Freshly constructed Spring Creek channel, here part of a broader stream and wetland restoration project in a Missouri headwater. (Trout Headwaters, Inc)

As a relative old-timer in the relatively new industry of river restoration, I have sent many to listen to John Nielsen’s piece for NPR’s All Things Considered titled, Study: Are River Restoration Efforts Misguided. In it, Nielsen references a 2008 study by Walter and Merritts, titled “Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water-Powered Mills”  in which the researchers scientifically debunk the archetype of the “ideal meandering river form” and, by extension, a popular approach to channel reconstruction that is based on those assumed ideals.

The Walter-Merritts study is critically important to our industry, and upholds what I’ve long suspected – streams and rivers are influenced by hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years of human manipulation and disturbance. Stream systems, and the human-caused changes to those systems over time, are too diverse and complex to categorize streams into a simple, hydraulic geometry table or template.

Unfortunately, some in our industry have muddled together two distinctly different concepts – “natural channel design” and “stream restoration.”  Natural channel design describes a geomorphic approach to channel reconstruction with the purpose of correcting what practitioners of this method refer to as “river disequilibrium.”  This method seeks to define the potential of a stream and design to meet and maintain specified dimensions, patterns and profiles.

It’s unfortunate that these template geometry approaches were dubbed “natural channel design” because the term is misleading at best.  It is also unfortunate that the terms “natural channel design” and “restoration” are so often used together, and/or interchangeably.

The Walter-Merritts study represents very important geologic work, and relies on hard science to describe the likely morphology of pre-development streams and rivers. As the authors of the study suggest, this new information should inform the future of river restoration. But lumping together all river restoration work under the increasingly criticized umbrella of natural channel design, and under the title of “misguided,” I fear will harm our nation’s appetite for protecting and restoring rivers and streams.  The conclusion drawn by Mr. Nielsen, quoting Dr. Montgomery, is that the Walter-Merritts study is a cautionary tale for everyone involved in river restoration projects. And that’s certainly true. But perhaps more accurately what both Nielsen and Montgomery could have cautioned against is channel construction based on categorized, idealized stream types. Differentiating the two terms would go a long way to better inform consumers, and to open up discussions about the definition of “restoration.”

There is a lot of good, albeit less publicized, restoration work going on that doesn’t involve heavy-handed dredging, filling and rip-rapping to reconfigure channels.

Trout Headwaters follows a simple credo; “first, do no harm.”  We do not dredge and fill to force channels into a particular geometry. We design to reduce the effects of human-caused disturbance, to improve water quality, and to enhance biodiversity. We recommend simple management strategies and biostabilization techniques that can be successfully, and sustainably, implemented. We advocate locating new development well out of historic floodplains. We restore wide, lush riparian buffers that filter and store runoff and floodwaters, provide habitat and food sources for fish and wildlife. These restored systems, with ongoing prudent management, over time become more diverse and more fully functional.

Our firm also realizes the near impossibility, due to centuries of human impact and development, of restoring most streams to their Holocene-era marshy, multi-channel morphology. What we can do, however, is limit further floodplain development, restore denuded riparian zones, continue promoting good management and restoration practices, and encourage good science like the Walter-Merritts study to support those practices.

Most importantly, we need to remember that nature has a great capacity to restore herself when given half a chance.