River Restoration: Ecological, Engineering and Social Dimentions

8/9/2019 River Restoration: Ecological, Engineering and Social Dimentions

1/52

River restorations: the ecological,engineering, & social dimensions

Peter Levi, Research scientist, UW-MadisonDave Fowler, Senior project manager, Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage District

Nadia Bogue, Environmental projects coordinator, 16 th St. Comm. Health Center


2/52

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

increasingexponentially

• $14-15 billion spenton stream/riverrestoration from 1990-2005

Monitoring rare•


3/52

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

Traditional metrics• 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

N e

t e c o s y s t e m

p r o

d u c

t i o n

( m g

O 2

m - 2

m i n - 1 )

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

6:00 12:00 18:00 24:00 6:0024:00


4/52

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 (X treatment / Xcontrol )

• If L > 0, restoration increased metric• If L < 0, restoration decreased metric


5/52

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


6/52


7/52

Do restorations alter hydrology?

(A) AS / (A+A S)

VLM SBH HNY WLP UWD KKR

R e l a t

i v e s i z e o f s

t o r a g e z o n e

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5ConcreteRestoration

(B) T STO


W a t e r r e s i

d e n c e

t i m e

( h r )

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

L o g r e s p o n s e

r a t i o ( L )

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0HeadwatersMid-order Large streams

L o g r e s p o n s e r a

t i o ( L )

-2

-1

0

1

2

Concrete: 5.1 ± 1.2 minRestored: 27.1 ± 10.6 min


8/52

Do restorations improve urban stream ecosystems?

Physically? Restored reaches much more natural

Chemically?

Biologically?

+


9/52

Do restorations enhance nutrient processing rates?

Nutrients in stream ecosystems spiral rather than cycle

Conducted short-term nutrient additions of:NH4+NO3-

PO 43-

Uptake length (S w): distance nutrient travels downstream


10/52

Do restorations enhance nutrient processing rates?

NH4+


S p i r a

l i n g

l e n g t

h ( S

W ; m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600ConcreteRestoration

NO 3-


S p i r a

l i n g l e n g

t h ( S

W ; m

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

SRP


S p i r a

l i n g

l e n g

t h ( S

W ; m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600Log response ratio

NH4+ NO 3

- SRP

L o g r e s p o n s e r a

t i o ( L )

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8HeadwatersMid-order Large streams


11/52


Physically? Restored reaches much more natural

Chemically? Nutrients travel less in restored reaches

Biologically?

++


12/52

Methods: Whole stream metabolism modeling

N e

t e c o s y s

t e m

p r o

d u c

t i o n

( m g

O 2

m - 2

m i n - 1 )

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

6:00 12:00 18:00 24:00 6:0024:00

GPP ER

O 2

GPP = autotrophic production

ER = assimilation by heterotrophsReaeration = gas exchange


13/52

ER (gO 2 m-2 d -1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

G P P ( g O

2 m

- 2 d

- 1 )

0

5

10

15

20

25

HeadwatersMid-order Large streams

Productivity high in urban streams, esp. restorations(1) Restored reaches have higher metabolism than concrete channels


14/52

ER (gO 2 m-2 d -1)

0 5 10 15 20 25

G P P ( g O

2 m

- 2 d

- 1 )

0

5

10

15

20

25

HeadwatersMid-order Large streams

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

ER (gO 2 m-2 d -1)

0.1 1 10 100

G P P ( g O

2 m

- 2 d

- 1 )

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

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

G P P = E

R


15/52


16/52


Ecologically, the stream restorations in Milwaukee effectivelyalter channel hydrology, which has cascading impacts on some *ecosystem functions, especially in small headwater streams.


17/52

Thank you. Questions?

plevi @ wisc.edu

AcknowledgmentsEvan Childress, Matt Diebel, Etienne Fluet-Chouinard, Dave Fowler, Ellen Hamann,Dave Harring, Adam Hinterthuer, Lauren Holtz, Carol Jenkins-Espinosa, ThomasJohengen, Melanie Kohls, Aaron Koning, Marilyn Larsen, Tom Levi, Luke Loken, Alyssa

Luckey-Winters, Chris Magruder, Matt Magruder, Ryan McGuire, Tom Neeson, KellyO’Ferrell, Liz Runde, Larissa Sano, Beth Sauer, Tom Slawski, & Emily Stanley


18/52


19/52


20/52

• Less water (base flow) and sedimenttransport alterations• Loss of channel bed diversity (habitat)• Increased incision and widening

(erosion)

• Loss of aquatic species and diversity• Disconnection from Floodplain


21/52

Restoring lost functions

ORRestoring to a pre-disturbed condition


22/52

Source: Michael Baker Corporation


23/52

“Restoration means the manipulation of thephysical, chemical, or biologicalcharacteristics of a site with the goal ofreturning natural/historic functions to aformer or degraded aquatic resource.” (33C.F.R. § 332/40)

• Re-establishment• Restoration• Rehabilitation (Urban Areas)


24/52

• Reduce Flood Risk

• Improve Public Safety (Drowning)

• Stream Rehabilitation (In-Stream

Habitat)

•Community Objectives (Create aCommunity Asset)


25/52

• 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, fishand wildlife• Improve water quality through habitat and riparian

floodplain rehabilitation• Resilience and Sustainability


26/52


27/52

Before AfterLincoln Cr eek


28/52


29/52


30/52


31/52

KinnickinnicRiver

Year 1836

Vs Year 2009(Increased StreamChanel Miles)

Slide Courtesy of Tom Slawski

Lost Wetlands


32/52

32

KK River Historic

Channel BeforeConcrete Channel(channelizationalready evident)


33/52


34/52


35/52


36/52


37/52

• Has a century of work in floodcontrol resulted in an outcome thatwe would wish to continue into thefuture in its current form?

• Should we be concerned about theextent and condition of ourfloodplain and coastal resources?

• How do we adapt to a changingworld (climate, population,economies…)?


38/52

Rethinking the Kinnickinnic River:

A Community PerspectiveNadia Bogue

Sixteenth Street Community Health CentersApril 30, 2015


39/52

Restoration: A Community Perspective

• Changing from an underused and undesirable space to a place that CONNECTS the community

• Creating a common bond through a shared resource


40/52

Sixteenth Street Community Health Centers

To improve the health and well ‐being of Milwaukee and surrounding communities, by providing quality, patient ‐centered, family ‐based health care, health education and social services, free from linguistic, cultural and economic barriers.


41/52

Department of Environmental Health• Understand and address the root causes of poor health that are tied to the environmental and physical conditions of the neighborhoods

served by SSCHC

• Network of

public,

private,

and

nonprofit

sector

organizations

• Work to bring about improvements in the built and natural environments of Milwaukee’s south side


42/52


43/52

Rivers and Lakes as Investment Drivers

Hart Park

Menomonee Valley Downtown River Walk

Milwaukee River Greenway


44/52

Unique Opportunity• Achieve ecological goals

• Achieve MMSD goals• Going further by incorporating and embracing those drivers in order to identify and capitalize on other objectives that will improve the community in the short and long term.


45/52

Creating Community Assets:Green Infrastructure


46/52

Creating Community Assets:Environmental Education


47/52

Creating Community Assets:Improving Green Space


48/52

Creating Community Assets:Kinnickinnic River Trail


49/52

Creating Community Assets:Culture of Stewardship

Photo Credit: Eddee Daniel


50/52


51/52

River restorations: the ecological


52/52

River restorations: the ecological,

engineering, & social dimensions

Peter Levi, Research scientist, UW-MadisonDave Fowler, Senior project manager, Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage District

Nadia Bogue,Environmental projects coordinator, 16 th St. Comm. Health Center

Documents

River Restoration: Ecological, Engineering and Social Dimentions