INTRODUCTION
Urbanization, which is created by the establishment of areas of high-density population,
poses adverse effects on our watersheds. It has been noted that urbanization is the second leading
agent of stream degradation, behind agriculture (Morgan, Cushman 2005). Also, the quality and
abundance of fish species, especially native species are severely endangered. A major source of
pollution is urban runoff entering the watersheds. An even bigger problem is not having adequate
storm water management facilities in order to manage this problem in the correct manner
(SEWRPC 2010). Runoff contains numerous dangerous chemicals, such as road salts, lawn fertilizers
and automobile fluids (Wang et al 2001). The magnitude of runoff increases along with urban
growth. Frequent and heavy runoff can potentially cause more flooding, eroding stream floors
and banks, which further damage stream ecosystems (Wang et al 2001). The increasing flow of
urban runoff leads to increased amounts of sediment being transported, reducing egg survival
and creating the loss of habitat (SEWRPC 2007). The damage of water quality and stream
structure has a major impact on the health of native fish species. Consequences of poor water
quality are reduced survival of eggs and fish of young age and toxicity of fish species (SEWRPC
2007). Introduction or overproduction of species could take away fish habitat. Increased algae
production in response to urbanization causes death of fish, due to oxygen depletion (SEWRPC
2007). Fish species and their aquatic ecosystem are becoming degraded in watersheds, due to the
negative impacts of urbanization. Biological monitoring needs to be applied in order to assess
watershed quality and create plans to restore its health.
Biological monitoring is an essential tool in assessing the quality of a watershed and
observing how urbanization plays a negative role. It can provide us with valuable information on
aspects of water quality such as water chemistry, physical condition, hydrology and morphology
(Anderson 2001). Judging on the quality of stream ecosystems, certain restoration measures need
to be put in place. Biological monitoring helps to review what is known of aquatic ecosystems
and give us the necessary information needed to restore these systems (Williams et al 1997).
Biological monitoring can also be assessed to test the effectiveness of improvements that have
already been made. Results of biological monitoring techniques have exposed reduced stream
ecosystem quality, due to urbanization in various areas around the United States.
The effects of urbanization are widely displayed in the U.S. A highly urbanized area of
northeast Ohio has demonstrated negative side effects in its stream habitat due to urbanization.
Fish IBI scores decreased as urban land use and population density rose (Walton et al 2007). High
urbanization in areas of the Eastern Piedmont and Coastal Plain ecoregions caused low fish
abundance, low fish richness, low IBI scores, and a reduced number of pollution-intolerant
native species and an influx of pollution-tolerant non-native species (Morgan, Cushman 2005).
Small streams in western Georgia showed increased cases of eroded fins, lesions and tumors
with increased urbanization (Helms et al 2005). Also, the number of lithophilic spawners
decreased as the number of herbivores increased in areas containing higher urbanization (Helms
et al 2005). The adverse effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems are being exposed by
biological monitoring on both a national scale, as well as a local scale.
Biological monitoring of the nearby urbanized waterways of the local Menomonee River
and Oak Creek showed very low biotic integrity ratings for inhabitant fish species (Anderson
2001). Most of the fish species collected in this area were tolerant to water pollution and water
quality degradation (Anderson 2001). The Root River, located in Racine, Wisconsin displayed
similar results. A vast majority of sample sites showed poor water quality and biotic integrity
(Ortenblad et al 2003). Once again, the river was dominated by tolerant omnivores, while native
and lithophilous spawners were few (Ortenblad et al 2003).
The basis of this study is the biological monitoring and assessment of health and
abundance of fish species located in the Kinnickinnic. The study pertains to a highly urbanized
section of the river that runs through the downtown section of the Milwaukee metropolitan area.
Here exist numerous sources of urbanized pollution, such as heavy traffic, shops, construction,
factories, homes and apartment complexes. There are expectations of a low water quality and
low health and abundance of fish species, resulting in low IBI scores.
The mission of the project is to test this hypothesis, as well as create plans in order to
restore the Kinnickinnic. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District has already put in place a
two phase proposal to help restore the river. Phase one proposed ideas to be passed onto phase
two, which is deemed the advanced planning phase (MMSD 2005). Ideas include building of
bridges to go over the river, improved storm sewer improvement, erosion investigation and
sedimentation investigation (MMSD 2005). Engineering improvements also need to be made. A
concrete lining was placed on the bottom of the river in places in order to hopefully control
flooding. The opposite took place as the lining increased the velocity of water flow and
decreased the amount of vegetation (MMSD 2005). Removing the lining would be a worthy
improvement. The removal of the concrete lining and widening of the river bank is currently taking place.
This will slow down the river flow, and allow for increased vegetation, water quality and public
safety (MMSD 2011). A pool and riffle sequence is also being implemented for fish traveling
from Lake Michigan (MMSD 2011). The pools allow traveling fish to cool down and rest as they
move upstream. The purpose of the research is to assess the water quality and relative health and
abundance of fish species in the Kinnickinnic. After examining this data, accurate assessment will be
made of the current restoration measures being taken. Proposals can then be made of what else
may need to be done in order to return the river back to health.
Anderson, Robert C. 2001. Southeast Wisconsin’s Menomonee River and Oak Creek Biological
Evaluation 1999-2000. Wisconsin Lutheran College Biology Dept. Technical Bulletin 1: 1-29.
Helms, Brian S., Jack W. Feminella and Shufen Pan. 2005. Detection of Biotic Responses to Urbanization
Using Fish Assemblages From Small Streams of Western Georgia, USA. Urban Ecosystems
8:39-57.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District. 2011. Kinnickinnic River Concrete Removal. Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewage District. Available: http://v3.mmsd.com/NewsDetails.aspx. (October
2012).
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District. 2005. Kinnickinnic River Phase 2 Watercourse Management
Plan. 1:1-819.
Morgan, Raymond P. and Susan F, Cushman. 2005. Urbanization Effects on Stream Fish Assemblages in
Maryland, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:643-655.
Ortenblad, Angela L., David A. Bolha, and Robert C. Anderson. 2003. Sustainability Through Biological
Monitoring on the Root River Racine, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Lutheran College Biology Dept.
Technical Bulletin 4: 1-47.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2010. Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological
Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009. Memorandum
Report Number 194: 1-152.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2007. Water Quality Conditions and Sources of
Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. Technical Report Number 39:1-141.
Walton, Michael B., Mark Salling, James Wyles and Julie Wolin. 2007. Biological Integrity in Urban
Streams: Toward Resolving Multiple Demensions of Urbanization. Landscape and Urban
Planning 79:110-123.
Wang, Lizhu, John Lyons and Paul Kanehl. 2001. Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish
Across Multiple Spatial Scales. Environmental Management 28(2):255-266.
Williams, Jack E., Christopher A. Wood and Michael P. Dombeck, editors. 1997. Watershed Restoration:
Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.