River restorations: the ecological,

engineering, & social dimensions

Peter Levi, Research scientist, UW-Madison

Dave Fowler, Senior project manager, Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage District
Nadia Bogue, Environmental projects coordinator, 16th St. Comm. Health Center

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of

an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.
Society for Ecological Restoration International

Prevalence

Number of projects
increasing
exponentially

$14-15 billion spent

on stream/river
restoration from 19902005

Monitoring rare
<10% projects

Fewer scientifically
evaluated
Bernhardt et al. (2005)

How can we best evaluate the recovery of a river ecosystem?

Measure ecosystem structure and

compare to a standard (e.g., IBI)

Snapshot approach

Functional metrics
Measure ecosystem processes that
integrate stream & watershed features

Video or real-time approach

Net ecosystem production (mg O2 m-2 min-1)

Traditional metrics

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10

24:00

6:00

12:00

18:00

24:00

6:00

Research Questions
(1) Do restorations in urban streams improve ecosystem function?
(2) Does stream size influence the response to the restoration?

Experimental Design
Quantified ecosystem structure & function in restored & concrete reaches
Physical ~ water residence time & transient storage
Chemical ~ nutrient spiraling length
Biological ~ whole-stream metabolism
Calculated log response ratio (L) to determine the effect of the restoration:
L = log (Xtreatment / Xcontrol)
If L > 0, restoration increased metric
If L < 0, restoration decreased metric

Study streams span range of discharge

20 L s-1

19 L s-1

57 L s-1

95 L s-1

147 L s-1

195 L s-1

Do restorations alter hydrology?

Flow (Q)

(A)

Main Channel (A)

k1

Advection
Dispersion

k2

Storage (As)

(1) Relative size of the storage zone (AS) to total

stream area (A + AS)
(2) Residence time of water in stream reach (TSTO)

Do restorations alter hydrology?

1.0

(A) AS / (A+AS)

Concrete
Restoration

Log response ratio (L)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

VLM

Water residence time (hr)

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

0.0
1.4

Headwaters
Mid-order
Large streams

SBH

HNY

WLP

UWD

KKR
2

(B) TSTO

1.2

Concrete: 5.1 1.2 min

Restored: 27.1 10.6 min

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

Log response ratio (L)

Relative size of storage zone

0.5

-1

0.2
0.0

-2

VLM

SBH

HNY

WLP

UWD

KKR

Do restorations improve urban stream ecosystems?

Physically? Restored reaches much more natural

Chemically?
Biologically?

Do restorations enhance nutrient processing rates?

Nutrients in stream ecosystems spiral rather than cycle
Conducted short-term nutrient additions of:
NH4+
NO3PO43Uptake length (Sw): distance nutrient travels downstream

Do restorations enhance nutrient processing rates?

Concrete
Restoration

500

NO3

2500

2000

400
1500
300
1000
200
500

100

VLM

SBH

HNY

WLP

UWD

KKR

VLM

SBH

HNY

WLP

UWD

KKR
0.8

600

Log response ratio

SRP
Spiraling length (SW; m)

Spiraling length (SW; m)

NH4

Headwaters
Mid-order
Large streams

500

0.6
0.4

400

0.2
0.0

300

-0.2

200

-0.4
100

-0.6
-0.8

VLM

SBH

HNY

WLP

UWD

KKR

NH4+

NO3-

SRP

Log response ratio (L)

Spiraling length (SW; m)

600

Do restorations improve urban stream ecosystems?

+
+

Physically? Restored reaches much more natural

Chemically? Nutrients travel less in restored reaches
Biologically?

Net ecosystem production (mg O2 m-2 min-1)

Methods: Whole stream metabolism modeling

6
4
2
0
-2

GPP

ER

-4
-6
-8
-10

24:00

6:00

12:00

18:00

24:00

6:00

GPP = autotrophic production

ER = assimilation by heterotrophs

O2

Reaeration = gas exchange

Productivity high in urban streams, esp. restorations

(1) Restored reaches have higher metabolism than concrete channels

25

-2

-1

GPP (gO2 m d )

20

15

10

Headwaters
Mid-order
Large streams

0
0

10

15
-2

-1

ER (gO2 m d )

20

25

Productivity high in urban streams, esp. restorations

(1) Restored reaches have higher metabolism than concrete channels
(2) Distinct patterns by stream size; larger streams = more productivity
(3) Headwaters have natural metabolism
100

10

-2

-1

GPP (gO2 m d )

25

-2

-1

GPP (gO2 m d )

20

15

=
GPP

ER

0.1

0.01
Data from Marcarelli et al. (2011)
Data from Levi et al. (2013)

0.001
0.1

10

10

ER (gO2 m-2 d-1)

Headwaters
Mid-order
Large streams

0
0

10

15
-2

-1

ER (gO2 m d )

20

25

100

Do restorations improve urban stream ecosystems?

+
+
-

Physically? Restored reaches much more natural

Chemically? Nutrients travel less in restored reaches
Biologically? High algae unnaturally high metabolism

Do restorations improve urban stream ecosystems?

Ecologically, the stream restorations in Milwaukee effectively

alter channel hydrology, which has cascading impacts on some*
ecosystem functions, especially in small headwater streams.

Thank you. Questions?

plevi @ wisc.edu

Acknowledgments
Evan Childress, Matt Diebel, Etienne Fluet-Chouinard, Dave Fowler, Ellen Hamann,
Dave Harring, Adam Hinterthuer, Lauren Holtz, Carol Jenkins-Espinosa, Thomas
Johengen, Melanie Kohls, Aaron Koning, Marilyn Larsen, Tom Levi, Luke Loken, Alyssa
Luckey-Winters, Chris Magruder, Matt Magruder, Ryan McGuire, Tom Neeson, Kelly
OFerrell, Liz Runde, Larissa Sano, Beth Sauer, Tom Slawski, & Emily Stanley

From 1820 to 2000, more than 300,000 miles

of streams and rivers were channelized
(altered)
Milwaukee has over 23 miles of concrete
channels

 Less water (base flow) and sediment

transport alterations
Loss of channel bed diversity (habitat)
Increased incision and widening
(erosion)
Loss of aquatic species and diversity
Disconnection from Floodplain

Restoring lost functions

OR
Restoring to a predisturbed condition

Source: Michael Baker Corporation

Restoration means the manipulation of the

physical, chemical, or biological

characteristics of a site with the goal of
returning natural/historic functions to a
former or degraded aquatic resource. (33
C.F.R. 332/40)
Re-establishment
Restoration
Rehabilitation (Urban Areas)

 Reduce Flood Risk

Improve Public Safety (Drowning)
Stream Rehabilitation (In-Stream
Habitat)
Community Objectives (Create a
Community Asset)

Offset the loss of significant habitat

Improve Linear Connectivity (Fish Passage)
Restore degraded ecosystem (physical and chemical)
Improve natural stream functions
Improve richness and abundance of native plants, fish
and wildlife
Improve water quality through habitat and riparian
floodplain rehabilitation
Resilience and Sustainability

First Project
Drop Structure
removal Project
Completed 2000

26

Lincoln Creek
Before

After

Channel Flows

Channel Stability

Urban Issues (Flashiness, and flow volume)

Grade Control (Meander Prevention)
Habitat Limitations
Limited Cross Sections
Public Infrastructure

Vegetation

Size (linear corridors problematic)

Bio Diversity (goals need to be realistic)
Invasive Species
Long Term Maintenance
Flood Plain Connectivity (inundation Frequency)

Lost Wetlands

Kinnickinnic
River
Year 1836
Vs
Year 2009
(Increased Stream
Chanel Miles)

Slide Courtesy of Tom Slawski

KK River Historic
Channel Before
Concrete Channel
(channelization
already evident)

32

 Has a century of work in flood

control resulted in an outcome that
we would wish to continue into the
future in its current form?
Should we be concerned about the
extent and condition of our
floodplain and coastal resources?
How do we adapt to a changing
world (climate, population,
economies)?

RethinkingtheKinnickinnic
River:
ACommunityPerspective
NadiaBogue
SixteenthStreetCommunityHealthCenters
April30,2015

Restoration:ACommunity
Perspective

Changingfromanunderusedandundesirablespacetoa
placethatCONNECTSthecommunity
Creatingacommonbondthroughasharedresource

SixteenthStreetCommunity
HealthCenters
ToimprovethehealthandwellbeingofMilwaukee
andsurroundingcommunities,byprovidingquality,
patientcentered,familybasedhealthcare,health
educationandsocialservices,freefromlinguistic,
culturalandeconomicbarriers.

DepartmentofEnvironmental
Health
Understandandaddresstherootcausesofpoorhealththataretiedto
theenvironmentalandphysicalconditionsoftheneighborhoods
servedbySSCHC
Networkofpublic,private,andnonprofitsectororganizations
Worktobringaboutimprovementsinthebuiltandnatural
environmentsofMilwaukeessouthside

OurClients
Over33,000clientsserved
annually
85%identifyasLatino
66%livebelowthefederal
povertylevel
52%areundertheageof20
41%havenohighschool
diploma

RiversandLakesasInvestmentDrivers

MenomoneeValley

DowntownRiverWalk

HartPark
MilwaukeeRiverGreenway

UniqueOpportunity
Achieveecologicalgoals
AchieveMMSDgoals
Goingfurtherbyincorporatingandembracingthosedrivers
inordertoidentifyandcapitalizeonotherobjectivesthat
willimprovethecommunityintheshortandlongterm.

CreatingCommunityAssets:
GreenInfrastructure

CreatingCommunityAssets:
EnvironmentalEducation

CreatingCommunityAssets:
ImprovingGreenSpace

CreatingCommunityAssets:
KinnickinnicRiverTrail

CreatingCommunityAssets:
CultureofStewardship

PhotoCredit:EddeeDaniel

RestorationAtADeeperLevel
Restorationisnotonlyhappeningfromanenvironmental
perspectiveinourcommunity.Weareworkingwith
residentstoconnectthemtoeachother,anewgreenspace,
andaninvaluablenaturalresource.
Itiseveryonesresponsibilitytoplayapartinensuringthat
ourcommunities,rivers,andlakescansustainthenext
generationsofMilwaukeeans.
Driveinvestments,improvements,andstakeholder
engagementinanareathathashistoricallybeen
underserved.
InordertoaddressSSCHCshealthmissionboth
environmentalandcommunityissuesneedtobeaddressed.

Thankyoutoourstaff,
communitymembers,
partners,andfunders.
Thisworkwouldnot
bepossible
withoutyouall!

River restorations: the ecological,

engineering, & social dimensions

Peter Levi, Research scientist, UW-Madison

Dave Fowler, Senior project manager, Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage District
Nadia Bogue, Environmental projects coordinator, 16th St. Comm. Health Center