Position on Stream Restoration as a Practice

The Chesapeake Bay Trust believes in using best available science to drive investments in restoration/management practices.  The Trust also acknowledges that science leads to constant evolution of ideas and knowledge.  The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program currently recognizes more than 30 approved practices –  referred to as BMPs (short for “best management practices”) –  that many in the watershed restoration community rely on to improve our natural systems.  We know a lot about some of them.  We know less about others.  Some are the subject of very active research.  Some less so.  As we learn more about each one, their modeled effectiveness can be refined and our predictions about how quickly we can restore the Chesapeake Bay (and other) watersheds can be improved. Through our Restoration Research Award Program, we award contracts to experienced academics and organizations to conduct research and collect data to determine the outcomes of these practices.  We then inform our funding partners, stakeholders, and the public of the results to be transparent.

Stream restoration/management practices and upland stormwater practices are two complementary practice types that research shows, in certain conditions, can lead to habitat, water quality, and water quantity improvements.  Greater impervious cover (parking lots, rooftops, etc.) has led to more surface flow of stormwater, often carrying pollutants, into streams, which erodes their banks (and can change their temperature).  Stream restoration/management aims to reduce either or both the bank erosion and pollutant inputs (and sometimes address temperature changes).  Upland stormwater practices aim to reduce the excess surface flow of water by infiltrating it into the ground as if the land were in a pristine, pervious state before it reaches the stream.

Both suites of practices have pros and cons and costs and benefits in realms such as engineering, human engagement, and trade-offs, and both work better under certain conditions than others.  The Trust weighs the costs and the benefits of stream restoration projects prior to making awards through a robust external review process to be cost-effective with our funds. The Trust will continue to support science and research to improve our understanding of when to use each of these practice types and improve the practices themselves, ultimately  to make restoration progress supported by and led by community members and groups.

New contaminants are emerging all the time, as are new technologies to treat our water, restore our streams, and improve our systems.  In order to make change, we need many tools in our toolbox – both new technologies as well as tried-and-true techniques, to reflect the diversity of solutions we need to improve our watershed.