REFORM NIKOLAI FRIBERG Norwegian Institute for Water Research Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO, Norway Nikolai Friberg1.

Nikolai Friberg 1

REFORM

NIKOLAI FRIBERGNorwegian Institute for Water Research

Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO, Norway 

2

REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management

Tom Buijse NLRoy Brouwer NLIan Cowx UKHarm Duel NLNikolai Friberg DK/NAngela Gurnell UKDaniel Hering GEEleftheria Kampa GEErik Mosselman NLSusanne Muhar AUMatthew O’Hare UKTomasz Okruszko PLMassimo Rinaldi ITJan Vermaat NLChristian Wolter GE

November 2011 – October 2015

4th All Partner Meeting – June 2014

3Nasjonalt restaureringsseminar 2014

Oslo, 18 – 19 November 2014

Partners

26 partners from 15 European countries

No Name Short name

Country

1Stichting Deltares Deltares Netherlands2Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek Alterra Netherlands3Aarhus University AU-NERI Denmark4Universitaet fuer Bodenkultur Wien BOKU Austria 5Institut National de Recherche en Sciences et des

Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture

IRSTEA France

6Institutul National de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Delta Dunarii

DDNI Romania

7Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology

EAWAG Switzerland

8Ecologic Institut Gemeinnützige Gmbh Ecologic Germany9Forschungsverbund Berlin E.V. FVB.IGB Germany

10Joint Research Centre- European Commission JRC Belgium11Masaryk University MU Czech

Republic12Natural Environment Research Council - Centre

for Ecology and HydrologyNERC United

Kingdom13Queen Mary University of London QMUL United

Kingdom 14Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU Sweden15Finnish Environment Institute SYKE Finland16Universitaet Duisburg-Essen UDE Germany17University of Hull UHULL United

Kingdom 18Universita Degli Studi Di Firenze UNIFI Italy19Universidad Politecnica de Madrid UPM Spain21Warsaw University of Life Sciences WULS Poland22Centro de Estudios y Experimentacion de Obras

PublicasCEDEX Spain

23Dienst Landelijk Gebied DLG Netherlands24Environment Agency EA United

Kingdom 25Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca

Ambientale ISPRA Italy

26Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning NIVA Norway27Stichting VU-VUmc VU-Vumc Netherlands

26

4

Objectives of REFORM

APPLICATION1. Select indicators for cost-effective monitoring

2. Improve tools and guidelines for restoration

RESEARCH3. Review existing information on river degradation and restoration

4. Develop a process-based hydromorphological framework

5. Understand how multiple stress constrains restoration

6. Assess the importance of scaling on the effectiveness of restoration

7. Develop instruments for risk and benefit analysis to support successful restoration

DISSEMINATION8. Enlarge appreciation for the benefits of restoration

HYdroMOrphological stress

• Quantitatively the main problem in most river basins and a large proportion of HYMO degradation is historical

• Flood protection, hydropower, navigation, urban sprawl are among contemporary challenges

Photo:Friedrich BöhringerPhoto:Kimberly Fleming Photo: Piet Spaans

0.0 0.5 1.00

2

4

6

8R 2 = 0.43

Morphological Index

ASPT

Morphological index ranging from completely uniform (0) to very complex (1)

A standard metric

Metrics sensitive to hydrological alterations

MESH LIFE

Normalflow

0.61 0.52

Low flow -0.58 -0.47

high positives = good/low negatives = bad (+1 to – 1)

Metrics sensitive to hydrological alterations vs. other stressor specific

metricsMESH LIFE ASPT

(organic)EPT

(general)SPEAR

(pesticides)

Q90 0.61 0.52 0.59 0.44 0.6

Q10 -0.58 -0.47 -0.52 -0.43 -0.55

high positives = good/low negatives = bad (+1 to – 1)

10

Data analyses

• Several large WFD-compliant data sets were analysed across Europe

• Species data, species traits and a range of metrics were analysed against:– Measures of HYMO stress– Water chemistry– Land use

HYMODegradation assessment method

• Process oriented• Spatial and

temporal scales• Riparian vegetation

Potentiallinks

Quantifiablelinks

Possibleindicators

Ecology

HYMOassessment

metrics

• Sensitive• Stressor specific• Low uncertainty• Scale dependent

Analytical approach

Potential links – HYMO stress

• Loss of hyporheric zone (macroinverts, fish)

• Low oxygen levels• (macroinvertebrates)• Scouring at high flows• (perifyton)• Changes in biotic

interactions (realised habitat)

Quantifiable links

Why it also was difficult to detect HYMO degradation using WFD

compliant monitoring data

Hydromorphology• Measured on a different spatial scale than the

biota• Static rather than dynamic measurements;

often very limited number of consistent HYMO variables available across data sets

Hydrology• Few hydrological stations compared with

biological monitoring stations and often not at the same place

HYMODegradation assessment method

• Process oriented• Spatial and

temporal scales• Riparian vegetation

Potentiallinks

Quantifiablelinks

Possibleindicators

Ecology

HYMOassessment

metrics

• Sensitive• Stressor specific• Low uncertainty• Scale dependent

Analytical approach

HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Geomorphic unit

Hydraulic unit

River element

Region

Catchment

Landscape unit

Segment

Reach

A framework of nested spatial units for investigating hydromorphological processes, forms (habitats) and their changes, particularly at the reach scale

1. Conforms with existing WFD typologies and spatial units

2. Process-based 3. Investigates current

and past condition4. Considers responses to

future scenarios

HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Geomorphic unit

Hydraulic unit

River element

Region

Catchment

Landscape unit

Segment

Reach

Open Ended and Prescribed Versions

Links with existing regions

Links with existing river typesat catchment scale

Can include WFD water bodies at segment scale

1. River (reach) types2. River floodplain types3. Groundwater-surface

water interaction types4. Flow regime types

Indicative units including vegetation-driven landforms

HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Geomorphic unit

Hydraulic unit

River element

Region

Catchment

Landscape unit

Segment

Reach

How are reaches functioning?

Indicators of controls at the region, catchment, landscape unit, and segment scales that affect hydromorphological processes and forms at the reach scale

Indicators at sub-reach scales of hydromorphological alteration, condition and function of reaches

Emphasis on VEGETATION AS A CRUCIAL COMPONENT OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND FORMS

Degradation classes of MQI

Good (MQI = 0.70 - 0.85)

MQI=0.79 MQI=0.60

Moderate (MQI = 0.50 – 0.70)

MQI=0.43 MQI=0.04

Poor (MQI = 0.3 – 0.5) Very poor (MQI = 0 – 0.3)

Geomorphic unit

Hydraulic unit

River element

Catchment

Landscape unit

Segment

Reach

Region

WHY GUS? Hymo processesTo interpret river behaviour across scalesfrom the catchment to the geomorphic units.. and so to the habitats …

REFORM International Conference on River and Stream Restoration “Novel Approaches to Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers”

Wageningen, 29th June – 4th July 2015

BIOTA

To understand the links among large scale (catchment to reach) controls and, through the geomorphic units, habitats availability and biological response

GEO

MO

RPH

IC

UN

ITS

WHY GUS? Links to habitats and biota

REACH PHYSICAL HABITATS

riffle

glidestep

pool

dune system

GU: not only riffles and pools!

riparian zone

islandbank-attached bar

Nikolai Friberg 23

Implications

• The way most countries are using their methods, and if sampling is not revised to be in accordance with the more process-based HYMO methods, we get in particular to many false positives using macroinvertebrates, i.e. good status in rivers that are more HYMO degraded  than a slight deviation for reference conditions.

• However, false negatives are also a risk: HYMO indicators based on biota may show HYMO degradation where to problems might relate to other stressors such as water chemistry

• Not good as e.g. program of measures could be based on a wrong perception of the primary pressures

Recommendations

• Use the HYMO method together with chemistry and BQEs to assess all five status classes in WFD

• BQEs, with the current sampling methodology, can primarily inform on the impact of other stressors, which are relevant in multiple stress scenarios

• Fish is the most sensitive BQE with regard to HYMO; macrophytes in lowland rivers. Methods needed!

• Alternative/new methods linking HYMO to biota should be developed up to 2019 WFD revision

Nikolai Friberg 25

Thank you!