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 dont 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 govts
decisions and incentives
for doing work
Economic Factors
Standard cost-benefit
equations dont 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
resourcespitting
streams vs. police and
potholes
Difficult to pay more in
the short-term for
long-term savings (cost
estimates often dont
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
Removal6
th
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 parthuge benefits
for fish passage, improved
ecological function, etc.
Often conflicting goals hard to
achieve in context of flood
protectionfish 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 LearnedDiscuss
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.