.” As one of the old guys in this relatively new industry of stream restoration I’ve been preaching for more than two decades against simplistic cookbook approaches to complex ecological problems, and have pleaded the case for better industry standards when it comes to assessment and monitoring.  I have watched the growing debate over the uncertainty associated with restoration (and especially with aggressive, formula-based approaches) now reaching a broader public consciousness.

Getting a better understanding of what works and what doesn’t, through the development of better industry standards for assessment and monitoring, is critical to industry advancement and to the true restoration of our freshwater resources.

For any of those currently involved in restoration projects where costs are high and disturbance is great, a friendly warning: In this fledgling industry it is definitely a case of buyer beware. My firm has been called in numerous times to repair very expensive, failed attempts at restoration. Around our offices we call these projects “re-restoration” and in our experience they are typically the result of two things: inadequate assessment and/or a cookbook design strategy.

River restoration has become an increasingly significant industry in the United States. My greatest fear is that with too many expensive failures our nation’s appetite for restoration may be diminished.

Despite the risk, restoring what we’ve historically damaged or degraded is the right thing to do. When approached with careful assessment and planning, and with the balanced input of a multidisciplinary team of professionals, restoration can (and should be) very successful.