River restoration is a multibillion-dollar industry, but oversight, assessment requirements, and frameworks remain disparate. This study examines the case of the Little Thompson River (Colorado, USA), a mountain stream disturbed by a 2013 flood (500-year recurrence interval) and subsequently reconstructed for flood mitigation. We compare the Restored Site to a Reference tributary impacted by the flood event, allowing for an assessment of stream recovery under different scenarios. Results suggest the Reference Site has an equilibrium among ecogeomorphic variables, while the Restored Site does not. The Restored Site had a step-pool/pool-riffle design but a plane-bed slope (0.023 m/m). Grain-size analysis showed a distribution (D 50 = 55 mm and D 90= 126 mm) not mobilized by typical flows (e.g., 2-year), and typical flows (>2-year) do not inundate the floodplain region. The Reference Site had expected pool-riffle morphology and grain size (slope = 0.013 m/m; D 50 = 38 mm and D 90 = 108 mm), is mobilized by typical flows, and the floodplain region inundates at flows >2-year. Vegetation surveys show that only Salix and naturally recruited Populus are thriving at the Restored Site, while the Reference Site has a denser and more diverse plant community. Our study suggests allowing for natural recruitment of Populus, focusing on cheap/simple Salix plantings, and preserving seed banks where possible could aid future restoration projects. Our results raise questions about the efficacy of channel construction and revegetation efforts in post-flood restoration of a mountain stream and highlight simple recommendations for future restoration projects.