Milwaukee Riverkeeper

Making a Case for Urban Stream

Restoration

Making a Case for Urban Stream

Restoration Understanding the

ecological, hydrological,

and geomorphological

factors influencing urban

stream restoration

options is important

Understanding

economic, social, and

political factors at play is

equally important,

especially in time of

resource scarcity

What is Urban?

Greater than 10 percent impervious surface in

the watershed??

Hydrological metric of chronic, altered stream

flows?

Population demographics (over 25,000 people)?

Degradation of Urban Waters Urban waterways historically

managed for human benefit and

to address most “pressing”

short-term problem

Water supply

Flood mitigation

Wastewater disposal

Stormwater management

Disease management

Development/changing land use

Stream ecology and function

often ignored or secondary

Recreational uses often ignored

(fishable, swimmable)

Is Restoration Even Possible? It is often difficult to identify

socioeconomic reasons for

why streams should be

restored or to quantify

benefits (many of which are

indirect)

Often difficult or impossible

to restore ecological

function, services, or integrity

Flood mitigation and

wastewater control still

dominate discussion

Regulatory drivers are

important (e.g. NR151,

NR216, TMDLs)

What Does Restoration Mean? Restoration means different things to different people

Restoring the stream to a natural ecosystem with all its

functions? Probably not.

Rehabilitating some functions (e.g. channel

morphology, riparian vegetation), but not all functions

(e.g. stream flow magnitude, frequency of storm

events)? More likely.

Remediating past wrongs (e.g. contaminated sediments,

wetland modification) to restore water quality, some

species, and ecological function to streams?

Protection of few natural areas, riparian areas, wetlands,

streambanks left? Very important in urban areas.

Conflicting Pressures

Urban stream rehabilitation

discussions dominated by

conflicting social/political,

economic, and

environmental factors.

Balance not always possible.

Typified in:

Dam removal projects

Concrete removal

projects

Zoning/development

projects

Political and Social Factors Watersheds don’t follow

jurisdictional boundaries—

many local, county, state,

and other players (NGOs,

SEWRPC, etc.)

Different stakeholders have

different objectives

Due to expense, hard to get

proactive policies

Policy-makers are reactive

and priorities ever changing

Media drives looking at

short-term problems vs.

long-term solutions

Different ordinances and

rules in each community

affects stream restoration

Changing rules (e.g.

NR116, NR115, NR151)

due to politics also

affects local gov’ts

decisions and incentives

for doing work

Economic Factors Standard cost-benefit

equations don’t work in

urban context due to

indirect and intangible

benefits

Improving ecological

quality often hard to

quantify

Intrinsic value of nature

hard to “sell” to

decision-makers but

public gets it.

Competition for limited

resources—pitting

streams vs. police and

potholes

Difficult to pay more in

the “short-term” for

“long-term” savings (cost

estimates often don’t

include O&M, liabilities,

etc. over time).

Projects are very

expensive, long, and

difficult

Environmental Factors

Impossible to

restore all

ecological

functions due to

past land use

change and

modifications

How much

“restoration” do

you need to bring

back species?

Which species?

Is it more cost-

effective to remove

barriers to fish

passage to provide

access to upstream

areas then to re-create

areas downstream?

Does it make more

sense to work in areas

that still have existing

habitat (e.g. spawning)

that can be protected

and ignore urban

areas? Probably not.

What is often missing?

River access

Water quality

Public health/safety

Ecology

Maintenance

Community values

What is often missing?

River access

Water quality

Public health/safety

Ecology

Maintenance

Community values

What is often missing?

River access

Water quality

Public health/safety

Ecology

Maintenance

Community values

What is often missing?

River access

Water quality

Public health/safety

Ecology

Maintenance

Community values

What is often missing?

River access

Water quality

Public health/safety

Ecology

Maintenance

Community values

What is often missing?

River access

Water quality

Public health/safety

Ecology

Maintenance

Community values

What are the benefits?

Better quality of life

Improved water quality

Improved wildlife habitat

Improved species richness

Improved recreation

Improved aesthetics

Increased home values

Ecosystem services

Improved public

health/safety

Greater sense of community

Seminary Dam Removal

Environmental: opened fish

passage to over 600 acres of

spawning wetlands in Pigeon

Creek Watershed; improved

water quality.

Economic: Fairly inexpensive;

restoration required; additional

O&M costs

Social/Political: Aesthetic

pros/cons; firefighting issues;

improved recreation; few

stakeholders; change is hard

Case Studies-Bridge St. Dam Removal

Environmental Factors: fish

passage, water quality, AIS

concerns

Economic Factors: repair

costs, O&M costs, grant $,

dredging costs

Social/Political Factors:

aesthetics, referendum,

recreation, dam

safety/flooding concerns,

regulatory issues

Mequon-Thiensville

Fishway Environmental: opened fish

passage for Lake Michigan

fishes; pond well suited for

fishway; dam removal ideal but

not possible

Economic: Not cheap but

partially grant funded;

addressed some flooding/dam

stability concerns.

Social/Political: Maintained

boating; educational and

recreational improvements;

varied stakeholders worked

well; firefighting pond lost;

some property concerns

KK River Concrete

Removal—6th to 27th

Environmental: removes concrete

channel; likely WQ improvements;

improves riparian area and habitat.

Economic: Very expensive,

complicated, long process.

Social/Political: Removes 91

properties from floodplain;

contentious hearings; good

community planning; multiple

stakeholders; river not a big

priority for residents; aesthetics,

safety, recreation, quality of life,

etc.; neighborhood concerns (e.g.

demolition, blight, relocation)

Community Outreach Model

MN Concrete Removal Same as KK concrete removal

for most part—huge benefits

for fish passage, improved

ecological function, etc.

Often conflicting goals hard to

achieve in context of flood

protection—fish passage vs.

canoeing; some access created,

but rip rap difficult for many;

and difficult portage will be

required.

Huge limitations due to land

use/infrastructure

MMSD, US ACE, City, Miller,

NGOs, etc.

Contaminated Sediment Projects Environmental: removal of

contamination improves habitat;

water quality; sediments, fisheries,

etc.

Economic: Very expensive,

complicated, long process; big

benefit to local marinas and

homeowners.

Social/Political: Requires 35% local

cost-share and Federal dollars;

multiple stakeholders; improves

public health; fish consumption;

boating, some neighbor concerns

(airborne pollutants, trucking),

access (rip rap & gabions bad), etc.

Milwaukee River Greenway

Environmental: protecting riparian

corridor from future development;

protecting wildlife habitat &

passage; buffering water quality;

protecting floodplain

Economic: Anti-development; anti-

jobs; anti-urban; more expensive

(SW, setbacks, height); flood

control and indirect benefits

Social/Political: lobbying reqd;

overlay zone and new SW rules;

easements; improves recreation;

quality of life; public health; attracts

use (Nimby element); great

collaboration; City/County conflicts

Mini River Restoration

Lessons Learned…Discuss

It is a combination of social, economic, and

environmental factors that often determines whether or

not a stream should be restored, the level to which the

system can be restored, and the goals that are to be met

with each project. Or namely the “can do” vs “should do”

Need to match “diagnosis” or causes of degradation

AND local stream knowledge (including biology and

behavior) to the “cure” to be able to achieve goals.

Meeting all goals often impossible, but we can do better!

Managing urban streams requires a blend of science and

policy, as well as both individual actions and collaboration

among diverse stakeholders.