» restoration

A $1 Billion Question: Are Stream Restoration Projects Working?

trouthead — Thu, 31 May 2012 14:26:47 +0000

Many expensive stream projects fail because they are not guided by science, experts say. At Trout Headwaters, Inc. we have a long tradition of promoting the use of baseline assessments in stream, river and wetland restoration. We even developed a patented system, RiverWorks Rapid Assessment System® (RRAS), to help standardize the assessment process. The first step to successful restoration is a full understanding of the current health and condition of the resource, and the factors influencing that condition. When restoration treatments are complete, monitoring and maintenance ensure and confirm long-term success.

A recent news release by University at Buffalo announces a new book co-edited by a Buffalo geography professor analyzing the state of the nation’s $1 billion stream restoration industry. The new American Geophysical Union monograph, “Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and Tools,” provides detailed explanations of best practices grounded in science.

“There needs to be research behind solutions,” said University at Buffalo geography professor Sean J. Bennett, who edited the book with Andrew Simon of Cardno ENTRIX and Janine M. Castro of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Because practice has outpaced research, projects on real waterways often turn out to be experiments themselves, and many fail. People undertake a project without fully understanding which restoration techniques work, or how a river will respond to the techniques employed, the article says.

The Trout Headwaters Story – Restoration Works Since 1995

trouthead — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:30:24 +0000

A “Johnny Willowseed” Approach

In 1995, Trout Headwaters, Inc (THI) was founded to provide service to private, non-profit, and government clients. At a time when fewer than a handful of entities across the U.S. were providing stream, river or wetland restoration services, the company quickly became a recognized leader in “soft” biostabilization and riparian restoration strategies.

For many years the company has teamed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others to develop and refine these environmentally superior techniques for stream stabilization and restoration. A state regulator, reviewing one of THI’s early landmark projects remarked that we had used a “Johnny Willowseed” approach. Working WITH nature has indeed been a precept of the firm since its founding and one that we’re immensely proud to continue through today.

Proven, Practical Innovation

In 2001, THI began developing and testing proprietary technologies for river, stream and wetland inventory, assessment, design, and monitoring. Ultimately, several of these processes were commercialized by sister company THI RiverWorks. U.S. Patents for restoration methods, processes, and computer software were received beginning in 2006.

So while Trout Headwaters continues to offer the same services it did when first founded, the company has constantly changed and improved its process and its products. This commitment to improving quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness has resulted in now more than 450 successful projects all across the U.S. The company’s work has been featured in diverse publications including Land & Water, Erosion Control, Landscape Architect, Outdoor Life, and many others.

Customer Focus

Expect however our hallmark to remain always unchanged: A dedication to serving the nation’s most discriminating clients by delivering cost-effective and ecologically beneficial restoration products and services.

At THI our guiding principle is always to stay customer-focused. Each one of our clients has helped us achieve what we believe to be the lead position in the aquatic restoration industry. But why take our word for it, listen to a sample of what our clients are saying:

“We have received award-winning attention for our sustainable, green design and development efforts, much of which is directly attributable to THI.” – Cielo Falls (NC)

“You and your team were nothing short of spectacular! Great communication on all projects and their status, along with an attitude that reflects your sincere care and passion for your profession consistently exceeded my expectations.” - 3 Peaks Ranch (MT)

“As you know I’ve worked with other firms on river restoration projects, prior to engaging THI. As such, I have come to appreciate the quality of your firm’s work in an industry where many firms offer dramatic results but fail to deliver.”- River Ranch Restoration LLC (CO)

“Simply put, Trout Headwaters, Inc. is the transition captain, adding value by enhancing natural attributes of these ecologically important ranches.”- Live Water Properties (WY)

To learn more or contact us – Visit www.troutheadwaters.com

Engineering Cannot Save Our Rivers

trouthead — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:01:26 +0000

We note the draft language in Montana DNRC’s 2012 Model Floodplain Ordinance requiring that “a licensed professional engineer” (P.E.) design all stream restoration and bank stabilization projects undertaken in Montana. While engineering is an important professional discipline, the proposed rule as written would greatly diminish the vital roles played by hydrologists, fluvial geomorphologists, sedimentologists, ecologists, and the other skilled scientists in this important work. Further, it’s very important to understand that there is no consistent requirement in a professional engineer’s academic training or in Montana’s P.E. certification criteria that would dictate the attainment of specific skills for stream bank stabilization and restoration.

Decades of misguided, hard-engineering attempts to force natural stream systems into unnatural configurations have resulted in unhealthy, armored floodplains along many of our nation’s streams, including in Montana. History will likely describe our time as a period of human failure – the failure to understand and the failure to accommodate the most basic ecological needs and functions of our precious water resources. These waters and their floodplains serve a broad host of ecological services for humans and wildlife, providing biodiversity, aquifer recharge and carbon sequestration. Without the protection of these basic functions, we will pass to the next generation a tarnished legacy of damaged and destroyed resources.

Any successful stream restoration or bank stabilization project requires a multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary team of scientists and technicians to ensure success. THI would suggest that granting a design monopoly for stream bank stabilization and river restoration to engineers may simply expose many P.E.’s to increased liability due to a general lack of direct experience in these applications.

Anyone interested in the future of Montana’s Floodplains, Rivers and Wetlands should comment on Montana DNRC’s 2012 Model Floodplain Ordinance now: Traci Sears phone: 406-444‐6654, or via email at tsears@mt.gov

>>Read the Montana DNRC’s 2012 Model Floodplain Ordinance http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_op/floodplain/news/draft_model_ordinance.pdf

Classified: Why the Overuse of Stream Classification Systems Have Failed River Restoration

trouthead — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:53:36 +0000

At Trout Headwaters we put a lot of emphasis on stream and wetland assessment. Our unwavering belief in scientifically-sound assessments of water resources led us to develop a patented system just for assessments called RiverWorks Rapid Assessment System®. Because of the number of stream restoration failures we’ve seen in the last 16 years, we have been vocal opponents of popular cookbook stream classification systems that shortcut the stream assessment and restoration design process.

In 2005 the American Society of Civil Engineers published an article by several prominent scientists which evaluated the Rosgen method of stream classification and natural channel design. The 2005 article opens with, “Over the past 10 years the Rosgen classification system and its associated methods of ‘natural channel design’ have become synonymous (to many without prior knowledge of the field) with the term ‘stream restoration’ and the science of fluvial geomorphology.”

The article concludes with, “Empirical approaches such as those inherent in “natural channel design” … do not provide cause and effect solutions or means of predicting stable channel dimensions and represent only one possible alternative to evaluating stream channels.” And, “Practitioners concerned with professional liability and with the future of their professions would do well to provide design services based on peer-reviewed professional standards.”

Classification systems and channel evolution models (CEM) are no substitute for proven, thorough assessment techniques, including the use of upstream and downstream reference reaches. Our freshwater resources are far too important to shortcut. Rosgen_Classification_Problems

Meet Trout Headwaters, Inc – River, Stream and Wetland Restoration

trouthead — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:21:35 +0000

]]>

Mississippi River Delta Restoration Campaign Launches New Website From the Environmental Defense Fund

trouthead — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:36:00 +0000

Conservation groups recently launched a new website, focused on restoring one of America’s greatest natural resources, the Mississippi River Delta. The site houses scientific information, public policy analysis, cultural and historical summaries, and Delta Dispatches, a news blog about restoration efforts in the delta.

Visit the Site: http://www.mississippiriverdelta.org/

Running Colter Ranch – Restoration, Renewal, Repair

trouthead — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:24:13 +0000

More via http://www.youtube.com/troutheadwaters

Restoring Faith in Stream, River and Wetland Restoration

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:43:11 +0000

Kudos are deserved for the North Carolina legislature for recently passing legislation (which Governor Perdue signed) addressing an issue that has plagued the stream and wetland restoration efforts for years: insufficient project assessment, design and monitoring. Fifteen years ago, Trout Headwaters, Inc (THI) entered the stream restoration industry, and unfortunately, a significant amount of our work today is “re-restoring” streams and wetlands due to failed designs and approaches.

The April 17 Charlotte Observer article (North Carolina spends $140 million on faulty water projects by Dan Kane and David Raynor) aptly highlights many of the problems that plague the still-emerging aquatic restoration industry. When funding escalates for a particular restoration action, money or politics may seek to “replace” sound science. In North Carolina, DOT mitigation became a very lucrative opportunity. One clear problem with failed stream and river restoration projects has been the rampant use of a formulaic or “cookbook” approach currently being used across the United States, and certainly in North Carolina. Unfortunately, this unreliable recipe has been responsible for many spectacular and expensive failures.

As one of the old guys in this relatively new industry of stream restoration we’ve been preaching for more than a decade against simplistic cookbook approaches to complex ecological problems, and have pleaded the case for better industry standards when it comes to assessment and monitoring. We have watched the growing debate over the uncertainty associated with restoration (and especially with aggressive, formula-based approaches) now reaching a broader public consciousness.

We urge North Carolina and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to take a closer look at what works, and what doesn’t in stream restoration methodologies and approaches. Peter Raabe from American Rivers, an environmental watch group, summarized recently: “Giving more work to the people who are the absolute experts in the ﬁeld is probably the direction we should be going.”

THI agrees and is supportive of this state’s efforts to steer the industry in a sustainable direction.

Green and Soft: New Materials for River Restoration

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:07:19 +0000

Many terms have been used to describe the engineering use of plant materials for slope stabilization – soil bioengineering, biotechnical stabilization, biostabilization, green engineering, biotechnical erosion control – but the underlying concept for all terms is the use of plants (sometimes in combination with other reinforcement materials) to reduce the erosive forces of water and increase soil’s resistance to those erosive forces.

Biotechnical stabilization is not a new concept. There are numerous references from the 1930s that advocated biotechnical designs. After World War II these techniques seemed to have lost favor to the hard engineering approaches that rely heavily on rock, concrete, and steel. However, the growing concern for more ecologically-beneficial solutions has renewed interest in biotechnical approaches.

Biotechnical methods provide an ecologically-superior alternative to conventional erosion control methods, such as rock and concrete riprap. These low-impact, and generally lower-cost methods can provide effective streambank stabilization while minimizing damage and disruption to instream and upland habitats. All streambank erosion control practices will be subject to maintenance requirements. However, biotechnical techniques have the potential to self-repair since they are living systems. Because these treatments generally strengthen and improve over time, maintenance costs are generally minimal as well. Biotechnical methods are considered especially appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas where improved recreation, aesthetics, fish & wildlife habitat, or native plants are highly desirable. Receive an electronic copy of the Club EcoBlu white paper info@troutheadwaters.com

Stream Restoration Failures Beg for Holistic, Sustainable Solutions

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:57:22 +0000

According to a recent report by the Raleigh News & Observer, more than 30 stream restoration projects have failed during or after construction in the state of North Carolina, “a few of them multiple times, turning what was supposed to be a cleanup into an environmental hazard.” The state is reportedly spending millions repairing these sites.

Some projects have damaged water quality by dumping sediment into waterways. According to the story, “errors in design or construction are partly to blame, but taxpayers absorb much of the cost.”

Reported restoration failures in North Carolina total $140 million. Read the News & Observer Investigation or Learn More about Standards for Restoration Success