Guidance on Ecological Flows (Eflows) - circabc.europa.eu€¦ · Web viewStructure and...

Guidance on Ecological Flows (Eflows)

Index and Texts

February 2014

mmmll

European Commission: Guidance on Ecological Flows - Index and Texts


Table of Contents

Executive summary........................................................................................................5Part I: Introduction.........................................................................................................5

1. The Mandate........................................................................................................5Part II: Concepts.............................................................................................................5

2. The aim of establishing ecological flows..............................................................52.1. The relevance of the hydrological regime for the status of water bodies......52.1.2. Why is flow regime so important for freshwater and transitional ecosystems?................................................................................................................................6


2.1.3. Why a flow regime?........................................................................................72.1.4. Ecosystem deterioration due to changes in flow regimes..............................82.2. Concept and working definition of “ecological flows”....................................92.2.1. Environmental flows: an evolving concept.....................................................92.2.2. Some definitions and working definitions in the context of the WFD.......102.2.3. Reference to some key definitions of environmental flows..........................102.2.4. Proposed working definition....................................................................11

Part III: Understanding and recommendations for considering ecological flows in the WFD implementation....................................................................................................12

3. Setting the scene...............................................................................................12


3.1. Laws, regulations and administrative provisions.........................................124. Preliminary assessment of the current status and gap analysis.........................13

4.1. Assessment of hydrological pressures and impacts of human activity on the status of waters.....................................................................................................134.2. Provisional identification of HMWB..............................................................144.3. Provisional identification of water bodies at risk of failing to reach the WFD objectives in 2015..................................................................................................15

5. Setting up of the environmental objectives.......................................................155.1. Eflows to achieve the HES...............................................................................165.2. Eflows to achieve the GES...............................................................................16


5.3. Eflows in Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB)...........................................195.4. Eflows in Protected Areas................................................................................205.5. Eflows and groundwater..................................................................................225.6. The role of eflows exemptions........................................................................24

6. Establishment of monitoring programmes.........................................................247. Gap analysis......................................................................................................33

7.1. Estimating eflows............................................................................................337.1.1. Methodologies and fundamentals................................................................33Hydrological methods............................................................................................33Hydraulic Methods..................................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.


Habitat Modelling Methods.....................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.Holistic methodologies...........................................................................................347.1.2. Key features of the methods........................................................................357.1.3. Implementation of methods.........................................................................36The choice of the right assessment method..........................................................36A phased hierarchical approach in the implementation of methods...............¡Error! Marcador no definido.7.1.4. Recommendations when using methods in the context of the WFD.....¡Error! Marcador no definido.7.2. Using eflows in the gap analysis process........¡Error! Marcador no definido.


7.2.1. Verify and refine the preliminary gap analysis..............¡Error! Marcador no definido.7.2.2. Exemptions..............................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.7.2.3. Designation of HMWB..............................¡Error! Marcador no definido.

8. Setting up of the programme of measures........................................................388.1. Setting up of the overall programme of measures.......¡Error! Marcador no definido.8.2. Using eflows as a measure..........................¡Error! Marcador no definido.8.2.1. Eflows as a measure.....................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.8.2.2. Eflows as a restoration/mitigation measure..¡Error! Marcador no definido.


8.2.3. Cost effectiveness of eflows.........................¡Error! Marcador no definido.9. Development of the river basin management plan............................................4410. Public participation.........................................................................................54

Part IV: Concluding remarks and further steps.............................................................70Annexes.......................................................................................................................70

A. Case studies......................................................................................................70A.1. Case study criteria......................................................................................70A.2. Case studies............................................................................................70

B. Other.................................................................................................................70B.1. Member State legislation referring to ecological flows................................70


B.2. Member State application of methodologies for assessing gaps in ecological flows 72

C. References.........................................................................................................73How To Use This Document Template..........................................................................81

Headings and subheadings.......................................................................................81Body text..................................................................................................................82Bulleted list...............................................................................................................82Hyperlinks.................................................................................................................82


Executive summaryText to be developed by the DG, once the main parts of the Guidance document has been written.

Part I: Introduction1. The MandateShort text referring to the recitals of the WFD and Blueprint as introduction.


This document aims to be a guidance to stimulate a common/coherent uptake of ecological flows as a mean targeted to support the achievement of the WFD’s environmental objectives by improving the ecological, morphological and hydrological parameters related to quantitative water management, addressing pressures affecting the hydrological regime (e.g. abstractions). climate change.Additional comments that this Guidance does not only refer to the PoM, but the whole WFD implementation process; and regarding those issues that have not been fully developed in this Guidance and thus may constitute future action lines (e.g. link to indicators).Information on the drafting and review process, acknowledgements, List of co-authors

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Mean or measure?

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Include CC or not?


Part II: ConceptsThroughout this Guidance, the term “environmental flows” refers to the scientific term used at the international level, and the term “ecological flows” for the purposes of supporting the implementation of the WFD. Nonetheless, the drafting team understands that no conflict shall appear due to this use of the different terminology. For further refinement of the used terms, please look at the chapters “2.2.4. Proposedworking definition” and “5. Setting up of the environmental objective”.

2. The aim of establishing ecological flowsText to be revised and completed based on the Discussion Document’s Chapter “WHY ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMFLOWS (EFLOWS)?”


2.1. The relevance of the hydrological regime for the status of water bodies

2.1.1. The hydrological regime and the ecological status of water bodiesThe Water Framework Directive is aimed at maintaining and improving the quality of aquatic ecosystems in the EU. The WFD requires surface water classification through the assessment of ecological status or ecological potential, and surface water chemical status. WFD Annex V explicitly defines the quality elements that must be used for the assessment of ecological status/potential. The lists of quality elements for each surface water category are subdivided into 3 groups of ‘elements’: (1) biological elements, (2) hydromorphological elements supporting the biological elements; and (3) chemical


and physical-chemical elements supporting the biological elements. The hydrological regime is part of the hydromorphological quality elements.All categories of water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters) include the hydrological regime as a relevant variable that affects the ecological status (Table xx). All categories of water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters) include the hydrological regime as a relevant variable that affects the ecological status.

Table xx: The hydrological regime for the Ecological Status classification

CategoryVariabl

e Definition of High Status Definition of Good Status


Rivers

Hydr

olog

ical R

egim

e The quantity and dynamics of flow, and the resultant connection to groundwater, reflect totally, or nearly totally, undisturbed conditions.

Conditions consistent with the achievement of the values specified for the biological quality elements in order to be classified as Good Status.

LakesThe quantity and dynamics of flow, level, residence time, and the resultant connection to groundwater, reflect totally or nearly totally undisturbed conditions.

Transitional Waters

Tida

l Re

gim

e The freshwater flow regime corresponds totally or nearly totally to undisturbed conditions.


Coastal Waters

The freshwater flow regime and the direction and speed of dominant currents correspond totally or nearly totally to undisturbed conditions.

2.1.2. Why is flow regime so important for freshwater and transitional ecosystems?A large body of evidence has shown that the flow regime plays a primary role for structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems (Junk et al, 1989; Poff et al, 1997; Bunn & Arthington, 2002; Arthington et al. 2006, Poff and Zimmerman 2010). Virtually all rivers, lakes, wetlands and groundwater dependent ecosystems are largely


controlled by the hydrological regime. The changing quantity of water flowing in a river provides habitat and significantly influences water quality, temperature, nutrient cycling, oxygen availability, and the geomorphic processes that shape river channels and floodplains (Poff et al, 1997; Richter et al, 1997; Ward et al, 1999). Similarly, zonation of vegetation in lakes and riparian wetlands is controlled by the flooding regime (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000; Keddy, 2002; Keddy & Fraser, 2000; van der Valk, 1981; Acreman, 2003). Freshwater flows from the upper catchment are a major determinant of the environmental conditions in estuaries and coastal waters due to their impact on salinity gradients, estuarine circulation patterns, water quality, flushing, productivity and the distribution and abundance of many plant and animal species (Batzer and Sharitz, 2006).Natural flow regimes display variability at a range of time scales, including seasonal, and inter-annual, and native aquatic and riparian biota are adapted to this variability.


For this reason, the magnitude, frequency, duration, timing and rate of change of the natural flow regime are generally agreed to be the key elements central to sustaining and conserving native species and ecological integrity (Poff et al, 1997; Bunn & Arthington, 2002; Lytle & Poff, 2004). Results of numerous studies led Bunn and Arthington (2002) to formulate four key principles to highlight the importance of the natural flow regime in the conservation of aquatic ecosystems (Figure 1):

i. The hydrological regime is an important determinant of physical habitat, which in turn determines the biotic composition and life history strategies.

ii. Aquatic species have evolved in direct response to the natural hydrological regime.

iii. Maintaining natural patterns of longitudinal and lateral connectivity is essential for the viability of populations of species.


iv. The success of the invasion of exotic and introduced species is facilitated by the alteration of hydrological regimes.

It can therefore be said that the natural hydrological regime plays a primary role for biodiversity conservation, production and sustainability of aquatic ecosystems, a general principle that is known as "the natural flow paradigm" (Poff et al, 1997).

Fig. 1. Key principles to highlight the importance of the natural flow regime. SOURCE: Bunn & Arthington, 2002


2.1.3. Why a flow regime?Structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems is largely caused by different kinds of flow (low flows, high flow pulses, etc.) which vary throughout of hours, days, seasons, years, and longer (Poff et al, 1997). Attempts to understand better the role of the flow regime in ecosystem dynamics have led to distinguish two broad environmental


situations. Extreme situations imposed by extreme events (i.e. floods and droughts1) regulate ecosystem process rates, and exert selective pressure on populations to dictate the relative success of different species (Resh et al., 1988; Hart & Finelli, 1999). Normal conditions imposed by regular flows (e.g. base flows) allow habitat fidelity that may constrain (adapt) the species or life stage to a habitat with quite specific spatial or functional attributes (Stanford et al, 2005). From this basic and functional perspective flow types are known as ‘environmental flow components’ or simply EFCs (Richter et al, 2006; Richter et al, 1997; King et al, 2003; Poff et al, 1997, The Nature Conservancy, 2011a). There are several detail scales to identifying and characterizing the EFCs. More generally EFCs can be broadly distinguished between base flows (including low flows) and the flood regime (magnitude, frequency, duration and timing of high flow pulses).


Low flows control the water chemistry, concentrate prey species, dry out low-lying areas in the floodplain, and are often associated with higher water temperature and lower dissolved oxygen conditions (TNC, 2011a). These low flows also control connectivity, thereby restricting movement of some aquatic organisms. Because native species may be adapted to the extreme low flow events that naturally occur, these periodic events may allow natives to outcompete generalist invasive species that are not adapted to extreme low flows. On the other hand, the flood regime plays a critical role in the structure and functioning of the aquatic ecosystem (TNC, 2011a). Short-term changes in flow caused by freshets may provide necessary respite from stressful low-flow conditions. Small floods allow fish and other mobile organisms to access floodplains and habitats such as secondary channels, backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands. These areas can provide significant food resources allowing for fast growth, offer refuge from high-velocity,


lower-temperature water in the main channel, or be used for spawning and rearing. Large floods can move significant amounts of sediment, wood and other, organic matter, form new habitats, and refresh water quality conditions in both the main channel and floodplain water bodies. These environmental flow components (base flows and the flood regime) provide a heuristic framework for describing the ways in which an organism experiences river flow variability (TNC, 2011a). Native organisms’ life histories are tied to the timing, magnitude, duration, and frequency of the flow components. The particular distribution of these hydrological events is characteristic of the ecosystem from which species interact, organize, change, vary and evolve.

1 Drought is a natural phenomenon. It is a temporary, negative and severe deviation


2.1.4. Ecosystem deterioration due to changes in flow regimesNatural ecosystems have some level of disturbances that characteristically occur within a range of natural variability (Landres et al, 1999; Gayton, 2001; Richter et al, 1997; Smith and Maltby, 2001). Disturbances beyond this range, however, can exert pressure upon the system by altering fundamental environmental processes and ultimately generating stressors (USEPA, 2005; Davies & Jackson, 2006)). Human activities, such as the direct removal of water from rivers and aquifers (abstraction), and impoundment (construction of dams for various purposes) have greatly modified the natural flow regimes of many rivers (Ward and Stanford, 1983, 1995; Poff et al. 1997; Nilsson et al. 2005). Assuming that flow regime is of central importance in sustaining the ecological integrity of freshwater systems, the modification of the flow regime should lead to environmental degradation (Poff &

along a significant time period and over a large region from average precipitation


Zimmerman, 2010; Lloyd et al, 2003; Naiman et al, 1995, Wright and Berrie, 1987; Giles et al., 1991; Wood and Petts, 1994: McKay and King, 2006). Numerous studies have shown the effects of modifying the natural hydrological regime of ecosystems (Poff & Zimmerman, 2010). A reduction in discharge alters the width, depths, velocity patterns and shear stresses within the system (Statzner & Higler, 1986; Armitage and Petts, 1992). This can modify the distribution and availability of in-stream habitat, which can have detrimental effects on invertebrates and fish populations (Wood et al., 1999). Altered flow regimes have also been linked to invasion of non-native species (Baltz and Moyle, 1993; Brown and Moyle, 1997: Brown and Ford, 2002). Velocity is a significant factor affecting the distribution and assemblage of running water invertebrates (Statzner et al., 1988), by influencing their respiration, feeding biology and behavioural characteristics (Petts, 2008). Low flows can impede


the migration of salmonids and limit the distribution of spawning fish (Strevens, 1999; Environment Agency, 2004; Old and Acreman 2006).These mechanisms of impact are reasonably well known however it can still be very difficult to diagnose the ecological impacts of low flows in any particular situation (Acreman and Dunbar, 2004). The Biological Condition Gradient (Davies & Jackson, 2006; USEPA, 2005) is a conceptual model that explains the degradation of aquatic ecosystems to the pressure gradient (figure 2). When there is no flow modification, natural or near-natural conditions of the aquatic ecosystem prevail. However, as increasing magnitude of flow alteration, structure and functioning of aquatic systems deviate from “natural” conditions to those classified as “severely altered”.Fig. 2. The Biological Condition Gradient to show the degradation of ecosystems to stressors. SOURCE: USEPA 2006

values (a rainfall deficit), which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological


and socioeconomic drought, depending on its severity and duration (CIS EG WS&D,


2.2. Concept and working definition of “ecological flows”

2.2.1. Environmental flows: an evolving conceptThe concept of environmental flows was historically developed as a response to the degradation of aquatic ecosystems caused by the overuse of water. The recognition of the need for a minimum amount of water to remain in a river for the benefit of important game-fish species gave rise to terms such as minimum flows, in-stream flows and fish flows (Postel and Acreman, 2001 Richter, 2003).A second conceptual shift resulted in referring the concept to multiple river ecosystem aspects (Hirji and Panella 2003), recognising the vital role of the entire natural flow regime in ecosystem structure and functioning. Environmental flow, ecological reserve, 2012).


environmental water allocation or requirement, environmental demand and compensation flow are terms used across different regions and by different groups to broadly define the water that is set aside or released to meet the environmental flow needs of water (eco)systems. The holistic approach to environmental flow assessment in the 1990s was not just restricted to in-stream processes, but encompassed all aspects of a flowing water system, including floodplains, groundwater aquifers, and downstream receiving waters such as wetlands, terminal lakes and estuaries. This approach also considered all facets of the flow regime (quantity, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change), the dynamic nature of rivers and water quality aspects (Moore, 2004).In the 2000s the link between river flows and livelihoods (Arthington and Pusey 2003; Brown and King 2003) was considered by integrating the human dimension as part of the holistic approach to environmental flow assessment, covering issues such as


aesthetics, social dependence on riverine ecosystems, economic costs and benefits, protection of important cultural features and recreation, links to morphological processes (King, Tharme, et al. Brown 1999; Meitzen et al. 2013).The concept continues to evolve and is shifting from the traditional view of minimum water amounts to a more comprehensive and holistic understanding. As this field of research continues to evolve and spread into new areas, it is expected that different interpretations will appear and new aspects will be integrated (Moore, 2004). Thus, instead of referring to “environmental flows”, for the purpose of this guidance, we refer to “ecological flows”.

2.2.2. Some definitions and working definitions in the context of the WFDDespite the fact that the concept of eflows has existed for over 40 years (including terms as instream flows), there is still no unified definition for it (Moore, 2004). This

schmg6, 17/01/35,

new


lack of uniform agreement for a definition of ecological flows can be illustrated by looking at a sample of literature over the last decades. The concept of ecological flows underlying these definitions is a certain amount of water that is left in an aquatic ecosystem, or released into it, for the specific purpose of managing the condition of that ecosystem (King & Brown, 2003; Arthington et al, 2006; Brown and King, 2003).

2.2.3. Reference to some key definitions of environmental flowsSome of the most relevant definitions used internationally are the following:

i. Environmental flows describe the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the


human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems (Brisbane Declaration).

ii. Dyson, Bergkamp & Scanlon (2003) in the IUCN guide on environmental flows define the concept as the water regime provided within a river, wetland or coastal zone to maintain ecosystems and their benefits where there are competing water uses and where flows are regulated.

iii. The 4th International Ecohydraulics Symposium defined environmental flows as the water that is left in a river system, or released into it, to manage the health of the channel, banks, wetland, floodplains or estuary.

iv. Environmental flows can be described as ‘the quality, quantity, and timing of water flows required to maintain the components, functions, processes, and resilience of aquatic ecosystems which provide goods and services to people (Hirji and Davis, 2009)


v. Arthington & Pusey (2003) define the objective of environmental flows as maintaining or partially restoring important characteristics of the natural flow regime (ie. the quantity, frequency, timing and duration of flow events, rates of change and predictability/variability) required to maintain or restore the biophysical components and ecological processes of in-stream and groundwater systems, floodplains and downstream receiving waters.

vi. Tharme (2003) defines an environmental flow assessment (EFA) as an assessment of how much of the original flow regime of a river should continue to flow down it and onto its floodplains in order to maintain specified, valued features of the ecosystem.

vii. IWMI (2004) defines environmental flows as the provision of water for freshwater dependent ecosystems to maintain their integrity, productivity,


services and benefits in cases when such ecosystems are subject to flow regulation and competition from multiple water users.

viii. Brown and King (2003) state that environmental flows is a comprehensive term that encompasses all components of the river, is dynamic over time, takes cognizance of the need for natural flow variability, and addresses social and economic issues as well as biophysical ones.

ix. Meitzen et al. (2013) define e-flows as the ecological-based stream flow guidelines designed to inform sustainable water resource management that supports healthy riverine habitats and provide sufficient water supply for society.


2.2.4. Proposed working definitionEcological flows are implicit in the WFD. The Directive does not specify what should be the hydrological regime required to achieve the environmental objectives but requires that the flow regime should provide conditions ‘consistent with the achievement of the values specified for the Biological Quality Elements’. From the perspective of ecosystem dynamics, good ecological status is unlikely to be reached in a water body with significantly altered flows, as this will result in changes to the river ecosystem through modification of physical habitat and alterations in erosion and sediment supply rates. Consequently, restoring a suitable flow regime may well be a necessary measure in an aquatic ecosystem that fails environmental objectives (Hirji and Davis, 2009).


According to recital 25 of the Directive, “common definitions of the status of water in terms of quality and, where relevant for the purpose of the environmental protection, quantity should be established”. The following scheme (pending to be adapted and included and to be completed before the next WG meeting) can facilitate the understanding of the rationale supporting the working definition.Thus, the working definition used in this Guidance is: Ecological flows are defined as “a flow regime consistent with the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD”. According to Art.4 WFD, the environmental objectives refer (simplified) to:

i. high/good ecological status or potential in the surface water body (river, lake or transitional) and connected water bodies,


ii. good quantitative status of groundwater (when groundwater levels depends on discharge from the surface water body).

iii. conservation of related protected areas, habitats and species under the Birds and Habitats Directive

When referring to the exemptions such as the “good ecological potential”, considerations of WFD Art.4.3. shall be coherently applied (insert reference to Guidance 20 on Environmental Objectives and Exemptions; and to Guidance 4 on HMWB).In some EU Member States, more detailed definitions have been developed, sometimes covering aspects that are not implicit to the WFD; these might be reflected in some of the chapters and case studies of this Guidance.


Part III: Understanding and recommendations for considering ecological flows in the WFD implementationText to be revised and completed. This Chapter should include information on the procedure towards the way water quantity assessments can be applied in the planning process, and it follows closely the implementation procedure for the WFD, in particular the set-up of the RBMPs. DPSIR conceptual Framework of the WFD is relevant to better understand the role of ecological flows in the planning process. Expected consideration for eflows in the activities of the planning process will be developed in the Guidance, with practical tools/methods depending on the availbility of case studies. In water bodies affected by hydrological alterations Eflows should be considered in many steps, notably i) identify significant pressures; ii) assess the risk of failing environmental


objectives; iii) design of the monitoring programme; iv) construct a cost-effective programme of measures to achieve environmental objectives, etc. For example, Article 11 (3) (i) states that should be considered measures to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status or good ecological potential for bodies of water designated as artificial or heavily modified. Consideration of Eflows should be embedded in the planning process and not considered as a separated one. The implementation process of ecological flows is complex, including, inter alia, legal, administrative, and ecological aspects. Ecological flows should be adopted in the decision-making process that should comply with WFD requirements on governance. Water resource requirements of different water sectors are not always incompatible with meeting GES; this will depend on the intensity of the hydrological pressure. Aquatic ecosystems in a river basin are interconnected and ecological flows should be


defined and implemented considering these hydrological and ecological connexions. The Guidance is not intended to provide binding standards on Eflows but to promote their consideration in the WFD planning process with a common understanding about their definition and illustration of good practices in their implementation. The appropriate ecological flow shall be agreed through RBMP and objective setting process according to the WFD; they key features of this procedure are outlined as follows (see also figure xx):

Assessment of the “theoretical” streamflow regime in order to achieve environmental objectives

Considerations towards the feasibility of reaching the theoretical streamflow regime, based on the societal needs and user functions of the water in a river basin.


Justification of the choice to either implement the outcome under 1, or an alternative outcome based on 2.

3. Setting the scene

3.1. Laws, regulations and administrative provisionsText to be developed by drafting team. This Chapter should include information on the legal provisions of the WFD regarding eflows, as well as an overview regarding the National legislation and administrative provisions. An overview can be extracted from Benítez Sanz & Schmidt (2012), but requiring complementary texts, case studies and a review by all MS/SH.

schmg6, 29/01/14,

Pending to re-write text on key features according to figure/flowchart


In Slovenia, “Decree on the criteria for determination and on the mode of monitoring and reporting on ecologically acceptable flow”, OG RS, No. 97, (2009) was prepared on the basis of Article 71 of the Water Act (2002). The Decree consists of six chapters including general provisions, criteria, the mode of monitoring, supervision, penal provisions and transitional provisions. The Decree prescribes the use of either one of two approaches for the determination of an ecologically acceptable flow (EAF), i.e., the hydrological approach and the holistic approach. The hydrological approach is based on the reversibility, quantity, length and duration of water abstraction, the ecological type of watercourse, and the ratio between the mean flow and mean low flow. A lower value of EAF may be determined on the basis of an holistic approach at the request of the applicant for the water right. The study should evaluate the hydro-morphological, biological and chemical characteristics of the river reach where the water


diversion/abstraction occurs. The final determination of the EAF should also include the protection arrangements.

4. Preliminary assessment of the current status and gap analysisText to be developed based on the Discussion Document’s Chapters “The relevance of the hydrological regime in the WFD, The role of the hydrological regime in classifying the Surface Water Status and Assessing the quality of the hydrological regime”, with significant modifications. Should include a reference to general assessment methods.

schmg6, 17/01/35,

By NL: Suggestion to delete “preliminary gap analysis”. Let chapter 7 deal with the gap analysis. The title of paragraph 4.1 would be more appropriate.

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Shall each MS legislative set-up be described or shall this be an overview on common and different approaches?


4.1. Assessment of hydrological pressures and impacts of human activity on the status of watersText to be revised and completed based on the Discussion Document’s Chapters “The relevance of the hydrological regime in the WFD, The role of the hydrological regime in classifying the Surface Water Status and Assessing the quality of the hydrological regime”, with significant modifications; with a special reference to CEN and other standards (review published inside the EU FP7 project REFORM). The Directive indicates that the monitoring of type parameters for surface waters, including hydro‐morphological elements, should conform to appropriate international standards such as those developed by CEN and ISO, which should ensure the provision of data of an equivalent scientific quality and comparability. This provision doesn't cover the assessment of the ecological status. This CEN standard focuses especially on human pressures that affect rivers and where characterisation may be helpful for


implementing the WFD, to indicate to what extent these pressures could have caused a deviation from the reference hydromorphological conditions (e.g. asessment of human activity). The benefits and limitations of the existing standards when considering Eflows might be developed in the guidance. Further references are: CIS GUIDANCE 3 - PRESSURES AND IMPACTS + CIS GUIDANCE 4 (HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES).As already stated in chapter 2, the assessment of pressures and impacts on the status of waters starts with a preliminary risk analysis, which determines if and which pressures are likely to compromise the achievement of the good status of water bodies. If pressures and/or impacts are related to hydrology, as in the case of abstractions or withdrawals or any operation altering the hydrological regime (e.g. hydropower production resulting in hydropeaking), operational monitoring of hydrological parameters is required. If those hydrological pressures are likely to elicit

Martina Bussettini, 17/01/35,

I don’t understand the panegyric on the usefulness of the standard, when especially for the hydrological assessment only one table is given with no comments. Moreover it is not representative for many European streams (in Italy and in Sweden at least).


morphological changes (alterations of channel forming discharges), morphological parameters should be monitored too.Following the CIS document on Monitoring (Littlejohn et al., 2002) Member States should indeed ensure a number of general criteria in the monitoring programmes that include: i) an assessment of the deviation of observed conditions to those that would normally be found under reference conditions; ii) an assessment that provides for natural and artificial habitat variation; iii) a protocol that accounts for the range of natural variability and variability arising from anthropogenic activities of all quality elements in all water body types; and, iv) a scheme that provides for the detection of the full range of potential impacts to enable robust classification of ecological status.There is no doubt that, in order to assess the pressures and impacts on the water body, to optimize the monitoring programmes and to formulate efficient measures scenarios, the catchment scale has to be considered and a water balance model has to

schmg6, 01/02/14,

Review quote!


be built and operated. Among other things, the model is also needed to optimize the monitoring activity, allowing a better design of an integrated network of monitored river sections (where discharges are measured) with sections where discharges can be estimated by models.Several methodologies have been developed to assess the hydrological alteration in rivers, all over the world. Some of them were set up specifically for complying with WFD obligations. They all analyze specific hydrological components/indicators of rivers and streams to assess the impact of human pressures on the hydrological regime usually comparing actual and undisturbed flow conditions through a statistical analysis of daily discharge time series. It is very important to stress that in order to avoid uncorrect results, the interannual variability of the series (e.g. wet, dry, normal year) should be considered in the analysis and only few methods do (e.g. IAHRIS, IARI).


Methods to assess the impacts of hydropeaking are fewer and mainly based on the amplitude of interhourly – intrahourly obscillations in discharges (e.g. Meine et al. 2011, Baumann et al. 2012).A review of the methods for assessing hydrological alteration in MS and abroad has been carried out and published inside the EU FP7 project REFORM.There is also a European Standard “CSN EN 15843 - Water quality - Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology” which provides guidance on appraising the quality of rivers based on a suite of hydromorphological features,in terms of habitatand hydraulic features,described in EN 14614, including the hydrological regime.


It is not very true and the effect of hydropeaking cannot be detected by the statistics of average daily discharges.


Table 4: Quantitative criteria to assess the departure from naturalness of the flow regime SORCE: CSN EN 15843


Although relevant to the WFD, this standard is not principally designed for WFD assessments. In fact, the names used to describe each class (e.g. ‘near-natural’) have been deliberately chosen to be different from terms used in the WFD (e.g. ‘high’, ‘good’) to emphasise that classifications made using this standard are unrelated to classifications of ecological status made for the WFD. However it focuses especially on human pressures that affect rivers and where characterisation may be helpful for implementing the WFD, to indicate to what extent these pressures could have caused a deviation from the reference hydromorphological conditions.It is recalled that althoughthe Directive indicates that the monitoring of type parameters for surface waters, including hydro-morphological elements, should conform to appropriate international standards such as those developed by CEN and ISO, the same Directive does not impose on MS any standard for the assessment of any of the quality elements including hydromorphology.


The monitoring, not the assessment!


It must be also said that different definitions of hydromorphology have been used and several methods have been adopted for implementing the WFD in European countries, in some cases coinciding with physical habitat assessment approaches, on which the CEN standard is mostly based. Notwithstanding the fact that the characterization of physical habitat elements is important for ecological studies, the use of these approaches for understanding the physical processes and causes of their alterations implies a series of limitations (Fryirs et al., 2008; Entwistle et al., 2011), among which the spatial scale of investigation, usually inadequate for accurate diagnosis and comprehension of hydromorphological alteration, since physical site conditions commonly stem from processes and causes on a wider scale (Rinaldi et al. 2013)An initial overview of anthropogenic pressures on the hydrological regime has been made in the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies. Chapter 7 connects the


I propose to delete these paragraphs, as these themes are better dealt with in chapter 7


wider environmental impacts of interferences with hydromorphology and hydrological regimes.

4.2. Provisional identification of HMWBText to be developed based on the Discussion Document’s Chapters “The relevance of the hydrological regime in the WFD. References are: CIS GUIDANCE 3 - PRESSURES AND IMPACTS + CIS GUIDANCE 4 (HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES).

4.3. Provisional identification of water bodies at risk of failing to reach the WFD objectives in 2015Text to be developed based on the Discussion Document’s Chapters “The relevance of the hydrological regime in the WFD. References are also: GUIDANCE 20 – EXEMPTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES; GUIDANCE 10 – REFERENCE CONDITIONS


5. Setting up of the environmental objectivesText to be developed. Current text based on the Discussion Document’s Chapters “Eflows to achieve WFD objectives, Eflows to achieve the GES, Eflows in Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB), Eflows in Protected Areas and Eflows and groundwater”. References are also: GUIDANCE 20 – EXEMPTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES; GUIDANCE 10 – REFERENCE CONDITIONS. The assessment of disproportionate costs and impacts on important uses shall also be considered here in this context.

As set out in Article 174 of the Treaty, the Community policy on the environment is to contribute to pursuit of the objectives of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, in prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Proposed to be deleted


to be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source.The WFD introduces new, broader ecological objectives, designed to protect and, where necessary, restore the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems themselves, and thereby safeguard the sustainable use of water resources. The three principal environmental objectives for surface water bodies and bodies of groundwater are to: i) prevent deterioration in status; ii) restore to good status by 2015; and iii) protect and restore, where applicable, to achieve the objectives for Protected Areas established under Community legislation.As seen in Section 2.1, the hydrological regime is a "master variable" of aquatic ecosystems strongly correlated with many physical-chemical characteristics such as water temperature, channel geomorphology, and habitat diversity, which are critical to preserving the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems (Poff et al., 1997). For the


purpose of protecting the environment is necessary to consider the water needs of aquatic ecosystems, thus contributing to preserve, protect and improve environmental quality and the rational use of water resources.

5.1. Eflows to achieve the HESText to be further developed. As state before, all categories of water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters) include the hydrological regime as a relevant variable that affects the ecological status. However, the values of the hydromorphological quality elements just have to be necessarily used when assigning water bodies to the High Ecological Status class (WFD CIS, 2003d). For the other status/potential classes, the hydromorphological


elements are required to have “conditions consistent with the achievement of the values specified for the biological quality elements”.

5.2. Eflows to achieve the GES

5.2.1. A hydrological regime consistent with GESThe WFD does not specify the flow regime required to achieve the Good Status but requires that the flow regime should provide conditions ‘consistent with the achievement of the values specified for the Biological Quality Elements’. GES is unlikely to be reached in a water body with significantly altered flows, as this will result in changes to the river ecosystem through modification of physical habitat and alterations in erosion and sediment supply rates (see Section 2.2.). Consequently,


restoring a suitable flow regime may well be a necessary measure in an aquatic ecosystem that fails GES (Hirji and Davis, 2009).In a similar way as happens with the physical-chemical quality elements, a hydrological regime consistent for the GES must ensure the functioning of the type specific ecosystem and the achievement of the values specified for the biological quality elements.This statement raises several issues for consideration:


i. A hydrological regime for the functioning of aquatic ecosystems. Proper


structure and functioning2 is a first condition for preserving aquatic ecosystems. As seen in Section 2.2 functioning of aquatic ecosystems is largely caused by different flows types which vary throughout the seasons and over the years. From a pragmatic point of view the hydrological regime


should adequately consider the Environmental Flow Components3 that should be defined for different hydrological conditions (drought and wet years) in order to capture the interannual variability

ii. A hydrological regime for a type specific ecosystem. The magnitude, duration, frequency and timing of the EFC are particular to each type of ecosystem. Overall species have evolved according to the ranges and typical patterns of the natural hydrological regimes. In these circumstances, the hydrological regime to achieve GES should be based on the natural regime typical of that type of ecosystem.

iii. A hydrological regime where values of biological quality elements are classified as GES. Processes and conditions imposed by this hydrological regime will be consistent with the values of the biological quality elements for GES, that is to say, these values show low levels of distortion resulting


from human activity4. Considering the high level of environmental protection required for the GES, a consistent hydrological regime should reflect in a great extent the natural flow regime.

To sum up, it can be said that a hydrological regime consistent with the GES must include the most relevant components of the hydrological regime to active the ecosystem dynamic (EFC), must be based on the natural hydrological regime of the water body and must reflect a large proportion of such natural regime.

5.2.2. Exploring some preliminary benchmarks

It should be discussed within the DG whether this chapter is adequate, and which references should be included. Further benchmarks might be identified regarding the currently established eflows, e.g. in water bodies that achieve good status, or others.


Please remove this!We actually don’t have enough case studies/experiences to draw conclusions. The one mentioned are very controversial and go in the direction of a “minimum flow” approach. Moreover, those threshold are inapplicable in dynamic regimes such as Mediterranean or flashy in general.


Based on a selection of 159 global case-studies with a classification system of ecological classes similar to the WFD, ecological flows lie roughly between 25% and 50% of the Mean Annual Runoff for the GES class. To be discussed in the WG if a "safety net" should be promoted in the GuidanceThe BCG5 is a good model to theoretically illustrate the required naturalness of the hydrological regime in the context of the GES. The original six levels of biological integrity defined in the BCG can be reinterpreted as the five ecological status classes of the WFD. In this case the stress-response curve moves from the High Status with no or low levels of flow modification to Bad Status due to high levels of hydrological alteration (Figure 5). This model can also be interpreted in reverse since the ecological status will fall as ecological flows are lower.Fig. 3. Theoretical relationships between ecological flows and ecological status classes. SOURCE: Authors

2

Alteration 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0%

EnvironmentalFlows

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%100%


Overall, the generic evidence to support the ecological need to protect the whole of the natural flow regime is strong, but there remains uncertainty to define levels of flow modification and subsequent tiers of ecological response. Expert judgement has been used also to suggest limits on deviations from naturalised flow conditions that might be considered ecologically acceptable, such as the maximum abstraction levels that would maintain GES. The WFD 48 project (Acreman et al, 2005) assembled a panel of ecologists to try and agree acceptable limits across the range of UK Rivers and for key components of the biota. The project produced lookup tables for each river type, specifying the maximum abstraction allowable at different flows (Table 5). The maximum levels of abstraction ranged from 7.5 to 35 percent of the natural flow, depending on river type and flow rate.


Table 5: Recommended standards for UK river types for achieving GES as % allowable abstraction of natural flow. SOURCE: Acreman et al, 2005

3


Nevertheless, one of the most promising approaches to establish benchmarks for GES is making use of the recommendations produced by comprehensive eflow assessments (e.g. the Building Block Methodology). These studies explicitly estimate eflows (including minimum and high flows) related to adopted environmental flow objectives.King (1998) formulated the Bulk Water Estimate approach to provide very conservative and low confidence answers during the reconnaissance phase of planning for water resource developments. The BWE compared the results of a comprehensive holistic approach (Building Block Methodology) as a percentage of the Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) with the Management Class of the rivers. The results expressed as a percentage of the MAR would allow the definition of the volume of water necessary to maintain a body of water in a given ecological status.This BWE approach can be applied to the eflows worldwide database developed by IWMI in collaboration with TNC and UNEP GEMS/Water as part of the activities of 4


UNESCO Task Force on Eco-Hydrology. The database is a collection of actual estimates of ecological flows in 207 case studies and has been specifically designed to support further development of environmental flow assessment methodologies.Selecting only those cases with a classification system of ecological classes similar to that proposed by the WFD (159 cases selected) it is noted that the relationship between eflows (expressed as % of MAR) and ecological classes is similar to the BCG model (figure 6). Unfortunately there is now a database at the European level to develop a study of this nature. However, notwithstanding the limitations of this preliminary analysis, the results are illustrative: based on the IWMI database ecological flows would lie roughly between 25% and 50% of the Mean Annual Runoff for the GES class.Fig. 4. Quantitative relationships between ecological flows as % of MAR and ecological status classes. DATA

SOURCES: IWMI-Worldwide database on eflow assessments


5


5.3. Eflows in Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB)Further comments received by the WG and to be considered are: Eflow, which is "a flow consistent with GEP", must include the balancing of all relevant cost/benefit factors. The cost of the measure, i.e. flow, must be evaluated in terms of economic value, security of energy supply, balancing of energy system, renewable energy/climate change abatement, flood protection etc. The concept of HMWB was introduced into the WFD in recognition that many water bodies in Europe have been subject to major physical alterations so as to allow for a range of water uses. Important uses of surface waters include navigation, flood

R2 = 0,6503

010203040506070

% Mean Annual Runoff

Ecol

ogic

al S

tatu

s

HIG

HG

OO

DM

OD

ER

ATE

PO

OR


protection, activities for the purpose of which water is stored (drinking water supply, power generation or irrigation) and recreation as specified in Art. 4(3)(a) of the WFD.These specified uses tend to require considerable hydromorphological changes to water bodies of such a scale that restoration to GES may not be achievable even in the long-term without preventing the continuation of the specified use. The concept of HMWB was created to allow for the continuation of these specified uses which provide valuable social and economic benefits but at the same time allow mitigation measures to achieve an appropriate ecological objective: good ecological potential (GEP).According to the Article 2(9) of the WFD, “a heavily modified water body means a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character”. It is important to emphasise that changes in hydromorphology must be not only significant, but also result in a substantial change in the character of a water body.


The reference conditions of these water bodies mainly depend on the hydromorphological changes necessary to maintain the specified uses listed in Article 4(3)(a). Maximum Ecological Potential (MEP), as the reference conditions for HMWB and AWB, is intended to describe the best approximation to a natural aquatic ecosystem that could be achieved given the hydromorphological characteristics that cannot be changed without significant adverse effects on the specified use or the wider environment. Accordingly, the MEP values for the biological conditions should reflect, as far as possible, the biological conditions associated with the closest comparable natural water body type at reference conditions, given the MEP hydromorphological and associated physical-chemical conditions (see WFD CIS, 2003b: Section 6.2.3).


5.4. Eflows in Protected Areas

5.4.1. General provisionsUnder Article 4 the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are divided into those for surface waters, groundwater and protected areas. For protected areas the objectives are those noted in the Community legislation under which these areas are designated, with the additional objective that “Member States shall achieve compliance with the existing standards and objectives”Article 6 of the WFD requires Member States to establish a register of protected areas. The register (or registers) is limited to areas lying within river basin districts designated “…as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation…”


for the protection of their surface water and groundwater or “… for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water”.The standards required to achieve the objective for a Protected Area are the biological, physical-chemical and hydromorphological standards in surface water and groundwater that are necessary to support the achievement of the conservation objectives that have been established for those areas. To the extent that ecological flows can appreciably affect protected areas, eflow estimates are necessary, in order to maintain the quality levels of their surface water and groundwater, as well as the ecological requirements of communities, habitats or species. Article 4(2) of the WFD states that where more than one objective applies to a water body, the most stringent objective shall apply. Within a protected area the most stringent of the protected area and, for example, the status objective would apply.


5.4.2. Eflows in Natura-2000 sites


The register of protected areas in the river basin management plans (WFD Art. 6)


covers any Natura- 2000 site when one or more habitats and species6 directly dependent on the status of water and the presence of these species or habitats has been the reason for the designation of that protected area. There is wide range of types of water dependency amongst Natura 2000 habitats and species. Table 6 sets out ecological criteria used to identify those habitats and species likely to be directly dependent on the status of water.


Table 6: Ecological criteria used in UK for identifying Natura Habitats and Species that are directly dependent on status of water. SOURCE: WFD CIS (2003e).


6


Article 2(2) of the Habitats Directive (HD) specifies that measures taken in Natura 2000 sites ‘shall be designed to maintain or to restore, at a favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest’. The conservation status will be taken as ‘favourable’ for habitat and species when criteria set out in Article 1 (e) and 1 (i) are met (table 7).Article 6(1) of the HD specifies that the necessary conservation measures have to correspond ‘to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites’. Although the Habitat Directive does not contain any definition of the ‘ecological requirements’, the purpose and context of Article 6(1) indicate that these involve all the ecological needs of biotic and non-biotic factors required to ensure the favourable conservation status of the habitat types and species, including their relations with the environment (air, water, soil, vegetation, etc.) (CEC, 2000). Eflows are significant for the conservation of water-dependent


species, and therefore the eflows has to be adequate to meet the favourable conservation status.

Table 7: Criteria to define conservation status of habitats and species under the HD. SOURCE: Authors

HABITATS SPECIESIts natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and

Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

The specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and

The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and


HABITATS SPECIESThe conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i)

There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis;

These considerations are reinforced with Article 6 (2) of the HD since establishes that Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbances of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this directive. Deterioration referred to the previous paragraph is a physical degradation affecting a habitat. Deterioration against the objectives of the HD refers to the definition of the


favourable conservation status of a natural habitat set out in Article 1(e) (CEC, 2000), on the basis of the following factors: i) Any event which contributes to the reduction of the areas covered by a natural habitat for which this site has been designated can be regarded as deterioration; ii) Any impairment of the factors necessary for the long-term maintenance of the habitats can be regarded as deterioration; iii) The functions necessary for the long-term maintenance depend of course on the habitat concerned. Thereby it can be said that Member States have to know eflows requirements since Article 6(1) provides that they have to take measures ‘which correspond to the ecological requirements of the habitats in Annex I and species in Annex II’ and Article 6 (2) establishes that Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species.


5.5. Eflows and groundwater

5.5.1. Groundwater quantitative statusArticle 4.1(b) (ii) states that Member States shall “…ensure a balance between abstraction and recharge of groundwater with the aim of achieving good groundwater status... by 2015... in accordance with the provisions in Annex V…”The definition of good quantitative status is set out in WFD Annex V 2.1.2. For a groundwater body (GWB) to be of good quantitative status each of the criteria covered by the definition of good status must be met. These criteria are:

i. available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction;

ii.


iii. no significant diminution of surface water chemistry and/or ecology resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions that would lead to failure of relevant Article 4 objectives for any associated surface water bodies;

iv.v. no significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems

resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration;nvi.vii. no saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced

sustained changes in flow direction.


5.5.2. The role of eflows for assessing groundwater quantitative status In order to assess whether the above conditions have been met or not, a series of classification tests (for both quantitative and chemical status) has been developed (CIS, 2009). In the case of quantitative status have been developed the following 4 test:

i. Test 1: Water Balance . For a GWB to be of good status for this test, long-term annual average abstraction from the GWB must not exceed long-term average recharge minus the long-term ecological flow needs (figure 9). For the water balance test we must assess annual average abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ in the groundwater body. The available groundwater resource means the long-term annual average rate of overall recharge to the body of groundwater minus the long-term annual rate of flow required to achieve the ecological quality for associated surface waters


(specified in Article 4), avoid any significant diminution on the ecological status and avoid any significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTE). According to the CIS document, both the surface water and GWDTE ecological flows, and the impacts of groundwater abstraction on low flows must be determined.

Fig. 5. Role of ecological flows in the water balance test. SOURCE: WFD CIS (2009).


ii. Test 2: Surface Water Flow . For a GWB to be of good status for this test, there should be no significant diminution of surface water chemistry or ecology that would lead to a failure of Article 4 surface water objectives (n.b. relating to surface water bodies). This test includes both river and open water bodies such as lakes to which WFD surface water objectives apply. This test requires that eflows or water level requirement of surface water bodies (associated with GWBs) needed to support achievement (and maintenance) of good chemical and ecological status is determined. If this flow/level requirement is not being met as a result of a significant impact from groundwater abstraction, then the GWB will be of poor status unless the surface water body remains of good/high ecological status. Under any other circumstances the GWB will be of good status.


iii. Test 3: Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) . For a GWB to be of good status there should be no significant damage to a terrestrial ecosystem that depends on groundwater. The GWDTE tests for both chemical status assessment and quantitative assessment are closely linked. This test requires that the environmental condition required to support and maintain conditions within a GWDTE (e.g. flow or level needed to maintain dependent (plant) communities) are determined. If the conditions are not being met and groundwater level and flow change due to abstraction is determined to be a significant cause, then the GWB is of poor status. In all other cases the GWB will be of good status but potentially at risk.

iv. Test 4: Saline (or other) Intrusion . For a GWB to be of good status for this test there should be no long-term intrusion of saline (or other poor quality


water) resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained water level or head change, reduction in flow or alteration of flow direction due to abstraction.

Each relevant test (considering classification elements which are at risk) should be carried out independently and the results combined to give an overall assessment of groundwater body chemical and quantitative status. The worst case classification from the relevant quantitative tests is reported as the overall quantitative status. If any of the tests results in poor status (chemical or quantitative), then the overall classification of the body will be poor.As seen above, in 3 of the 4 previous test is necessary to determine eflows. This gives an idea of the importance of ecological flows when assessing the quantitative status of water bodies.


5.6. The role of eflows exemptionsText to be developed. References to be considered are: GUIDANCE 20 – EXEMPTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES; GUIDANCE 10 – REFERENCE CONDITIONS. The assessment of disproportionate costs and impacts on important uses shall also be considered here in this context.

6. Establishment of monitoring programmesThe aim of the EU water policy is to ensure that a sufficient quantity of good quality water is available for people's needs and for the environment, throughout the European Union. The WFD is primarily concerned with the quality of surface water and groundwater, addressing the quantity as an ancillary element in securing good water quality. However, quality and quantity are closely related concepts and the


interrelation between biological, hydrological and morphological parameters is acknowledged throughout the WFD. Included in the hydromorphological quality elements in the context of the WFD, hydrological parameters have been proposed to be assessed as supplementary information to the biological quality elements. Recent implementation reports though, revealing severe degradation of the European water bodies due to hydromorphological alteration (ETC/ICM Technical Report 2/2012; EEA, 2012), conclude that specific measures should be applied for restoring the natural flow regime and mitigate hydrological and morphological impacts on water bodies. According to the reports, almost 40% of river and transitional water and 30% of lake water bodies in the EU are affected by hydromorphological alterations. This magnitude of hydromorphological degradation inevitably requires adaptation of current monitoring activities to include more detailed hydrological measurements. In combination with the continuous understanding of ecosystem processes, it is evident


that achieving GES involves meeting certain standards not only for ecology but also for morphology, chemistry and quantity of waters, indicating a shift towards a more holistic approach for designing effective monitoring programmes.6.1. Relevance of hydrology in the WFD monitoring programmesDespite its quantitative character, hydrology is widely accredited as a significant determinant of the status of surface water and groundwater. The importance of stream flow for sustaining biodiversity and ecological integrity is well established in literature (Bunn and Arthington, 2002; Hart and Finelli, 1999) and it is expected that GES is unlikely to be reached in water bodies with significantly altered hydrological regime (Sanchez Navarro and Schmidt, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to identify alteration in flow regime through hydrological assessments (or through ecological flow assessments in case of lack of hydrological data) in order to estimate the volume and flow regime required for a functional ecosystem (translated as reaching good


quantitative status in WFD terminology). The combination of sufficient water quantity and good water quality is the key factor towards GES.Although ecological flow is not explicitly defined in the WFD, it is implied in Article 8 as “the volume and level or rate of flow to the extent relevant for ecological and chemical status and ecological potential” and summarized in Annex V, as “the hydrological regime consistent with the achievement of the values specified for the biological quality elements”. Monitoring should be adapted to incorporate hydrology, addressing the concept of ecological flow for ensuring the good status of surface water and good quantitative status of groundwater, in a supportive and rather obligatory manner, especially in operational and investigative monitoring programmes, where failure to meet GES is likely to be a result of severe hydrological alteration. Hydropower, navigation, water abstraction, flood protection and urban development are major hydromorphological pressures, which provoke such hydrological alteration.


Consequently, water bodies affected by such pressures or fail to reach the GES for unknown reasons must be incorporated in a holistic monitoring approach, which includes the estimation of hydrological alteration, leading to restoration and maintenance of near-natural hydrological properties (flow regime).In accordance with Article 8 (1) WFD, Member States need to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and groundwater. The Directive foresees three different kinds of monitoring programmes for surface waters: surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring.

i. Surveillance monitoring is established to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status within a catchment or sub-catchment in a river basin district, thereby taking into account the results of the risk analysis carried out under Article 5 WFD, supplementing and validating it. Surveillance monitoring should include all biological quality elements, all hydromorphological and all


general physicochemical quality elements as well as the priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.

Surveillance monitoring has already been established in most Member States and an extended network of water bodies is currently assessed for possible different kinds of degradation. However, hydrological assessments could be included into the current surveillance network to further complement its specific objectives: designing efficient and effective future monitoring programmes, assessing long-term changes in natural (hydrological) conditions and assessing long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity (hydropower, water abstraction and storage etc.).The results of such an extended monitoring could be used in combination with the impact assessment procedure described in Annex II WFD to determine further requirements for the current and subsequent River Basin Management Plans (RBMP).


ii. Operational monitoring is established to follow a targeted approach in order to assess the ecological and chemical status of those water bodies that have been identified as being at risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives. In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject, including parameters indicative of the hydromorphological quality element most sensitive to the pressure identified.

In cases where the risk of the water body failure to meet the GES is attributed to hydrological alteration (pressures from water abstraction, water storage and hydropower), quantitative hydrological information is essential to evaluate the degree of divergence from natural conditions and the efficacy of the program of measures, such as the maintenance of e-flows and therefore, hydrology should be a quality element to be considered in the monitoring of that water body. For example, if water


abstraction is the main pressure on a water body, a hydrological assessment in order to evaluate the divergence from natural hydrological conditions (or an ecological flow assessment in case of lack of hydrological data in order to, restore and maintain the natural flow regime), could be the appropriate approach for an effective operational monitoring.

iii. Investigative monitoring has to be carried out where the reason for failing to reach good status is unknown or in order to determine the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution.

Investigative monitoring should be designed for specific cases or problems being investigated, focused on particular water bodies and quality/quantity elements. Quantitative hydrological assessments (initial desktop hydrological analyses) incorporated into investigative monitoring activities, could be applied in water bodies


failing to meet GES due to unknown reasons or possible hydrological degradation, for estimating whether or not changes in flow regime provoke this failure.

6.2. Monitoring in water bodies affected by hydrological pressuresMonitoring hydrology is becoming obligatory in water bodies affected by hydrological alterations. Pressures resulting from water abstraction and water storage affect the flow regime by changing seasonal flow, daily flow (hydropeaking) and water level fluctuations. Unmonitored river stretches may dry up and water levels of lakes and reservoirs may be heavily regulated unless effective monitoring programmes are operating. The significant alteration of the flow regime downstream of impoundments results in degradation of aquatic communities and lower ecological status.


Structures such as dams, weirs and sluices interrupt the longitudinal continuity of rivers. The use of water resources for energy production or abstraction for human uses can impact both the hydrology (reduced residual water, changes in seasonality and hydropeaking) and morphology of rivers (longitudinal connectivity interruption, reduced flow velocities). The disconnection of riverine floodplains and disturbance of the natural lateral connectivity of river systems can frequently result in a decrease of ecological status. Navigation activities and infrastructure such as cross-profile constructions and impoundments, canalization, straightening, bank reinforcement and deepening are associated with a range of hydromorphological changes with potential adverse ecological effects. Moreover, river morphology has been impacted by channelization of river stretches for human uses, erosion of the river bottom as a consequence of reduced sediment transport due to dams, or dredging for navigation.


Constructions established as flood protection measures also impact the morphology of riverine systems. Monitoring hydrology effectively in the context of the WFD requires recording hydrological, hydraulic - morphological and biological data in several levels and should be targeting towards specific objectives:

i. To quantify hydrological alteration, describing the degree of divergence from historical and/or predicted (modelled) reference conditions regarding the flow regime.

ii. To assess the cause of hydrological alteration; natural or anthropogenic.iii. To recommend a flow regime consistent with achieving river connectivity and

the values specified in the WFD for the biological quality elements to reach HES/GES.


iv. To effectively control hydrological pressures - imposing specific flow outcomes from upstream dams and reservoirs and controlling water abstractions

The overall aim of an effective hydrological monitoring scheme, incorporated in the different WFD monitoring types, should be to ensure the quantity and timing of water flows (hydrological regime) required to maintain the components, functions, processes and resilience of aquatic ecosystems, which provide goods and services to people (Hirji and Davis, 2009). For the purpose of the WFD, hydrological monitoring incorporated in the current monitoring activities, should provide essential information to describe whether and to what extent, the quantity and dynamics of flow, and the resultant connection to groundwater, diverge from natural/reference conditions.Monitoring water quantity to ensure GES suggests a modified approach to be incorporated in the current monitoring programmes. Armitage and Petts (1992) indicate that biotic indices applied for water quality monitoring should be used with


great caution in quantitative hydrological assessments. Therefore, aquatic flora and fauna, which serve as biological indicators, should be perceived and addressed not as quality elements but as “quantity” elements, implying that they should be selected and monitored according to their ability/sensitivity to respond to hydrological alteration (changes in flow velocity and water level fluctuations). Fish, benthic invertebrates and riparian vegetation have been used as biological indicators of water quantity. Several studies favour the use of fish for quantity indicators as fish assemblages often include a range of species that represent a variety of feeding types, reflecting the integrated effects of environmental changes. Their presence, therefore, can also be used to infer the presence of other aquatic organisms, since the adults occupy the top of the food chain in most aquatic systems. They also pass through most trophic levels above the primary producer stage during their development from larvae to adults. Fish assemblage structure can thus be


regarded as reflecting the integrated environmental health of a river (Karr et al. 1986). However, a vast body of scientific literature reveals that this may not necessarily be so, and ecological flow assessments are best addressed for the entire ecosystem. Benthic macroinvertebrates for example, are abundant in most low-order streams, and many small streams that naturally support a diverse benthic macroinvertebrate fauna, only support a limited fish fauna (Barbour et al., 1999; Gore et al., 2001). Furthermore, microhabitats appropriate for fish survival and diversity may not benefit macroinvertebrates or other aquatic organisms. An effective monitoring effort should include all biological components affected by hydrological alterations and current holistic approaches incorporate fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, aquatic macrophytes and riparian assessments into an integrated monitoring approach. Visualization of the quantitative information through habitat mapping is also a widely applicable practice, which should be incorporated in the current monitoring programmes.


Hydrological monitoring is quantitative and as this it should be separated from the current monitoring activities established by Member States, which monitor the quality status of surface water according to the proposed by the WFD biological quality elements. Although the directive indicates that hydrological and morphological quality elements should provide supportive data to the biological elements, there is lack of any quantitative information between hydromorphological values (especially the flow regime) and aquatic communities (BQEs). In other words, quantitative hydrological monitoring should focus on the evaluation of the limit of acceptable changes in flow regime for a water body to maintain a diverse and fully functional aquatic community, thus resulting in GES according to the WFD.In conclusion, monitoring in water bodies affected by hydrological alterations should incorporate quantitative hydrological assessments and should be:


1. Holistic - addressing the needs of all ecosystem components affected and not the requirements of few indicator species

2. Reasonable – detecting the cause of hydrological alteration; natural or anthropogenic

3. Data driven - including hydrological, hydraulic, morphological and biological measurements to propose acceptable changes in flow regime

4. Adaptive - in order to include further possible (bio)indicators of hydrologic alteration in a general process of continuous evaluation and adjustment

6.3. Design of hydrological monitoring in the context of WFD monitoring programmes


Several authors consider that the whole range of intra and interannual variability of the flow regime, with its associated characteristics of magnitude, seasonality, duration, frequency and rate of change, is critical to maintain natural biodiversity and integrity of the aquatic ecosystems (Richter et al. 1996; Poff et al., 1997; Junk et al, 1989; Arthington, 2012). Considering that, Richter et al. 1996 proposed a suite of key hydrological components, the “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)” which were designed to assess the degree of changing of river flow regime. The IHA employs 32 hydrological parameters to characterize statistical attributes of the flow regime relevant to the ecosystem functioning, such as magnitude of monthly flow, magnitude and timing of annual extremes, frequency and duration of high and low flow flood pulses, rate and frequency of changes in conditions (Table 1). Some of this parameters are correlated and redundancy studies have been made to reduce the number of indices that should


be used (Olden and Poff, 2003; Monk et al. 2006, 2007 in Acreman, 2007). For UK the selected IHA are on Table 1 (Acreman et al., 2009).

Table 1: Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) as proposed by Richter et al. 1996 and the selected ones for UK (Acreman et al., 2009).


Other authors propose others sets of key hydrological components, such as on the ELOHA Framework (Arthington, 2012) or Martinez et al. (2010). According to Martinez et al. (2010), the characterization can be done attending normal or habitual values (determinants of the general availability of water in ecosystem) and extreme data, floods and droughts (since they define the most critical conditions in the ecosystem), considering the intra and inter-annual variability (Table 2).Table 2: Parameters for the characterization of the flow regime (Martinez et al., 2010)


Hydrological monitoring has two main purposes: i) to assess whether the recommended e-flows are fulfilled by the dam operator, in terms of volume and timing, or to verify whether the water abstraction is occurring in accordance with any prescribed limitations, such as the taking of water when flow exceeds a specified level or only at certain times of the year; and ii) to assess whether the e-flows allow the achievement of good ecological status or good ecological potential.In order to get the intra and interannual variability of the hydrological regime, natural or modified, the monitoring frequency for surveillance, operational and investigation monitoring should be continuous.Different strategies can be applied for selecting monitoring sites. The BACI design (Before-After Control - Intervention) proposed by several authors such as Cottinghan et al. (2005) and Bradley et al. (2012) is a very powerful tool for inferring causality between a management action and an ecological response. The BACI design involves


the collection of information before and after the intervention, at control and/or reference sites and at intervention location. When control and reference sites and previous monitoring are not available or the implementation of a full BACI is not economically viable, other different designs can be applied, such as intervention-only design, reference-intervention design, control-intervention design, control-reference-intervention design, before-after-intervention-design and before-after reference-intervention (BARI) design, before-after control-reference-intervention (BACRI) design).Considering reservoirs for water storage and hydropower, the monitoring frequency to assess whether the recommended e-flows are fulfilled by the dam operator can be guaranteed by the continuous registration of the flows discharged through the e-flow discharge device. For flood flows, frequently discharged by the spillways, it is possible to get the discharged volume considering the spillway section and the registration of time and duration of discharge. Regarding hydropower dams, it is also possible to


know the amount of water discharged by the turbines considering their technical characteristics and the hours that the central is working.When it is not possible to have a continuous registration of the e-flows discharged by the dam, or whether the objective is to know if the water abstraction fulfil the conditions establish in the permits, the best option is to use existing gauging stations downstream the dam. The data obtained by the gauging station can be used to get information about the hydrological regime of a group of water bodies downstream the dam until the first main tributary, by extrapolating the data obtained for other sections on the river. Complementarily, a measurement of the flow can be done at the same time of the collection of water samples.In the situations where a gauging station doesn’t exist, continuous monitoring of the flow can be achieved by installing a limnograph. A limnograph must be constructed on a stable and well defined section of the river, for what it is generally necessary to do


some changes on the structure of river banks and riverbed. To avoid this, the limnograph should be installed in a bridge, downstream the dam. Complementarily, a measurement of the flow can be done at the same time of the collection water samples. If the objective is to evaluate the hydrological alteration, this one should be, preferably, achieved by comparing the flow regime time-series, at least 10 years long, before and after the impoundment or significant water abstraction. The best way to do that is also to use existing gauging stations, one upstream and another downstream, measured before the dam construction until nowadays, with a continuous monitoring frequency. Complementarily, some measurement of the flow can be done at the same time of the collection of water samples.


For lakes, is important measure the flow contributions from the tributaries, as mentioned before, and measure the water level on the lake, preferably making a continuous registration of the dataIn order to monitor the evolution of groundwater level, two wells must be selected, around 1 km downstream the dam. If that is not possible, two short piezometers should be constructed for this purpose. The measurements will be done using a level sensor. In case of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, the monitoring network should be tighter, with a minimum of four monitoring sites. This number of monitoring sites is only an indicator, since monitoring site selection should take into account the area of incidence of the ecosystems and the surrounding geological formations. The measurements should be done monthly.


6.4. Monitoring eflowsMonitoring and assessment is therefore essential to confirm and understand how ecological flows result in the predicted outcomes, allowing flow adjustments (Cottinghan, et al. 2005; Richter et al., 2006), keeping in mind that there may be time lags before recovery, and the system may not respond as expected or progress to some alternative state, or may be unstable (Bradshaw 1996, Lake 2001).Cottinghan et al. (2005) propose a monitoring and assessment framework based on the following key steps:

1) Define the scope of the program and its objectives, described by quantifiable targets for the variables to be measured (e.g. low flows, number of fish species)

2) Define the conceptual understanding of flow–ecology relationships and the questions (hypotheses) to be tested


3) Select variables to be monitored4) Determine the study design, accounting for the specific activities and location5) Optimise the study design and identify how data are to be analysed6) Implement the study design7) Analyse data to assess whether the ecological flows have met specific

objectives (or are progressing in the right direction) and review conceptual understanding and hypotheses

8) Revise environmental flow objectives, monitor and analyse for ecological outcomes (i.e. complete an adaptive management loop)

The design of a monitoring program must include a conceptual model understanding flow-ecosystem relationships and how they might have been affected by past changes to the flow regime and their probable response to reinstatement of more natural flows,


considering the different levels of uncertainty of the different components and links (King et al. 2003; Cottinghan et al., 2005; Arthington, 2012). According to Bradley et al, 2012, the aims of a conceptual model, considering the DPSIR framework (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact and Response) are:

1) to conceptualise the complex interconnections between the drivers, pressures, states and impacts of river flow modifications

2) to provide a clear display of the linkage pathways and scientific rationale behind the selection of ecological indicators and the development of the framework for optimising water releases from impoundments

3) to provide a demonstration of the validity, strengths and weaknesses of ecological indicators and the framework for optimising water releases from impoundments, and their application


4) to provide a framework to modify ecological indicator choice, metrics and use as knowledge and understanding develop through future research and adaptive management

5) to provide a traceable, rational connection between the report outputs and policy aims; and to generate hypotheses for further testing


Figure 1: Ecological responses expected when flow is reduced in the Cotter River, Australian Capital Territory (Cottingham et al., 2005)Ecological indicators include both quantitative and qualitative features of rivers and riparian habitats that can be easily measurable on site. For the selection of ecological indicators, the flow-ecosystem relationships identified in the concept model should be considered. The selected indicators must be relevant for the ecological status definitions and represent the main structural and/or functional components of the aquatic and riparian ecosystem, being responsive to changes in flow at spatial and temporal scales. Other important criteria are the response sensitivity of life stage and life history of the biological indicator to flow modifications, allowing the identification of the directions of change, sensitivity (and distribution) variation with river type, responsiveness within the timeframe of the project. The set of ecological indicators should guarantee feasible costs and the use accessible analytical


and diagnostic routines (King et al. 2003; Cottingham et al., 2005; Bradley et al., 2012).Considering what it was mentioned in chapter 6.3 all flow components should be monitored. And as suggested on chapter 6.2 the biological quality elements that should be monitored are fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, aquatic macrophytes and riparian vegetation, since they are the biological quality elements that have the most significant negative response to changes in the flow regime (Poff and Zimmerman, 2010). Physicochemical parameters must also be monitored since the quality of the water discharged from a reservoir is a very important issue; because it can be colder than in the river and can have lack of oxygen. The water quality is worst if taken at low levels, below thermocline during the reservoir stratification. Besides that, monitoring of these parameters allows to identify other possible pressures that may change the response of biological quality elements to flow alterations. One of the consequences of


the modifications of the hydrological regime are habitat modifications, at long term scale, mainly due to the changes in the duration, magnitude and time of floods, but also at short time scale, affecting the habitat availability. The flow changes often miniaturise aquatic habitats and its distribution, whilst still maintaining the overall character of the river. As consequence, in addition to indicators of habitat diversity and character, habitat mapping, as mentioned on chapter 6.2, including the size of aquatic habitat, space and connectivity between aquatic habitats is also important Bradley et al., 2012).An important tool for the design of monitoring programs, mainly when the above design strategies, such as BACI, can’t be applied, is the Multiple Lines and Levels of Evidence (MLLE) approach, a logical way of organising evidence to help the identification of causal relationships (e.g. Beyers 1998, Downes et al. 2002, in Cottingham et al., 2005). A line of evidence is a type of evidence, for example, an


ecosystem attribute that is investigated in relation to a stressor or intervention (e.g. fish abundance, macroinvertebrate, species richness, macrophyte biomass). A level of evidence is the value of one of the criteria used to determine the case inferring (i.e. strength of evidence) that a given human activity causes a given ecological change (Cottingham et al., 2005). Both line of evidence and level of evidence can be obtained from case studies described in bibliography. The MLLE contributes to improve the conceptual models and for the selection of variables.


Fig. 6. Flow chart of Derwent River at Yorkshire Bridge (UK). Quantitative assessment of the hydrological regime allows identify flow values outside predefined relevant thresholds. Black line: pre-impoundment typical year; Pale blue and red shading: historical range; Blue line: post-impoundment typical year. SOURCE: UK TAG, 2007


7. Gap analysisAccording to the objective of the Guidance this section should be focused on hydrological pressures. The objective in the planning process is to evaluate the gap between the ecological flow regime to achieve environmental objectives and the reference situation (current hydrological situation and taking account of likely developments). This step is essential for proper design of the program of measures. Gap analysis is divided in two subsections: estimating eflows and using eflows in the gap analysis. Text to be reviewed and completed. Current text based on the Discussion Document’s Chapters. It should also include lessons learnt from Case studies.

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Alternative title “Eflow regimes”


7.1. Estimating eflows

7.1.1. Methodologies and fundamentalsReference should also be made to the table included in the annex, where MS include their usage of methods.As described in the previous section, environmental flow assessment should determine the hydrological regime necessary to reach environmental goals. Tools and techniques developed in the field of science to determine the amount of water needed by ecosystems are so called "methods of calculation". Since the 1970s, there has been a progressive evolution of methodologies for assessing the water needs of aquatic ecosystems (Dunbar et al, 1998; Acreman and Dunbar, 2004; Tharme, 2003). First attempts focused on the definition of a “minimum

Rafa, 01/02/14,

The final location of this chapter on methods in the index of the Guidance will be discussed once all chapters are drafted, at the WG meeting in Madrid.


flow”as a fixed percentage of average flows (Baxter, 1961; Tennant, 1976) or, a low-flow duration statistic(the 95th percentile flow, Q95). From 1980 to 1995, e-flows science advanced, assimilated into practice and challenging. However, only atthe end of the 1990s, a general protocol was established for restoring regulated rivers (Stanford et al., 1996), and the natural flow paradigm (Poff et al., 1997) had become embedded in e-flow science (Petts, 2009). The association between the health of river ecosystems and flow variability was the center of the U.S. Instream Flow Council Guidance (Annear et al., 2004) but even after 30 years, the philosophy of using simple operational rules fundamentally based upon minimum flows for single species remains widespread (Petts, 2009, Poff et al., 2009, Richter et al. 2012).Although the techniques for assessing eflows can be categorized in a variety of ways, three basic groups of methodologies are widely recognised; hydrological methods, hydraulic-habitat


methods and holistic methodologies (King et al, 1999; Tharme, 2003, King et al. 2008, Petts, 2009). Each of these different methods is described briefly below.

Hydrological methodsThese methods are based on the natural flow regime as a key variable in the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems (for more details see section 2.1.). The range and variation of flows over recent historical time sets a template for contemporary ecological processes, evolutionary adaptations and native biodiversity maintenance (Resh et al., 1988; Doyle et al., 2005; Lytle & Poff, 2004; Bunn & Arthington, 2002). Historical flow data in natural conditions reflect this template of aquatic ecosystems.

paolovezza, 17/01/35,

Hydraulic methods have not been largely used (mainly in North America in the 1990s, Tharme, 2003). They are based on hydraulic variables as a simplified proxy of habitat requirements of the aquatic community. For brevity, we are wondering whether these two categories could be merged into only one (e.g., Petts 2009). We can call them “Hydraulic-habitat methods”.


Eflow recommendations designed from the natural flow regime7 will result in processes and conditions that will maintain native habitats and species. Depending on the desired level of environmental conservation, eflow recommendations should reflect to a greater or lesser extent the natural flow regime (see the Biological Condition Gradient in section 2.2).There are numerous methodologies that rely primarily or solely on hydrological data for deriving environmental flow recommendations (Tharme, 2003). The basic assumption of hydrological methods is that the full range of natural variability in the hydrological regime is necessary to conserve aquatic ecosystems. However, the first hydrological methods were used in rivers to define only a minimum flow (Gippel, 2001). Taking into account the needs of all freshwater systems, the current trend is away from methods that set one minimum flow towards more holistic methods that consider


the hydrological regime and aspects that, with some degree of hydrological variability, are needed to maintain the system morphology and ecologically-based values (Beca, 2008). Those methods based on the characterization of the "natural range of variability" and the "natural disturbance regime" usually have a great scientific support. This highlights that eflow settings should focus not only on the short-term features of the flow regime but also on natural flow variability over longer periods, especially on the importance of extreme events, with the aim of producing a changing mosaic of habitat patches, ecotones and successional stages to develop built-in resilience to disturbance (Davies et al., 2014).Hydrological methods support the need to sustain flows that mimic the natural, climatically driven variability. Such approaches move attention away from fish to consider the range of aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats along the river corridor (Petts, 2009).


Hydraulic-habitat Methods Hydraulic-habitat approaches assume that biological communities have evolved to exploit the full range ofhabitats; the variability of flows determining when and for how long habitats are available to different species at different locations throughout the stream network(Petts, 2009).Flow requirements are defined on the basis of the hydro-morphological conditions needed to meet specific habitat requirements for biota (Bovee et al, 1998; CRCA, 2005, Dunbar et al., 2010, Merritt et al. 2010, Heggenes andWollebaek, 2013). In particular, habitat features, such as water depth, flow velocity, substrate composition, channel geometry and cover availability, are used to predict species’ distribution and abundances. Thus, the amount of habitat for biota can be determined in relation to both streamflow and channel morphological characteristics.

7

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Merged together!


By the early 1990s, hydraulic-habitat approaches have expanded from the determination of purely hydraulic variables (Gippel and Stewardson, 1998) to a more complex representation of the river system. Specifically, many schemes currently addressed wider issues than hydraulic habitats of one or a few species, increasingly addressing the sustainability of communities and ecosystems within the whole river corridor. They incorporated the access of aquatic biota to seasonal floodplain and riparian habitats as well as the need for high flows for riparian species and floods to sustain the geomorphological dynamics of rivers (RRA, 2003).Habitat time series analysis (Milhous et al. 1990) is currently considered a key component in the definition of ecological flows; it is important to represent how habitat changes through time and to identify stress conditions created by persistent limitation in habitat availability. Habitat time series can be used to generate habitat duration curves and to provide summary statistics on frequency and duration of habitat


bottlenecks. These analyses could be developed to consider periods of habitat persistence related to key biological time-windows (Parasiewicz et al., 2013).Hydraulic simulation models can also be used to predict water depth and flow velocity in the river channel, as well as to evaluate the effects of flow regime changes on many aspects of the riverine environment, including riparian ecosystems (Merritt et al., 2010), river longitudinal connectivity and fish migration(Nel et al., 2011), sediment entrainment and deposition (for flushing flow and channel maintenance flow requirements, Robinson, 2012), water quality (Davies et al., 2014).

Holistic methodologiesThese alternative approaches are distinguished from single purpose methods by the common feature that they aim to assess the flow requirements of the many interacting components of aquatic systems (Arthington, 1998; King et al. 2008). The philosophy of


these approaches is that all major abiotic and biotic components constitute the ecosystem to be managed, and secondly, that the full spectrum of flows, and their temporal and spatial variability, constitutes the flows to be managed. The flow components are identified and described in terms of their magnitude, duration, timing, and frequency. The output is a description of a flow regime needed to achieve and maintain a specified river condition (King et al, 2003).The holistic approaches are essentially processes that allow aquatic scientists from many disciplines to integrate data and knowledge. Each specialist uses methods of her/his choice to develop an understanding of flow–ecosystem relationships, and then works with the other team members, within the overarching process of the holistic approach, to reach consensus on ecological flows (King et al, 2003).In the United Kingdom, driven by the EU Water Framework Directive, an “expert panels” approach has been used to determine levels of “acceptable abstraction” in


relation to the “ecological sensitivity” of river reaches (Acreman and Ferguson, 2010). In the U.S., Poff et al. (2009) proposed a framework for assessing e-flow needs, namely ELOHA, that combines a regional hydrological approach and ecological response relations. Stakeholders and decision makers then explicitly evaluate acceptable risk as a balance between perceived value of the ecological goals, the economic costs involved, and the scientific uncertainties.In most of these methodologies it is implicit that attributes of the modified flow regime must lie within the range of values characterising the historical pattern (Arthington, 1998), on the assumption that if a particular modified flow regime contains elements (eg. sequences of days of set discharge) which have never occurred in the historical record, then that modified flow regime is ecologically unacceptable (Pusey 1998)


7.1.2. Key features of the methodsExisting methods for the estimation of ecological flows differ in input information requirements, types of ecosystems they are designed for, time which is needed for their application, and in the level of confidence in the final estimates. As seen above, they range from purely hydrological methods, which derive environmentally acceptable flows from flow data and use limited ecological information or eco-hydrological hypotheses (e.g. Richter et al. 1997; Hughes and Münster 2000), to multidisciplinary, comprehensive methods, which may involve expert panel discussions and collection of significant amounts of geo-morphological and ecological data (e.g. Arthington et al. 1998a; King and Louw 1998). Many detailed case studies have demonstrated the sensitivity of biota to major hydrological change (Poff and Zimmerman, 2009), especially below dams, often pointing to migration bottlenecks, thermal effects or siltation as key mechanisms.


From a management perspective, there is no doubt that the focus on hydromorphology at the “habitat” scale has allowed significant progress to be made in addressing the e-flows imperative worldwide. On the other hand, using holistic approaches may lead to identify the “best” alternative in a negotiated resolution process among interdisciplinary science teams, stakeholders and policy makers.Reviews of the presented methods may be found in multiple sources, including Tharme 1996, Arthington et al. 1998, Dunbar et al. 1998, and King et al. 2008, Petts 2009. The three types of “eflow methods” are compared in Table 1 (next page)7.1.3. Applicability of methodsIdentification of potential methods should not be confused with choice of applicable methods. Based on available knowledge on water balances, catchment’s characteristics and scale, scope of the method and the wider environmental context


(ecology, social dependencies (for a example in upstream-downstream relations), economy), a pre-defined choice of which method to use is justifiable. This paragraph is intended to guide the process towards selection of a suitable method.

7.1.3. Implementation of methods

The choice of the right assessment methodIt has been estimated that some 200 different generic methods have been developed to derive ‘ecological flows’ (Tharme, 2003; Arthington et al. 2006). Different methods should be and are used for different purposes depending on the specifics of the case study and the type of issue to be addressed (water planning, monitoring, river restoration plan, etc.). However, no single environmental flow assessment technique

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Change numbering!

schmg6, 17/01/35,

new


suits all social, economic, hydrological, and ecological contexts within a country (Hirji and Davis, 2009; Annear, 2003; Dyson et al, 2008). Multiple variables must be taken into account for the implementation of the different methods. A widely used criterion for the implementation of methods is based on a risk-based approach, meaning that for flow decisions with greater environmental, social or economic risks more sophisticated methods shall be applied (UK TAG, 2007; Beca, 2008; MARM, 2009). It should be noted that assessments can take several years and high cost of resources. High-confidence, very explanatory, easily-defensible assessments contrast with quick and easy, inexpensive, lower-confidence estimates, that may need to be monitored and revised. As a general rule, the efforts and time required increases as the spatial scale of assessments decreases, and more focused and quantitative assessments are


necessary (Arthington et al, 1998b). It can be stated that there is no one right way to assess ecological flows; the context is everything in this assessment.Table 1: Main features of the calculation methods. SOURCE: Based on King et al, 1999.

FEATURES


ECOS

YSTE

M

COM

PONE

NTS

AD

DRES

SED

DATA

NEE

DS

EXPE

RTIS

E

COM

PLEX

ITY

RESO

URCE

INTE

NSIT

Y

RESO

LUTI

ON O

F OU

TPUT

FLEX

IBIL

ITY

COST


MET

HO

DS

HYDR

OLOG

ICAL The whole ecosystem,

non specificL (mainly desktop)

Historical flow records (virgin or naturalized)

Historical ecological data

L

Hydrological

Some ecological expertise

L L L L L


HYDR

AULI

C-HA

BITA

T M

ETHO

DS Habitat for target biota, from single species to guilds, to the whole aquatic community.

It is possible to consider riparian vegetation, river longitudinal connectivity, sediment transport, water quality, etc.

M-H (desktop and field)

Historical flow records

Channel geometry and geo-morphological data

Habitat requirements for target species or guilds

H

Hydrological

Advanced level in hydraulic and habitat modelling.

Specialist ecological expertise on habitat-flow needs of target species

M-H M-H M-H M H


HOLIS

TIC

The whole ecosystem-all/most individual components

Some consider the groundwater, wetlands, estuary, floodplain, social dependence on ecosystem, instreamand riparian components.

M-H (desktop and field)

Historical flow records

Many hydraulic variables - multiple cross-sections.

Biological data on flow and habitat-related requirements of all biota and ecological components

H

Hydrological

Advanced hydraulic modelling.

Habitat modelling in some cases.

Specialist expertise on all ecosystems components

Some require social and

M-H M-H H H H


The choice of methods on a case-by-case basis is compatible with a broader context of strategic application of methods. A range of techniques, from simple to complex, can be selected to respond progressively to the range of risk, intensity of water use, budgets, capacity, and timeframes of a country (Hirji and Davis, 2009). However, a minimum thresholdin terms of data availabilityand efforts spent for eflows assessment should be setin order to produce consistent results. Indeed, desktop rules based on simple hydrological analyses can be hindered by three main issues. First, hydrological metrics need to be derived from an appropriate record length with at least 15 years, beingrequired for statistical integrity(Kennard et al., 2010). Second is the problem of ‘‘naturalizing’’ the gauged flow records in catchment characterized by long-term human interference, determining flow


We think that a minimum threshold should be defined for significant eflows assessment


regime in the absence of existing dams, reservoirs, diversions, and abstractions. Third is the issue of spatial distribution of gauging stations, which have to be located in both low- and high-order streams, capturing the hydrograph characteristics of both headwaters and main stems.

applicationof methods Experience suggests that eflow policy should be thought of not as a single event, but as a process with cycles of development, implementation, evaluation and review (MacKay and Roux, 2004; De Coning and Sherwell, 2004; De Coning 2006). Phased implementation of methods is a mechanism for overcoming some initial barriers (e.g. constrained resources) while allowing for the evolution of approaches to and methods of implementation.

Linsen, 17/01/35,

Odd paragraph, given the specific context of WFD objectives. What is the experience?

Rafa, 17/01/35,

According to the planning process makes sense hydrological methods applied in the preliminary assessment of the gap (section 4 of the Guidance) and more sophisticated methods at this stage of planning (section 7).


Phased implementation can be undertaken in a number of different dimensions (Le Quesne et al, 2010), such as: i) increasing complexity of scientific assessment, from desktop rules to complex site-based investigations; ii) increasing complexity of flow regime, from basic protection of low season base flows to complex flow regimes prescribing multiple flood peaks and inter-annual variability; iii) geographical phasing, starting with high priority sites.In ecological literature, hierarchy is usually identified with the concept of levels of organization. When speaking of applicationof methods, three key characteristics of hierarchical frameworks are to be considered (Le Quesne et al, 2010):i. Funds for research and modelling to support flow assessment and implementation

should beinvested strategically to address the most important issues and reduce the most vexing uncertainties; methods should bematched to the level of certainty required and the level of funding available;


ii. The framework is iterative, such that higher levels are deployed to the extent they are necessary and information generated at one level can provide the foundation for, and identify the need for, higher levels

iii. Processes for flow assessment and flow implementation are intertwined; many of the key characteristics of the assessment process are designed to lay the foundation for flow implementation. The framework not only gets ecological flows protected quickly, but also catalyses the broader process of implementation, including capacity building and institutional strengthening.

A phased hierarchical approach is probably the most efficient way to address the application of methods in order to develop the ecological flow policy in a country or region.Hierarchical approaches mentioned above have been proposed in different countries. South Africa was one of the first to adopt a hierarchy of methods of varying complexity


(King et al, 2000). Two assessment levels have been extensively applied in Spain to incorporate eflows in the RBMPs (MARM, 2009). Three assessment levels of eflows are proposed for application to UK river water bodies, in which greater investment in the assessment yields lower uncertainty in results (UK TAG, 2007). Opperman (quoted in Le Quesne et al, 2010) prescribes a consistent three-level assessment and implementation framework that builds seamlessly from simple hydrologic desktop estimates of flow needs through a highly sophisticated programme of research and modelling to refine environmental flow targets with each level building information, capacity, and support for subsequent levels of sophistication as deemed necessary. Arthington et al (1998b) also suggested a three-tiered hierarchy to accommodate the circumstances, objectives and spatial scales of eflow assessments. The three-level hierarchy ties in closely with the types of methodologies and appropriate detail levels of eflow assessments.Specifically, levels should be selected


according to the characteristics (hydromorphological, ecological) and the typeof waterbodies;eflows tool-kit may contain both desktop hydrological analysis for scoping and structured expert opinionand hydraulic-habitat modelsto be applied where rigorous analyses are needed.Based on several authors (Arthington et al. 1998; Acreman and Dunbar, 2004; King et al, 2008; TNC, 2011b), Table 2 (next page) suggests a three-tiered hierarchy approach to accommodate some common eflow applications, types of methodologies and appropriate detail levels of eflow assessments. Some promising methods for each of the assessment levels are also named.


Table 2: A three-tiered hierarchy of eflow methodologies (modified from Arthington et al. 1998; Acreman and Dunbar, 2004; King et al, 2008; TNC, 2011b)


To be made consistent with the rest of the document, we would suggest to use the same method names as reported in 7.1.3 (i.e., hydrologic methods, hydraulic-habitat methods, holistic methodologies)


7.1.4. Recommendations when using methods in the context of the WFDAlterations to the flow regimedegrade river ecosystems through modification ofaquatic and riparian habitat and of erosion and sediment supplyrates. Thus, GES is unlikely to be met where significantflow regime alteration occurs. Implementation ofpractical ecological flows can betherefore included in the River Basin Management Planningprocess as one of the measuresneeded to restore or to maintain GES.Establishing a consistent flow policy for a large region is expensive and time consuming.Moreover, developing a legal framework for an entirecontinent, which will be turned into national legislation,is very ambitious. Without consistent techniques and data sets, as well as the investment in major R&D programmes, different decisions will be made in different parts of Europe

APPLICATIONS OBSERVATIONS TYPE EFLOW PROMISING METHODS INFORMATION REQUIRED

LEVE

L 1

Prel

imin

ary ass

essm

ent

- Regional planning

- Preliminary standard setting

- Screening at basin scale planning, organizing and pre-analyzing information for a Level 2 approach

This approach could be appropriate for setting preliminary targets in any situation or as part of a screening process at basin scale. Credible and comprehensive initial flow recommendations can be provided when hydrologic desktop methods are combined with a review of available information for a given river system and augmented by basic understanding of river functions. Initial targets based on Level 1 analysis should be precautionary, in line with their level of confidence. Furthermore, such standards could play a strategic monitoring role, and could provide advance warning of situations where further investigation is required.

Comprehensive hydrologic desktop methods

- Range of Variability Approach (RVA): Yet probably the most advanced hydrological methodology used at this level. A simplified version of RVA reducing the number of variables might be sufficient to address screening or preliminary eflow assessment at catchment scale (e.g. Initially consider only monthly minimum flows applying 10-25 percentiles on a monthly basis).

- ELOHA. The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA), is a flexible, scientific framework for assessing and managing environmental flows across large regions, when limited time and resources preclude evaluating individual rivers. ELOHA combines desktop hydrologic analysis with a review of existing ecological databases and literature.

A comprehensive hydrologic desktop approach synthesizes two primary sources of information: (1) a hydrological analysis tool that is capable of assessing a range of flow levels; and (2) a literature review of the linkages between the flow regime and key riverine resources. This review should incorporate all the available relevant information for the specific river or basin augmented by broader literature on riverine processes.

LEVE

L 2

Inte

rmed

iate

ass

essm

ent

- Basin scale planning

- Organizing and pre-analyzing information for a Level 3 approach

It might apply to selected sites where more detailed environmental flow specifications are required. These circumstances require a greater level of detail in the application of eflow approaches. Basin scale planning involves the assessment of environmental flows through an entire basin. In this case assessment may begin with use of comprehensive hydrological desktop models to home-in on important sites. Then a holistic methodology would be most appropiate.

Holistic methodologies

- Building Block Methodology (BBM): Perhaps the best known holistic approach. Its basic premise is that riverine species are reliant on basic elements (building blocks) of the flow regime. The BBM revolves around a team of experts. They follow a series of structured stages, assess available data and model outputs and use their combined professional experience to come to a consensus on the building blocks of the flow regime.

- The Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformation (DRIFT), offers promising and innovative advances to interactive eflow assessment. The DRIFT Methodology is an interactive, top-down holistic approach based on the same conceptual tenets and multidisciplinary, workshop-based interaction as the BBM.

Eflow recommendations at Level 2 require new data collection or basic modelling. Synthesis of information and articulation of expert judgment into flow recommendations occurs within the framework of a flow workshop with diverse participants. At this second level of assessment, some aspects of environmental flow recommendations will be based on limited data and professional judgement, and will amount to hypotheses about flow-geomorphology and flow-ecology relationships.

LEVE

L 3

Com

preh

ensiv

e as

sess

men

t

- Examining Tradeoffs and Predicting Results of Operational Changes (e.g. designation and management of HMWB)

- Impact assessment processes

- Restoration/re-habilitation of aquatic ecosystems;

A Level-3 process is appropriate for situations that require a high degree of certainty before any operational changes can made. Such situations may include those where water is over-allocated and heavily contested (e.g. Heavily Modified Water Bodies), affected Protected Areas, presence of endangered species which limits operational flexibility, defined policies dictate processes, etc. In these situations, decision makers will require a higher threshold of rigorous analysis before initiating an environmental flow program. Analyses of a Level 3 approach can incorporate both typical environmental flow assessment techniques as well as diverse approaches for studying socio-economical impacts (e.g. on water users) and others.

Holistic methodologies with advanced modelling approaches

- Holistic methodologies: BBM / DRIFT as recommended above.

- Advanced modelling approaches: Habitat modelling is considered by many ecologists to be the most sophisticated and scientifically and legally defensible methodology available for quantitatively assessing environmental flows for rivers. In the European context, COST Action 626 “European Aquatic Modelling Network” defined and developed integrated methods and models of assessing the interactions between aquatic flora and fauna and riverine habitats on reach scale and provide transferability to a catchments scale.

Level 3 require intensive data collection and advanced modelling approaches (species/component-oriented). The research and modelling program of a Level 3 approach can be incorporated into a wider assessment framework that identifies the problem, uses the best methods and presents results to decision-makers. Assessment of technical feasibility, significant adverse effects and economic assessment methods can be applied.

Linsen, 17/01/35,

Text to be altered after deriving lessons learned from the case studies


According to Acreman and Ferguson (2010), the following list of recommendations and eligibility criteria for methods relevant for eflows definition can be provided:1.The tool to determine the environmental flow required downstream of an impoundment should be based on ecological requirements of different communities or species or life stages, which may vary within and between rivers even for the same biological elements or communities. 2. Some basic elements of the natural regime need to be maintained; particularly floods at key times of the year withsufficient competence to move bed materials, stimulate fish migration andsupport riparian vegetation, along with occasional larger floods (>2 year return period) required to maintain channel morphology and habitat diversity.


3. Where possible, constant flow releases need to be altered so that the flow regime fluctuates. Variable flows throughout the year (without extremes) will ensure a healthy and diverse riverine environment. At the same time, rates of changes in flow conditions should not exceed threshold limits (e.g., preventing fish stranding or being detrimental to emerging fry).4. A natural low flow regime should be maintained for a proportion of the time to prevent unnatural ecological responses (e.g., fish fry washout) due to increased flows at times when low flows usually occur.5 Differences between rivers mean that environmental flow requirements cannot be easily transferred between sites. Desktop analysis based on hydrologicaldata provide a simple, low cost means of setting environmental flow requirements, but are inflexible and uncertain at any individual site. Combining explicit knowledge of the hydrological


and ecological system to provide a site-specificsolution is a generally recommendedapproach; however it is costly.6. The main recommendation is for a tool-kit that contains a range of procedures which can be selected according to the characteristics and type of the waterbody. The tool-kit would contain both hydrological analysis for scoping and structured expert opinionand hydraulic-habitat models for rigorous analyses.7. Monitoring for the WFD willalso have to be integrated with other needs such asconservation of designated habitats and species andthe management of invasive species. The competentagencies (mainly environment protection agencies) arethen responsible for biological monitoring whichprovides a significant part of the actual test of whetherthe waterbody is at GES.


8. Stakeholder participation should be a key requirement if community involvement is to be achieved. This is particularly important in real implementation, where water users may have to give up some rights.9.Many river basins are over-abstracted due to pastlicence agreements or lack of licences. Implementing the practical ecologicalflows needed to achieve GES in over-abstractedrivers and maintaining GES where it exists remain a major objective in the eflowsimplementation process.Text to be developed. The Guidance is not intended to define a common method to be applied by all MS but could set "eligibility" criteria for methods to be considered as relevant for Eflows definition in WFD context. Recommendations should be based on the Working definition, Discussion Document’s Chapters and lessons learnt from Case studies. Some key recommendations should be, inter alia:


- Results from methods should incorporate flow variability for proper structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems (e.g. seasonal pattern of eflows).

- Methods should incorporate interannual hydrological variability (e.g. eflows in drought periods)

- Methods must result in a flow regime linked to environmental objectives (- Eflow methods should be adapted to specific structure and functioning of different

categories of waterbodies (lakes, estuaries)- Eflow methods should consider properly different ecotypes (e.g. temporary rivers)- Implementation of methods should be strategic (e.g. phased hierarchical

approach)


- ……

7.2. Application of E-flows: the need for a tool box approach

The previous paragraph has led to definition of the hydrological regime consistent with reaching WFD objectives. This paragraph will focus on application of E-flows in the context of wider environmental impacts when interferences have been made in the hydrological regime.Text to be developed.

Linsen, 17/01/35,

If no preliminary gap analysis is undertaken, no reference has to be made.

Linsen, 17/01/35,

To be held against the lessons learnt from the case studies


7.2.2. Application potential of E-flows in non-pristine conditionsThis paragraph is intended for use of the E-flows assessment in the context of heavily modified water bodies, or in cases where flow regimes have been altered in relation to exemptions as defined in the WFD. Text to be developed.References are also: GUIDANCE 20 – EXEMPTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVESText to be developed. Further references are: CIS GUIDANCE 3 - PRESSURES AND IMPACTS + CIS GUIDANCE 4 (HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODIES). Review the “HYMO TECHNICAL REPORT + HYMO TECHNICAL REPORT CASE STUDIES (including the reference to the Prague Method)”.


A very large number of water bodies have been designated as HMWB based on a stepwise approach to the identification and designation of HMWB (figure XX, WFD CIS 2003b). This process should be kept in mind when applying E-flows in such water bodies, because of a variety of reasons:

iv. Significant changes in hydromorphology have been identified (step 4). The relevance of these changes should be incorporated in the determination of E-flows. By definition ecological flows integrate key elements of the hydrological regime (environmental flow components) which are necessary for proper ecosystem dynamics.

v. They are a useful tool to assess the likelihood of meetinggood ecological status (step 5). It is important to determine whether hydrological changes on the water body will prevent achieving GES. The


rationale behind identifying HMWB should therefore be incorporated in application of E-flows.

Fig. 7. Steps of the HMWB identification and designation process. SOURCE: WFD CIS (2003b).


vi. (step 7) could be considered to provide inspiration for the measures addressed in chapter 8.The consideration of wider environmental impact should be part of the decision making around adoption of the e-flows objective setting.

vii. They are indispensable to evaluate possible significant adverse effects on the specified uses (step 7.2). According to the CIS (2003b), it is not considered possible to derive a standard definition for "significant" adverse effect. Although it is possible to give an indication of the difference between “significant adverse effect” and “adverse effect”. For example, an effect should not normally be considered significant where the effect on the specified use is smaller than the normal short-term variability in performance (e.g. total kilowatt). However, the effect would clearly be significant if it compromised the long-term viability of the specified use by


significantly reducing its performance. This quantitative difference can be evaluated if defined ecological flows.

8. Setting up of the programme of measuresThe previous chapters addressed e-flows as a tool for analysing a potential gap between current hydrological conditions and those that are consistent with reaching environmental objectives under the WFD. This chapter builds on a number of elements: the results of the gap analysis, good practice of e-flows applications in Member States, and elements forming the ingredients for a tailor made approach in working towards a hydrological regime that is consistent with the environmental objectives under the WFD.

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Alternative title: From e-flows to measures


The main question to be answered by this chapter is: what to do about the gaps found in deriving e-flows values?To this end, paragraph 8.1 will summarize the general significance of the PoM in the WFD. Paragraph 8.2 connects the analysis outcomes of chapter 7 assessment tools to drafting of measures in the context of hydrological regimes that allow for the achievement of WFD objectives, based on MS good practice examples.In general, this text builds on CIS guidance no 3 (pressures and impacts). Specific circumstances, issues of scale and scope are to be addressed by MS when searching for the applicable type of measures in the good practice examples. Article 11 of the WFD states that each Member State shall ensure the establishment “…of a programme of measures…in order to achieve the objectives established under Article 4”. Gap analysis is essentially the determination for each water body within


each river basin district of any discrepancy between its existing status and that required under the Directive.For surface water bodies that are already at high or good ecological status the focus will then fall on any gap between existing measures and any future measures needed to maintain that status. Where the current status of surface water bodies falls below that required for good ecological status, attention is focused on measures to restore this status. For surface water bodies, identified as heavily modified water bodies or as artificial water bodies the process is similar except that the aim is good ecological potential. A similar gap analysis process is used to identify where action is needed to protect or enhance the quality of groundwater bodies and transitional water bodies.


8.1. Setting up of the overall programme of measuresThe overall programme of measures should encompass a list of measures contained in art. 11 and more especifically, not being exhaustive, the list of Anex VI of the WFD. In order to see if a measure can be included in the PoM, some information on each measure should be collected, such as the listed below: - Description of the intervention in the hydrological regime in which the defining

characteristics are indicated, pointing out the main lines and purpose of the action, including necessary actions that have been put in place before.

- Territorial scope in which the measure is applied, specifying whether it affects a river basin district or a part of a river basin district or some water bodies or even to one water body. In e-flows, the designation in terms of catchments, sub-catchments or river stretches helps in identifying the appropriate scale.


- Pressures identified in the pressures inventory that are mitigated or eliminated by applying the action. Specific effects on the hydrological regime should be incorporated.

- Implementation costs, considering social and environmental benefits of released flows.

- The efficiency or the effects of the measure, which can be determined either by reducing the pressures or by reducing the impacts projected in water bodies.

- The competent authority/authorities in charge of this implementation. - Lifespan or duration of the implementation of the action

Amongst all possible measures that can be eligible for meeting the environmental objectives of each water body, the set of measures that are most cost-effective should be selected, given the wider environmental impacts. This is, the selection of measures


which respond with less cost-effectiveness ratios will be prioritized when formulating the PoM.

8.2. Using eflows as a basis for measuresUnder undisturbed conditions the river has maximized its morphological variability in response to the natural fluctuations in the flow. Associated spatial and temporal velocity distributions enable the river to transmit the accompanying sediment load and establish a dynamic stability while retaining a complex of morphological features, such as pools, riffles, runs glides and morphological patterns, such as meandering and sustaining bed material heterogeneity. The variability in flow depths, velocities and bed material sizes within a reach is the basis of the natural habitats, being the flow dynamic recognized as a heart-beating of ecosystem. Nevertheless, the anthropogenic alterations, and particularly those due to water withdrawals for different uses, cause


in this way we don’t exclude other features (cascade, dune ripple and so on) or other patterns (e.g braiding)

Linsen, 17/01/35,

Text to be revised after deriving good practice from the case studies

Linsen, 17/01/35,

To my view, it is too early for prioritisation.

Cmarcuel, 17/01/35,

It might be earlier but further reference below to prioritization should be needed.


that the e-flows regime is more or less modified, and consequently, also the habitat elements of the undisturbed state may vary.In rivers water bodies, the WFD states that the quantity and dynamics of water flow and the connection to groundwater bodies have to be considered as indicators of the hydrological regime element, which is included in the hydromorphological elements supporting the biological indicators. These elements affect in particular to the composition, abundance and structure of fish fauna. So the hydrological regime achieves the high status when the quantity and dynamics of flow, and the resultant connection to groundwater, reflect totally, or nearly totally, undisturbed conditions, the good status when the conditions consistent with the achievement of good status for the values of the biological quality elements, and the moderate status when the conditions consistent with the achievement of the moderate status for the values of the biological quality elements.


To consider the implementation of “practical” ecological flows as a measure, it is necessary a previous analysis of the pressure (number, location and significance of water abstractions, derivations and water regulation) and its impact on flow regime alteration. The assessment of the deviation degree of the observed flow regime from the one under natural conditions should be useful. This hydrologic alteration degree can be calculated with indicators of hydrologic alteration, as stated in chapter 4. Different ecological flows scenarios can be studied to simulate how flow alteration decreases in order to analyse the relationship between pressure reduction and water ecosystem enhancement. Eflow should be established when good ecological status is achieved with a minimum impact on water uses. An implementation cost should be calculated considering social and environmental benefits of released eflows. One measure designed to achieve the good status of the hydrological regime is to establish a regime of “practical” e-flows derived from the theoretically estimated


it is important to stick to definition given at the beginning of the guidance and that we agree on the fact that e-flows are theoretical, then through the gap analysis we decide the measure.


ecological flows, becoming a measure to be included in the PoM. This measure should be characterized according to the provisions in the previous chapter. In transitional water bodies, the establishment of environmental flow is an indicator of the tidal regime, which is included in hydromorphological quality element supporting the biological elements.The establishment of an environmental flow regime is also an effective measure in certain water bodies where there are significant pressures due to point or diffuse pollution and where there are low rates of renewal.

An example of this is a section of the river Júcar, between Sueca weird and Marquesa weir, in the Júcar River basin District. This section is characterized by the nature of its


lentic waters. The backwater produced by derivation infrastructure is added to pollution problems mainly caused by releases upstream in a lotic stretch (from downstream of the Tous dam to Sueca weir). During autumn and winter of 2006 and 2007, there were eventual episodes of death fish associated with certain specific discharges upstream and also episodes of minimum flows due to the drought suffered in this river between 2005 and 2008. Therefore, in this section of Júcar River, it has been chosen a model to simulate the water quality in order to allocate flows which ensure the maintenance of minimum fish life and prevent from eutrophication of this water body.

The establishment of ecological flows can be an isolated measure or can be a part of a broader package of measures intended for achievement the hydromorphological


restoration (or disturbance mitigation) of the affected water body or affected water bodies. In any case, this is a measure that necessarily affects in taken flows for other uses, and therefore, affects the balance of resources upstream of the point of the application of this measure, taken into account the economic implications that this may cause. In river basins where there is a high demand of resource from diverse sectors, the implementation of this measure should be accompanied by models to check the levels of security of supply for each sector, as well as an agreement process with users. From a conservative point of view, this measure takes the character of “a prior restraint “on the allocation of water for other uses, as in the case of Spain, which has adopted this criterion in its legislation.


8.2.1. Eflows as basis for measuresAccording to Article 11 (3), “basic measures” shall consist, inter alia, of measures to promote an efficient and sustainable water use in order to avoid compromising the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 4 (Art 11 (3) (c)) and controls over the abstraction of both fresh surface water and groundwater, and impoundment of fresh surface water (Art 11 (3) (e)). More specifically Article 11 (3) (i) states that should also be considered measures to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status or good ecological potential for bodies of water designated as artificial or heavily modified. As defined in Section xxxx., eflows for the GES were defined as the hydrological regime necessary to achieve the values specified for the biological quality elements. It can be said therefore that Article 11 (3) (i) calls for action to ensure ecological flows.

Cmarcuel, 17/01/35,

I do not quite agree with the term “as a basis”.

Linsen, 17/01/35,

Text to be revised after deriving good practice from the case studies


The Programme of Measures should allow to achieve the environmental objectives according to the combination of measures with better cost-effective results in each water body. More specifically, article 11 (3) (i) states that in particular measures to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status or good ecological potential for bodies of water designated as artificial or heavily modified. To achieve these objectives the practical ecological flow regime must meet the following requirements:a) Provide suitable habitat conditions to meet the needs of different biological communities which depend on the aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems, through the maintenance of ecological and geomorphological processes needed to complete their life cycles.


b) Provide a temporal pattern of flow which allows the existence at most of minor changes in the structure and composition of aquatic ecosystems and associated habitats, and the maintenance of the biological integrity of the ecosystem.

In unregulated rivers, where the hydrological regime is slightly altered, the rate of current flow do not differ from natural , so a hydromorphological alteration will not be determined by the hydrological regime and thus achieving the environmental objectives will be given by other measures . (To be related with measures of natural water retention, guideline NWRMs and following chapter).In regulated rivers, with a significant alteration of the hydrological regime, the implementation of practical e-flows can have a potential great impact on water abstraction for various uses, being greater as the demand increases, as noted above.


In the case of regulation of reservoirs, the complexity increases as the water body is further downstream. In stretches downstream of a reservoir in the upper basin, the ecological regime can be more easily implemented, taking into account that there is no significat lost of the resource for other uses, especially if.there are further downstream reservoirs. But as we move downstream. the fact of having an ecological flow implies that there is less water for other uses, a fact that can be amplified when additional releases might be required for e-flows mainteinance in some times of the year when there is a need to meet the corresponding demands according to the uses of the reservoir, which will be a loss in the regulation of the resource.One of the components to be considered in this measure is the rate of change of flow that must be satisfied the habitat requirement for different sections. This will be characterized from the observed hydrographs available in natural situation that are consistent with habitats targets to be achieved. The adequacy of release from a single


reservoir to the optimal exchange rate at the point of study is not always easy to implement, particularly affecting the hydroelectric use. It has to be kept in mind that the rate of change of flow should be done gradually to avoid sudden changes in the characteristics of the water body. For example , the Spanish Decree 130/1997 , related to the Regulation on the organization of river fishing and inland aquatic ecosystems in Galicia region, Article 75 refers to the variation of the flow : " In general, all change in flow of a water course motivated by any type of hydraulic use must include a gradually , without abrupt changes in the water regime and may not be the rate of change per minute greater than 3% of the maximum discharge permitted or 250 l / s per minute , except when starting operation after an interruption , which may be poured up to 20 % of the flow permitted, with a maximum of 1,500 l / s " .

Cmarcuel, 17/01/35,

Some more examples needed. I think they are more illustrative inside the text.


MS examples could be put in a tool-box.


Considering the above mentioned, the most relevant impacts derived from the implementation of the practical e-flows regime are the following ones:

The impacts derived from the guarantee levels of the affected units of demand and the analysis of the availability of flows and the compatibility with the pre-existing permits.

The impacts derived from the adjustments of the exchange rate of the turbine and discharge elements and from the power regulation in case of hydropower generation.

In order to perform an effective implementation of this measure on the e-flow regime, the decision-making supporting systems (e.g AQUATOOL in Spain) allow the development of simulation models for water management in hydrological resources systems. They also allow the estimation of indicators for water demand satisfaction and for hydropower generation, among others. The combination of these models with


a model of generation of habitat series, for example based on WUA curves (weighted useful area curves), allow to perform a detail analysis on the impact of this measure in the studied system.

An example has been developed in the research project INTEGRAME (Integration of multi-disciplinary methodologies in water planning according to the Water Framework Directive) performed by the Polytechnic University of Valencia and funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. In this project, the AQUATOOL’s simulation model of water resources (SIMGES) has been used in combination with the CAUDECO model for e-flows, which uses the WUA curves for different species at different age stages, and for different water bodies with the main aim to establish a methodology to estimate the effect of the e-flows implementation in complex river


basins and thus help to improve implementation criteria. This project has been applied to the design of e-flows regimes of the Spanish part of the Duero river basin.Decision-making support systems also allow comparing results from different simulation scenarios of management and exploitation of the resource under actual conditions, usually subject to legal or administrative rules coming from conventions or agreements between the different stakeholders, or deriving from exploitation rules that are usually generally accepted in practice. Although the modification of these management practices in a short time period is not easy to achieve, it must be a part of the consultation process required for the implementation of the measure, taking into consideration the technical, economic and social feasibility in every single case in order to guarantee an effective implementation and to propose an implementation plan with adaptive management.


This can be illustrated for some examples taken from case studies.

8.2.2. Eflows as a restoration/mitigation measure: lessons learned from the case studies

The choice of the appropriate restoration and mitigation measures will depend on a number of site specific considerations. Specifically, the appropriate measures will depend on the adverse ecological effects of the physical modifications; on the effectiveness of the measures regarding in particular the improvements of the ecological condition; on the technical feasibility and the cost-effective analysis of implementing the measures at the site; and, in the case of designated HMWB or AWB, on the effects of the mitigation measures on those water uses responsible for the modifications and other uses dependent on the modification. Nevertheless, some

Cmarcuel, 17/01/35,

I do not quite agree with the term “as a basis”

Linsen, 17/01/35,

Text/title to be after assessing the case studies.


examples of criteria for assessment of impacts may be provided, which obviously and directly influence biology and therefore ecological status or potential.The aim of the Hydromorphological Pressures Technical Report (WFD CIS, 2006) was to provide guidance and good practice examples of how to prevent, remedy or mitigate the adverse ecological effects of human alterations to the structural and hydrological characteristics of surface water bodies in order to achieve the environmental objectives set by the WFD. Figures 10 illustrate the types of measures that may be appropriate in relation to water flow changes and their associated ecological impacts, due to the typical hydromorphological modification needed for particular water uses.Importance of flow dynamics in the design of restoration/mitigation measures was highlighted in Annex III of this report (WFD CIS, 2006). Low flows due to water withdrawals, or changes in riparian ecosystems will inhibit an adequate ecosystem restoration (Poff et al., 1997; 2010). Hydromorphological degradation also reduces the


self-purification capacity of river ecosystems (Poff & Zimmerman, 2010; Acuña, 2010), and may enhance the proliferation of non-native and invasive species (Garcia-Berthou & Moreno-Amich, 2000, Elvira & Almodovar, 2001).

Fig. 8. Examples of drivers, pressures, impacts and possible measures related to water flow changes. SOURCE: WFD CIS, 2006


The availability of e-flows is considered to be a key element in these restoration or mitigation projects, so the above mentioned criteria should be taken into consideration.

Practical e-flows can be considered as a preventive measure, a previous restriction to the new water uses. On the other hand, for established uses it becomes an impact mitigation measure. In these cases, it must be found a balance between environmental protection and economic development taking into account the social and environmental benefits of released eflows, and therefore it is necessary to consider strategies to combine, as far as possible, ecological flows with existing uses

Cmarcuel, 17/01/35,

This paragraph needs futher explanation or eliminate


Some tools and strategies to compatibilize ecological flows and current uses are developed in some provided case studies, but a simplified classification could be as follows:

An example of measures related with hydropower - Temporary changes in water use . Some hidropower facilities could maintain the

same annual energy production by simply modifying the timing in which water is taken from the main channel. Implementing this strategy requires a slight modification in their water rights (water use), and in some cases, structural changes to their installation, such as enlargement of turbine capacity..

- Negotiated agreements with holders of multiple hydro-facilities . With firms that manage both small and large hydroelectric dams, reduced energy production in


one facility can be offset by an increase in production in another without any additional impact on river ecosystem.

Measures related with irrigation

- Change the type of crop . To reduce water requirements for irrigation, especially in those seasons most unfavorable in terms of resource availability, it can be changed the pattern of crops in certain vulnerable areas, replacing the current crop to another with lower water requirements. This change may be subsidized or compensated according to the Common Agricultural Policy.

- Support to sustainable irrigation practices . Providing formation and technical and financial support to improve the sustainable irrigation management.


- Select efficient irrigation . Efficient irrigation practices must be selected and supported.

- Modernization of irrigation . Actions involving modernization of traditional irrigation or improvement or maintenance works on specific distributin sections increase its efficiency and lead a water saving in the withdraw point, ensuring agricultural production, improving the availability of resources and reducing diffuse pollution.

- Reuse of reclaimed water . Reclaimed water can be used to replace prepotables flows in industrial or agricultural uses, or environmental uses as groundwater recharge or replacement of ecological flows.

Measures related with groundwater


Implementing measures on groundwater may have an indirect effect on the circulating flow and the availability of surface water, for example: - Restriction of new uses. - Developing management plans for groundwater withdrawals of major alluvial

aquifers, especially considering natural water discharges on surface ecosystems.- Indirect recharge of the aquifer through the effluent of waste water treatment

plants.

In all cases and for each measure, the impact on the licence conditions and a cost-efficiency assessment must be done in order to select which are the optimal measures and find strategies for an efficient implementation. Some of the measures can be


bundled into a Plan providing the best criteria for implementing the e-flows, including their technical and economic feasibility.

8.2.3. Cost effectiveness of eflows derived measures.According to WFD Article 11 (1) and Annex III a programme of measures is the most cost-effective combination of measures in respect of water uses.Information on the cost and effectiveness of different measure options provides a means of comparing the relative cost efficiency of those options. Such information will therefore provide the basis for making judgements about the combination of measures that will produce a given improvement most cost-effectively. It is important not to look

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Eurelectric


at each measure separately, but include bundles or combinations of measures and look at also the saved costs by implementing measures at the same time. The cost-efficiency of ecological flows needs therefore to be seen in relation with other possible measures enhancing the ecological status, such as fish passages, biotope adjustments, restocking etc.Annex IV of the Hydromorphological Pressures report presents a list of potential restoration and mitigation measures and their cost-effectiveness. Eflows will appreciate a generally positive experience with few negative side-effects with respect to the ecological significance and often a cost-efficient approach but requires case by case documentation.One of the primary reasons for the growing shift in perceptions regarding the use of ecological flows is the growing understanding of the scale of their real and potential economic benefits. Numerous studies have looked at the economic value of ecosystem

schmg6, 17/01/35,

The case studies should deliver information that could be used/introduced here

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Better reference

schmg6, 01/17/35,

Eurelectric


services provided by flows, including habitat creation, recreational opportunities, contribution to housing prices, groundwater recharge, contribution to water quality, and so on (NPS 2001; Emerton and Boss 2004). The cost of the adoption of the regime of e-flows as a measure is related to the estimation of the cost of the resource. For policy making, the benefits of ecological flows must be measured against the opportunity costs of alternative uses of the water, such as foregone agricultural and hydropower production (Katz, 2006). Because many environmental flow benefits are difficult to quantify precisely, they have often been ignored in benefit-cost analyses and planning processes. In some cases, however, even imprecise measures of flow benefits have proven sufficient to justify ecological flows on economic grounds.The urban water use requires relatively low volumes and has a high added value. The use costs are relatively high, whereas the opportunity costs (imposed on others as a


result of the use of the water) are relatively low. On the other hand, the water provision for irrigation although supposes a great volume generally has a low added value. The cost of use of the water for irrigation is frequently modest, but when it competes with the urban use the opportunity cost is high (Pulido-Velazquez et al., 2008). This situation can be expressed graphically according to the curves of demand associated to different uses, in agreement with the figure of down, in which use B shows a greater economic value than use A.

Fig. 9. Demand curves for two different uses


In the cases when there is a greater competition for the uses, due to a greater scarcity of the resource, is when the opportunity costs plays a relevant role, and in particular, the marginal cost concept derived from the ad of an additional unit. Pulido-Velázquez (2013) proposes the concept of “marginal resource opportunity cost” for a point in the system at a given moment. The economical benefit associated to the P point is calculated as the area below the demand curve between the zero volume and volume at P (i.e. the area to the left of P). Moreover associated to the benefit, the scarcity cost is calculated should the demand cannot be met, and it is defined as the integral calculation between the P point value and the maximum volume demanded (i.e., the area below the curve in the right part of P). A variation in the volume demanded (ΔV), and thus in the benefits (ΔB), would meet the resource marginal cost as the ratio between them (ΔB/ΔV).


The time-space variability of the resource cost, is evaluated with the use of the hydro-economic models of the system, which enable to incorporate both the variability of the economic demands and the operability of the infrastructure regulating and delivering the water resource, and thus to evaluate the marginal costs meeting the scenario settled by the system operational rules.When thinking about the e-flows as a measure which impact is the withdrawal of the resource for other uses, the marginal cost that suppose to maintain the e-flows can be analysed by calculating the difference between the benefits obtained before and after the adoption of the measure. The simulation in a real case, results that the grater marginal costs are presented as smaller are the flows, i.e. in situations of greater scarcity. Finally the e-flows adoption can be studied from a cost effectiveness point of view as the opportunity cost analysis represents the growth of the flow in the study point,


being able to establish optimal situations where the benefits of the system could be maximized, meeting the system exploitation rules. Likewise, certain rules could be established to meet the e-flows. For instance, if the minimum e-flows are higher the thresholds more than 90% of the days of the year, it could be established that the maximum flows remain under those of the operation and regular management of the public infrastructures in a 90% of the days of the year, and moreover than the maximum exchange rates do not go over the 90% of the days of the year.Numerous studies have looked at the economic value of ecosystem services provided by flows, including habitat creation, recreational opportunities, contribution to housing prices, groundwater recharge, contribution to water quality, and so on (NPS 2001; Emerton and Boss 2004), which should be further explored to be incorporated in the DSS for the operational water resources management.


Besides, if there is a significant impact in other uses, the benefits expected should be carefully assessed before any decision is taken.Effectiveness of eflow as a measure vary depending on sensitiveness of ecological status on hydrology combined with morphology in each case. Eflow is one factor among many others (pollutants, other human pressures etc) contributing to ecological status of a water body where abstraction is located. If the abstraction is only a segment of a large water body, the contribution of the eflow on water status is smaller than in abstraction covering the whole water body. Regarding implemented eflows, for example residual flows in hydropower rivers in France, measured impacts on ecology are still very scarce and need to be improved.The analysis of costs should include all direct and indirect costs including impacts on all important human uses. The costs and negative impacts depend greatly on the form of current, alternative use of water. There are many human activities that affect the


natural hydraulic regimes in rivers and lakes. This includes energy generation, agriculture, forestry, transports, flood control, city centers and many more. It should be taken into account that restoring nature-like flows in order to establish GES would lead to, not only high costs, but also effects on infrastructure, city planning, productivity in agriculture and forestry to give a few examples. Regarding impacts on energy production, the costs and impacts depend on the form of eflow and the relevance of production to short- and long-term power regulation. The estimate for costs should include loss of energy-generation, regulation capacity and security of energy supply. Also the cost for climate change if other climate-affecting generation is replacing hydro power should be regarded. Due to the variation of cost-effectiveness of eflows a case-by-case assessment is important. Case by case balance studies of cost-effectiveness of eflows has often been lacking.

Minna Torsner, 17/01/35,

. Reference to and analysis of case-study examples: Cases, where eflows proven cost-effective and how this is achieved: small costs and big improvement in ecological statusCases, where eflows are not cost-effective and whyCases, where cost-effectiveness of eflows is improved by planning, and combining with other measures

Minna Torsner, 17/01/35,

Reference to case studies and French figures of power loss and CO2 emission increase.


Cost-effectiveness of eflows can in many cases be greatly improved by combining the eflow measure with other measures, such as hydraulic changes (e.g. adding or removing tresholds or obstacles) or habitat restorations. Cost-effectiveness can be increased by proper planning and optimisation of the flow regime, for example with habitat modelling.

9. Development of the river basin management planThe purpose of this chapter is to explain how to integrate the e-flows regimes into the river basin management plans, taking into account that they are the strategic operational planning tools. The Plans reflect the implantation of the WFD, presenting among other things, the tools to reach the Directive objectives.

schmg6, 17/01/35,

Eurelectric comments, not yet integrated


9.1. The role of the e-flows in the river basin management plansThe RBMPs are inclusive and explanatory purpose documents that collect and describe the elements of characterization (Article 5 of the WFD), the results of the monitoring programmes (Article 8 of the WFD) and, by integrating the programmes of measures (Article 11), also the instruments designed to achieve the environmental objectives provided in Article 4. In some cases, they content a justification to establish exemptions to reach the environmental objectives pursuant to Article 4, by justifying the establishment of time extensions, exceptional situations to achieve the goals, or even setting less stringent objectives or the acceptability of further deterioration of a water body or part of it, everything stated in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the mentioned Article 4 of the WFD.Furthermore, given the need to adapt to a changing reality, the RBMPs are not static documents. The six-year planning cycle designed by the WFD for the Member States


reproduces a strategic improvement cycle, as the Shewhart’s or Deming’s circle (W. Demmin, 1967): Plan, Do, Check and Act, coming back to the beginning of the cycle again with the revision of the plan. The RBMPs which are finally adopted after a complicated process of development and public participation must be public and binding, committing the competent authorities to follow the path agreed with the adoption of the plan. This is a commitment to the European Commission, as evidenced by the temporal programming that establishes when the objectives will be achieved, as it was calculated and described by the plan itself, but also, and more important issue, is a direct engagement with the public and stakeholders involved in the elaboration of RBMPs.Therefore, considering that e-flow regimes are important elements, as its definition stated in Section 2 (e-flows are any flow regime consistent with the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD), e-flow delimits the possibility to achieve


environmental objectives, because outside the boundary that these regimes point out, it is not possible to achieve the GES/GEP. As a consequence, these e-flows must be integrated into the RBMPs to identify these boundary conditions. The identification of these conditions should be done, at least, for those water bodies that require them; as water bodies that can be deteriorated or cannot achieve a good status or a good potential due to pressures that alter the shape of its natural hydrograph, by abstraction, or by an extraordinary flow regime contribution or by artificial variations of its regime.These e-flows are essential and necessary requirements to achieve environmental goals according article 4 of the WFD, but not enough. We should understand that these e-flows, keeping on a constant basis other conditions, are only the boundaries that prevent relevant alterations on the hydrograph, as relevant that by themselves make impossible to achieve the good status or the good potential, or by themselves lead in


the deterioration of the status or potential of any water body. Therefore, the e-flow, as a restriction on the hydromorphological pressures, will not be effective unless it is integrated into water planning wherever necessary.Moreover, the establishment of e-flows can pose constraints to socio-economic uses of water, even more in sectors where water is a production factor. These constraints can be done by limiting the possible abstraction, by regulating the water release from a reservoir or by modifying the shape of the hydrograph. To avoid these effects, the integration process of these e-flows into RBMPs ensures, from the beginning to the end, not only the technical support but proper governance through public consultation and participation mechanisms in decision-making processes. So, those sectors that may be affected can state their case and needs to be analyzed and taken into consideration during the Plan’s decision-making process.


9.2. The content of the River Basin Management PlansThe minimum content to be included in the RBMPs is indicated in Article 13 and detailed in Annex VII of the WFD. In this annex, two different sections are considered: section A with contents to be included in the plans and, section B where contents to be included in the plan revisions are added.Knowing that e-flows are not a target flow that can be considered as an assessment metric to evaluate the good status or good potential but they are a limiting condition, and without them, it is not possible to achieve the environmental goals. The diverse components of e-flows can be incorporated into RBMPs from different approaches: as an indicator of status or potential which identifies limit situations, or as a mitigation measure or restrictive measure against the hydromorphological pressures such as abstraction, inflows or modification of the regime.


9.2.1. The e-flow inside the environmental objectiveE-flows must be calculated before or at least during the development of the RBMP. The RBMP should define e-flows as those without their presence in the water bodies is impossible to achieve a good ecological status or a good potential. This goal should be mandatory requirement for the plan regulations wherever needed, and must be observed, at least for new uses. Later implementation strategies have to be analyzed in order to reduce impacts on existing uses, and discussed in a participative process with concessionaires of water permits, as owners, farmers..., and other stakeholders, NGOs, environmentalists, fishers, etc.,. This will provide critical information for water managers, and establishing a framework of consensus on e-flows implementation. The plan must determine a schedule with the time reserved for negotiation with stakeholders, as well as the time at which the e-flows will become mandatory.


9.2.2. The e-flow as an indicatorAnnex V of the WFD lists the quality elements to be used to classify the ecological status in two categories: rivers (section 1.1.1) and lakes (section 1.1.2). This annex includes among all the hydromorphological indicators, the hydrological regime. So, for rivers, this annex details hydromorphological elements which support the biological elements, among them, hydrological regime should be described by an indicator which explains quantity and dynamics of water flow, and also connection to groundwater bodies. In the case of lakes, the same indicator of hydrological regime is expressed through volumes and dynamics of water flow, residence time, and as in the previous case, the connection to groundwater.In addition to the previous paragraph, Annex VII of the WFD establishes that RBMPs should detail the reference conditions and boundaries between classes for those


elements whose use is necessary to assess the status or potential, either in response to paragraph 1.1 concerning the characterisation of surface water bodies, or in response to paragraph 4.1, when it is necessary to express the results of the assessment.Therefore, in accordance to the typology of the water body or the kind of pressures which are suffering, the RBMPs can incorporate, wherever needed, the e-flows as a condition of compliance, out which it would not be possible to reach the good status or the good potential of the water body. This means that for each component of e-flow regime it is necessary to identify and a set of threshold values that defines the non-compliance and the compliance condition. This threshold can be expressed as the minimum flow which must always be present in certain months or periods of the year, the maximum flow which should not be exceeded in certain months or periods of the


year, the rate of change of flow that must not be exceeded, or other, depending on the cases that should be integrated.

9.2.2. The e-flow as a measureThe RBMPs should incorporate a brief summary of the programmes of measures (PoM) pursuant to Article 11 of the WFD. In particular, Annex VII of the WFD specifies that RBMPs should incorporate several summaries of the PoM among which are those quoted in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 relative to the summaries on the control of water withdrawals and water storage. A registration with the identification of exemptions according to point 3 e) should be included, as well as a list of the proposed control of point sources of pollution and other potential impacting activities affecting the water body status or potential according to points 3 e) and 3 i) of Article 11 of the WFD.


Table 3: Sections e) and i) of Article 11.3 of the WFD.e) controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, and impoundment of fresh surface water, including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement of prior authorisation for abstraction and impoundment. These controls shall be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated. Member States can exempt from these controls, abstractions or impoundments which have no significant impact on water status;

i) for any other significant adverse impacts on the status of water identified under Article 5 and Annex II, in particular measures to ensure that the hydromorphological conditions of the bodies of water are consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status or good ecological potential for bodies of water designated as artificial or heavily modified. Controls for this purpose may take the form of a requirement for prior authorization or registration based on general binding rules where such a requirement is not otherwise provided for under Community legislation. Such controls shall be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated;


Accordingly to the argument raised in Chapter 8, the implementation of the e-flows regime therefore can be a measure of control on water withdrawal or water storage in order to guarantee a minimum threshold in the water flows remaining in the river, or a maximum threshold that must not be exceeded, or the conditions of other components of the regime that must be preserved. If the e-flows incorporated in the RBMPs as indicators are showing the boundaries of the impossibility of achieving the good status in natural rivers or lakes or the good potential in artificial or heavily modified ones, then the most suitable measures should be adopted in order to overcome the adverse situation. In this situation, we could study the possibility of exemptions, temporary delay and less stringent environmental objectives according to the technical or socio-economic difficulties implying the effective implementation of the e-flows regime.


Chapter 8.2 includes possible strategies to reconcile current uses with environmental flows, whenever possible, as well as guidelines to carry out a comparison of costs and benefits. Only in cases where it can be demonstrated that the costs of implementing environmental flows are disproportionate, it may be considered less stringent environmental objectives, or postpone them for affected water bodies. In Fig. 1 there is a clear example of the aforementioned with two graphs showing a 10-year period of the hydrograph of the Ebro River close to the mouth. This Mediterranean river basin covers 85,000 km2 in Spain. The web site of the Water Authority of this river basin (www.chebro.es) shows additional information. Close to the graph showing the daily water flow in the river there are also some estimations of ecological flow regimes calculated with different objectives.

http://www.chebro.es/


During the 1953-1963 period (upper graph), the flow regime still had clear natural characteristics although not pristine, with a high variability and clearly defined dry seasons. This segment of the hydrograph shows peak flows of 4,200 m3/s and minimum flows below 10 m3/s. In this 10-year period, there was not an e-flow regime implemented in this stretch of the river.


Fig. 1. Two segments of the Ebro River hydrogram in its final stretch with several flow regimes calculated with different objectives


Ebro en Tortosa

1

10

100

1.000

10.000

01/10/1953 01/10/1954 01/10/1955 01/10/1956 01/10/1957 01/10/1958 01/10/1959 01/10/1960 01/10/1961 01/10/1962 01/10/1963

Cau

dal (

m3/

s)

Caudal diario (m3/s)E-flow PH98E-flow PH09CAT-LCAT-MCAT-H


The same figure shows in the lower part the same section of the hydrograph but now between years 2000 and 2010. The mean flow is clearly lower than the one showed in the upper graph, due to both the natural hydrology and the increase in the regulation and the water consumption in the river basin. Variability is clearly lower, decreasing peak flows and increasing minimum flows. Within this period, the first Ebro’s RBMP was effective (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 1998) and there a minimum advisable flow of 100 m3/s was established (green line in the figure). This was a useful measure, once the big flood events disappeared, to maintain a certain degree of naturalness in the final stretch of the river where seawater penetrates below freshwater.The new Ebro’s RBMP (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, 2014) incorporates a minimum e-flow regime acting as a prior restriction to the

Ebro en Tortosa

1

10

100

1.000

10.000

01/10/00 01/10/01 01/10/02 01/10/03 01/10/04 01/10/05 01/10/06 01/10/07 01/10/08 01/10/09 01/10/10

Cau

dal (

m3/

s)

Caudal diario (m3/s)E-flow PH98E-flow PH09CAT-LCAT-MCAT-H


exploitation and whose compliance is, in this case, a legal requirement. Thus, the infringement of these regulations may derive in a legal procedure if an improper action occurs and the e-flows are not properly applied. The implementation measure that has been finally approved in the RBMP after considerable controversy, also considers that the good status of this water body cannot be reached with minimum flows under those indicated in black in Fig. 1.

9.3. Public participation in the process The water planning process pursuant to the WFD includes mechanisms to guarantee transparency and good governance. In particular, according to article 14, Member States should encourage active public participation. Key documents in the water planning process (i.e. the document on significant water management issues and the


draft document on water planning) must also be submitted for public consultation at least over a six-month period.The document on significant water management issues is a preliminary paper in the water planning process which should include an analysis of the current and future problems in achieving the environmental objectives. Moreover, this document should identify driving forces and agents and should also suggest alternative measures to mitigate undesirable effects in order to be debated within the public consultation process.During this phase of the public consultation, the need to establish e-flows should be determined, as well as to which an extent they should be fixed (i.e. the whole river basin, only some water bodies or only where needed in response to some particular problems). Furthermore, this phase is an appropriate opportunity to debate on the


most suitable regime components to apply and their reaches. Of course, technical studies and cost-benefit analysis must be carried out to support the final decision. Once this analysis phase is finished, Member States should submit the resulting project of the river basin management plan to public consultation at least one year before the starting date of the management period. This project should include the different values of the components describing the e-flows regime according to the main guidelines agreed during the discussion of the document on significant water management issues.In those water bodies where e-flows have been determined and implemented to guarantee the achievement of good ecological status or potential, there is an implicit limitation for further alterations of the hydrological regime. Nevertheless, if new


modifications occur in the water body, the e-flows regime could be revisited according to article 4.7 of the WFD. In the case that the establishment of these e-flows may affect pre-existing uses with objective and positive entitlements for water use under certain private permits, a negotiation process should be established between the competent authority and the different stakeholders in order to look for and to achieve a compatible use of the pre-existing rights and the new environmental constraints. This agreement mechanism to be developed in the process of consultation of the river basin management plan will allow a definitive solution that must be taken up in the final approved document (Fig. 2) considering that it will affect third parties, as water users and other stakeholders.


Fig. 2. Example of an e-flow regime established in the legal provision approving a hydrological plan


The conditions and limits of this consultation process will depend on the characteristics of each Member State’s legal regulations. In particular, on how the national laws define e-flows and private use of water. As a consequence, a comparative study on each Member State’s legal regulation should be performed but his goes far beyond the aim of this guide because there is not a single solution for this problem. The objective should be to arrive a consensus among the majority of stakeholders to define e-flows by using terms such as disproportionate costs, socio-economic impacts, technical feasibility and all the exceptional cases provided for by the WFD whereas there are not contradictions with the internal regulations.


9.4. RBMP’s approval and revisionThe approval of the river basin management plan requires a formal act of the competent authorities of the Member States involved in the particular river basin. Moreover, both the public availability of the approved document and its formal communication to the European Commission and other involved Member States are needed.The contents of the river basin management plan remain fixed until the next revision of the plan to be performed in 2015 and then every six years (Article 13.7 of the WFD).Obviously, river basin management plans are under revision to suit those changes that may have arisen from the previous cycle. As mentioned before, the revision cycle looks like the strategic improvement cycle, where the basic premise is to consider that everything can be improved, better characterized or better adjusted with new data.


For that reason, the feasibility or even the advisability of introducing mechanisms for revising the e-flows included in river basin management plans should be considered to seek for a better definition.The revision of e-flows values must be performed when the monitoring programmes designed according to Article 8 of the WFD show that they are not suitable to reach the objectives. In other words, when the water flow values in a water body are far from the suitable water flow resulting in an affection of the biological quality elements and thus not reaching a good ecological status or potential. In this case, the e-flows regime should be adjusted and the necessary implementing measures designed.Once again, this new scenario leads to the need to initiate a consulting process among the stakeholders to reach a consensus in the new e-flows regime. This can lead to a troublesome situation especially for those users who modified their permits after the


first e-flows implementation cycle. This situation provokes uncertainty in the owners of water permits who have assumed modification in their water rights on the assumption of a certain economic profitability in a forecasted period, usually between 20 and 75 years, a much longer period of the six-year one laid down by the update in the river basin management plans. This insecurity makes it difficult to materialize certain initiatives that will be performed under a more secure scenario producing socio-economic profitability. Under these circumstances, the need to reinforce a coherent consulting process of the river basin management plan is clear in order to reach a good solution to achieve the key environmental objectives established in Article 4 of the WFD.


10. Public participationSection 2 of the WFD defines public participation as allowing people to influence the outcome of plans and working processes. It is a means of improving decision-making, to create awareness of environmental issues and to help increase acceptance and commitment towards intended plans. Public participation for the implementation of the Directive is recommended at any stage in the planning process, from the Article 5 requirements to the Programme of Measures and the design of the River basin management plan, and therefore for the inclusion of the e-flows in the Plans.This chapter offers some suggestions and useful pointers to assist those involved in the process of developing a regime of environmental flows, and those seeking o support such a process.


Success will ultimately depend upon effective interaction with stakeholders, from politicians to local users, and the ability to communicate the need for environmental flows among those whose interests are affected.We must bear in mind that a public participation process will demand time and energy, but is a good tool to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD.

10.1. Legal Framework for public participation in the EU legislationPublic participation plays a key role in the WFD. This subsection points out the different provisions of the Directive, highlighting the leading role of Article 14.Preamble 14 of the WFD states that “The success of the Directive relies on close cooperation and coherent actions at Community, Member State and local level as well as on information, consultation and involvement of the public, including users”.


Preamble 46 states that “To ensure the participation of the general public, (…) it is necessary to provide proper information of planned measures and to report on progress with their implementation with a view to the involvement of the general public before final decisions on the necessary measures are adopted”.Article 14 of the WFD states that “Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin management plans”.This article also prescribes three main forms of public participation:

Active involvement in all aspects of the implementation of the Directive, especially – but not limited to – the planning process;

Consultation in three steps of the planning process;


Access to background information.Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, and Directive 2003/35/CE Providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment must also be taken into account.

10.2. Public participation and E-FlowsUsually, in some countries, historic users had already obtained water rights ín the river, making the implementation of environmental flows difficulty. Other users and interested parties, especially environmental organizations, have criticized the historic water users as unfairly privatizing the benefits of water use along the river. Due to these historic water rights, the environmental flow regime could not be implemented


immediately in some countries, since required a review process with a technical assessment, an economic analysis and a public participation to integrate competing views, involving water users, public agencies, environmental groups and interested parties. Public participation on e-flows should start early in the river basin planning, in order to establish a good whole process and allow integration of ideas, comments and input from stakeholders along the wayAs point 9 has explained, the overview document on significant water management issues is the preliminary document that should identify driving forces and agents and suggesting alternative measures to mitigate undesirable effects in order to be debated within the public consultation process.


It should be during this consultation phase when the e-flows could be determined, as well as to which extent they should be fixed (i.e. the whole river basin, only some water bodies or only in response to some particular problems). The new River basin management plan project, will thus include the different values of the components describing the e-flows regime according to the guidelines agreed during the discussion on the overview document on significant water management issues.However, this new e-flows regime could affect previous water rights, being necessary then, a compatibility negotiating process among the competent authorities and all the stakeholders affected.


This agreement (or pact) process will be carried out during the River basin management plan consultation process, which public participation tools are explained along point 10.3, leading to a consensus to be reflected in the final RBMP document.

10.3. Levels of participationThe Directive requires active involvement, consultation and access to information as the three basic levels of participation. More may be useful and desirable to reach the objective of the Directive.


In order to avoid disappointment, it is very important to make clear towards the public which form of public participation they are dealing with and which role they play. During and after the process feedback should be given to the stakeholders and public. In all the participation levels is useful to create territorial units of debate, grouping basins or sub-basins with similar problems of water management.

10.3.1. Active involvementThe purpose of the participatory requirements of Article 14, including active involvement, is to support the effective implementation of the Directive. Although “active involvement” has not been defined in the Directive, it implies that stakeholders


are invited to contribute actively to the process and thus play a role in advising the competent authorities whenever needed.It is important to note that there is not single correct approach to the organization of active involvement. It will require a tailor made process which should be context specific. This makes difficult to be prescriptive in terms of defining an active involvement process. One possible solution would be for the competent authorities to develop a strategy to adapt the common understanding to the national, River basin district and local context. In order to secure greater acceptance of the consultation and involvement process amongst stakeholders, the strategy should be published early in the process of implementation.Understanding, establishing and communicating clear boundaries for active involvement in the strategy will help keep the stakeholders expectations realistic.


Diving into the tools to allow the active involvement of the e-flows and taking into account what mentioned in point 9, the e-flows public participation corresponds with that of the River basin management plans where the e-flows will be included.Involvement at the national level would be thus predominantly with national governments, industry bodies, consumer bodies, national NGOs and technical and academic experts. At the River basin district and local level, involvement would tend to be with representatives of regional and local government and stakeholders with an interest in a specific River Basin District, river basin or water body.At each of these levels it may be useful organise involvement using the following methods:

Bilateral meetings; Steering groups;


Advisory groups; Consultation methodologies Workshops and meetings to generate solutions

Combining these with activities designed for each one of the processes where the e-flows will be included within the planning cycle.In these groups or public meetings, stakeholders can discuss the strategies to harmonize existing water uses with the proposed environmental flows. Interested parties can express their priorities and their agreement or disagreements with the measures proposed by the administration, or propose new ones. In these discussion forums all positions must be listened, and it must be reach an agreement acceptable to all parties.


Environmental flows validations using hydraulic simulation as Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) (Bovee, 1982), with a quantification of fish species physical habitat, and an analysis of habitat availability with flow variations can provide valuable information to allows interpretation and tools for the discussion in the consultation and implementation process. Graphs showing the variation in habitat depending on the flow can be used to reach agreement on what is the acceptable amount of habitat and what is the threshold below which it can not be considered further flow reduction.This type of participation must include at least the following phases: information collection of stakeholder’s contributions, discussion, conclusions, and finally summary of the measures adopted in the plan.


10.3.2. ConsultationConsultation aims at learning from comments, perceptions, experiences and ideas of stakeholders. Unlike active involvement, consultation is only possible after completion of draft plans and other documents, and during the preparation of these documents Moreover consultation allows everybody who is interested, to become involved in decision-making.A key message here is the need for clarity about who is being consulted and about what issues and the need for concise information or documents, which will be subject to consultation.Interpreting Article 14, consultation refers to:

Publishing Making available for comments


For the public, which is a wider range than stakeholders only.The Directive specifies that public comments must be provided in writing, e.g. either in paper form, by mail, or via e-mail. Additionally however, other ways of consultation can be considered such as oral consultation. So basically, there are two different forms of consultation:

Written consultation, where people are asked to comment in writing on the proposed analysis or issue;

Oral or active consultation, where the consult is sought in interviews, workshops or conferences.

Written consultation is regarded as a minimum requirement for implementation of the Directive, oral consultation as best practice. However, combination of these two is often applied.


10.3.3. Information supplyAlso known as Access to information and background documents. It should be secured by the competent authorities. It covers two aspects:

Sufficient “information supply” in the different implementation steps; and Access to background documents and information according to Article 14

Sufficient refers to: The different stakeholders and the public The kind of information (progress in the planning process, results and outcome

of analysis, proposed flows and studies, etc) The way information is being provided. For the public in general, the Internet,

brochures and television spots are useful means. The organised stakeholders


will most probably get all the relevant information in the steering groups or committees established.

As a minimum, the background documents should include all the documents that are summarised in the River basin management plan, in our case, those of the plan which will include the e-flows issues or those leading to affect the e-flows calculations, negotiation or consultations.Usually on-line information like Internet or e-mail and off-line information like meetings are combined to inform stakeholders and public. One suggestion is to create one central information or knowledge centre in a river basin responsible for information management and dissemination, and being the e-flows a new concept for many stakeholders, may be highlight its role.


10.4 Who should be involved?For practical reasons it is impossible to actively involve all potential stakeholders on all issues. A selection will have to be made. Possible factors to make this selection can be:

The relation of the stakeholders to the water management issues affecting E-Flows

The scale and context at which they usually act, who they represent Their involvement, being governor; user, victim, stakeholder; expert and

executer of measures Their capacity for engagement; and The political, social and environmental context

An approach to possible stakeholders could be:


Professionals; public and private sector organizations, professional voluntary groups and professional NGOs. This also includes statutory agencies, conservation groups, business, industry, insurance group and academia.

Authorities, elected people Local Groups, non professional organised entities Individual citizens, farmers, fishermen, scientists and companies.

Part IV: Concluding remarks and further stepsText to be developed by the DG, once the main parts of the Guidance document has been written.


AnnexesA. Case studies

A.1. Case study criteria

A.2. Case studiesTexts to be developed by the WG (and other external volunteers), based on the existing template


B. Other

B.1. Member State legislation referring to ecological flowsMany EU Member States have legislation in place for defining and implementing ecological flows. For further information, please look also at the corresponding text chapter 3.1. Laws, regulations and administrative provisions, and the case studies XXX and YYY included in A.2. Case studies. This overview table has been developed by the WG members, and complemented with the information available in Benítez Sanz & Schmidt (2012:32f).

schmg6, 01/02/14,

By all WG members! In the 3 left columns, a Y/N should be ticked, and the text box should be used for a (limited) reference to key documents and/or comments


Coun

try

Nati

onal

le

gisla

tion

Oth

er

regu

latio

n

Nati

onal

gu

idel

ines

Comments and/or Reference to the key legislation, regulation or guidance

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE


Coun

try

Nati

onal

le

gisla

tion

Oth

er

regu

latio

n

Nati

onal

gu

idel

ines


DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR


Coun

try

Nati

onal

le

gisla

tion

Oth

er

regu

latio

n

Nati

onal

gu

idel

ines


HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU


Coun

try

Nati

onal

le

gisla

tion

Oth

er

regu

latio

n

Nati

onal

gu

idel

ines


LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO


Coun

try

Nati

onal

le

gisla

tion

Oth

er

regu

latio

n

Nati

onal

gu

idel

ines


SE

SI Y1 Y2 N 1“Decree on the criteria for determination and on the mode of monitoring and reporting on ecologically acceptable flow”, OG RS, No. 97, (2009).2“Decree on the river basin management plan for the Danube Basin and the Adriatic Sea Basin”, OG RS, No. 61 (2011), changes OG RS, No. 49 (2012). This Decree also includes the limits for water abstraction.


Coun

try

Nati

onal

le

gisla

tion

Oth

er

regu

latio

n

Nati

onal

gu

idel

ines


SK

UK

CH

NO

Figure X. National legislation, regulations or guidelines on the definition of ecoilogical flows


B.2. Member State application of methodologies for assessing gaps in ecological flowsThe following methodological approximations are being used by the EU Member States in order to assess gaps in ecological flows. For a further refinement on these methodologies, please look also at the corresponding text chapter and the case studies XXX and YYY included in A.2. Case studies. This overview table has been developed by the WG members, and complemented with the information available in Benítez Sanz & Schmidt (2012:38ff).

schmg6, 01/02/14,

By all WG members! In the 4 left columns, a Y/N should be ticked, and the text box should be used for (limited) comments


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

SI 1Y 2Y 1The hydrological approach is based on the reversibility, quantity, length and duration of water abstraction and the ecological type of watercourse.2A lower value of e-flows may be determined on the basis of an holistic approach at the request of the applicant for the water right. The study should evaluate the hydro-morphological, biological and chemical characteristics of the river reach where the water diversion/abstraction occurs.


Coun

try

Hydr

olog

ical

Hydr

aulic

Habi

tat

simul

ation

Holis

tic Comments

SK

UK

CH

NO


C. ReferencesTo be revised and completed by the drafting team; URL references would be useful

(2013b). Review on eco-hydromorphological methods. Deliverable 1.1, REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management). Project fundedbythe European Commissionwithinthe7th Framework Programme (2007-2013), Topic

Acreman, M. C. and M. J. Dunbar. 2004. "Methods for defining environmental river flow requirements - a review." Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 8: 861-876.

Acreman, M.; J. Aldrick, C. Binnie, A. Black (2009). Enviromental flows from dams: the water framework directive. Engineering Sustainbility, 162:13-22

Acreman, M.C. 2003 Wetlands and hydrology. MedWet Publication 9. Tour du Valat, France.

schmg6, 17/01/35,

??


Acreman, M.C. and Ferguson, A.J.D., 2010. Environmental flows and the European Water Framework Directive. Freshwat. Biol., 55, 32-48.

Acreman, M.C., M.J. Dunbar, J. Hannaford, A. Black, O. Bragg, J. Rowan, and J. King. 2005. Development of environmental standards (Water Resources). Stage 3: Environmental Standards for the Water Framework Directive. Report to the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environment Research. Wallingford and Dundee: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and University of Dundee.Agreement 282656, 202 pp.

Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, and 12 other authors. 2004. Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, Revised Edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, Wyoming.


Armitage, P. And Petts, G.E. 1992. Biotic score and prediction to assess the effects of water abstraction on river macroinvertebrates for conservation purposes. Aquatic Conservation 2, 1-17.

Arthington, 2012). Environemental flows. Saving rivers in the Third Millenium. University of California Press, 406 pp.

Arthington, A. H., and B. J. Pusey. 2003. Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Research and Applications 19:377–395.

Arthington, A.H. 1998. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Holistic Methodologies. LWRRDC Occasional Paper 26/98. ISBN 0 642 26745 6.

Arthington, A.H. and J.M. Zalucki (Eds). 1998a. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods. (Authors – Arthington, A.H., Brizga, S.O., Pusey, B.J., McCosker, R.O., Bunn, S.E., Loneragan,


N., Growns, I.O. & Yeates, M.) LWRRDC Occasional Paper 27/98. ISBN 0 642 26746 4.

Arthington, A.H., Brizga, S.O. and Kennard, M.J. 1998b Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Best Practice Framework. LWRRDC Occasional Paper 25/98. ISBN 0 642 26744 8.

Arthington, A.H., S.E. Bunn, N.L. Poff y R.J. Naiman. 2006. “The challenge of providing environmental environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems”. Ecological Applications 16:1311-1318.

Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, et al. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers periphyton benthic macroinvertebrate and fish. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency Press; 1999, p. 3.


Batzer D., R. Sharitz, (ed.). 2006. “Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands”. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. xiii þ 568 pp.

Baumann, P., Kirchhofer, A., andSchalchli, U. (2012). Risanamentodeflussidiscontinui–Pianificazionestrategica. Unmodulodell’aiutoall’esecuzioneRinaturazione delle acque. UfficioFederaledell’Ambiente, Berna, page 127.

Beca. (2008). Draft guidelines for the selection of methods to determine ecological flows and water levels. Report by Beca Infrastructure Ltd for Ministry for the Environment. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand.

Benítez Sanz & Schmidt (2012). Analysis of the implementation of Environmental Flows in the wider context of the River Basin Management Plans (Report drafted in the framework of the Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the Major River Basin Management Plans. Task 3d: Water Abstraction and Water Use).


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/Water%20abstraction%20and%20use%20-%20Eflows.pdf.

Bovee, K.D., B.L. Lamb, J.M. Bartholow, C.D. Stalnaker, J. Taylor, and J. Henriksen. 1998. Stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Information and Technical Report. USGS/BRD19980004. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources. Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. 131p.

Bradley, D.C.; D. Cadman, N.J. Milner (2012). Ecological indicators of the effects of abstraction and flow regulation; and optimisation of flow releases from water storage reservoirs. SNIFFER.

Bradshaw A. (1996). Underlying principles of restoration. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science. 51(1), pp. 3–9.


Brown, C. A., and A. Joubert. 2003. Using multicriteria analysis to develop environmental flow scenarios for rivers targeted for water resource development. Water SA 29:365-374.

Brown, C. and King, J. 2003. Environmental Flows: Concepts and methods. In Davis, R. and Hirji, R. (eds). Water Resources and Environment Technical Note C.1. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Bunn S.E. & Arthington A.H. (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30. 492-507.

Bunn, S E. y A.H. Arthington. 2002. “Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity”. Environmental Management 30:492-507.


Commission of the European Communities (CEC), 2009. "Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 18.3 of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC on programmes for monitoring of water status". Commission Report (COM(2009) 156 final)

Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2007 Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 'Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union' First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. [COM(2007) 128 final]

Commission of the European Communities 2000. Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC


Cottingham P., G. Quinn, R. Norris, A. King., B. Chessman and C. Marshall (2005). Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Framework. Technical report. CRC for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra.

Cottingham P., M. Stewardson and A. Webb (2005). Victorian Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Program: Stage 1 Statewide framework. CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology report to the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

CRCA. 2005. Establishing Environmental Flow Requirements for Millhaven Creek: Pilot Project. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Glenburnie, Ontario.

Davies S. P. y Jackson S.K. 2006. “The Biological Condition Gradient: A Descriptive Model for Interpreting Change in Aquatic Ecosystems”. Ecological Applications: Vol. 16, No. 4 pp. 1251–1266


Davies, Peter M., Naiman, Robert J., Warfe, Danielle M., Pettit, Neil E., Arthington, Angela H., andBunn, Stuart E. (2014). Flow–ecology relationships: closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Marine and Freshwater Research 65, 133–141.

De Coning, C. 2006. Overview of water policy process in South Africa, Water Policy 8: 505-528.

De Coning, C. and Sherwill, T. 2004. An assessment of the water policy process in South Africa. (South African) Water Research Commission Report TT 232/04 .

Dunbar, M. J., A. Gustard, M. C. Acreman, and C. R. N. Elliot. 1998. “Overseas approaches to setting river flow objectives”. Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom. R&D Technical Report W6-161. 83pp.

Dunbar, M.J., Alfredsen, K. and Harby, A., 2012. Hydraulic-habitat modelling for setting environmental river flow needs for salmonids. Fish. Manage. Ecol., 19, 500-517.


Dyson, M., G. Bergkamp, y J. Scanlon, (eds). 2003. “Flow. The Essentials of Environmental Flows”. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 118 pp.

EEA, 2010. The European Environment State and Outlook 2010. Water resources: quantity and flows. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

EEA, 2012. Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe. Report 1/2012. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Emerton, L., and Boss, E. 2004. Value: Counting ecosystems as water infrastructure. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, IUCN.

Entwistle N, Heritage G, Milan D. 2011. River Habitat Survey: A useful tool for hydromorphological assessment? Advances in River Sciences 2011, Swansea UK, Abstracts.ENV.2011.2.1.2-1 Hydromorphology and ecological objectivesof WFD, Grant


European Environment Agency (EEA), EEA, 2009a. Water resources across Europe confronting water scarcity and drought. EEA Report No 2/2009. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.

European Environment Agency 2012. European waters – Assessment of status and pressures. EEA Report 8/2012.

European Topic Centre 2012. Hydromorphological alterations and pressures in European rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. ETC Technical Report 2/2012.

Fryirs KA, Arthington A, Grove J. 2008. Principles of river condition assessment. In Giles, N., Philips, V. and Barnard, S. (1991). Ecological effects of low flow in chalk

streams. Wilshire Trust for Nature Conservation. Gippel, C. J. 2001. Hydrological analyses for environmental flow assessment. In

Ghassemi, F. and Whetton, P. (eds) Proceedings MODSIM 2001. International


Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Modelling & Simulation Society of Australia & New Zealand. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. p. 873-880.

Gippel, C.J. and Stewardson, M.J., 1998. Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows, Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, pp. 53-67.

Gore, J. and J. Nestler. 1988. “Instream Flow Studies in Perspective.” Regulated Rivers, 2: 93–101.

Gore, J.A, 1989. Models for predicting benthic macroinvertebrate habitat suitability under regulated flows. In: Gore, J.A & Petts, G.E. Alternatives in regulated river management. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Rato, Florida.


Harby, A., M. Baptist, M.J. Dumbar and S. Schmutz. 2004. State-of-the-art in data sampling, modelling analysis and applications of river habitat modelling. Final report Action COST 626.

Hart D.D. & Finelli C.M. (1999) Physical-biological coupling in streams: the pervasive effects of flow on benthic organisms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 363–395.

Hart, D. D., and C. M. Finelli. 1999. Physical–biological coupling in streams: the pervasive effects of flow on benthic organisms. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 363–395.

Heggenes, J., Wollebaek J. 2013. Habitat use and selection by brown trout in Streams. In: H.A. Maddock I., Kemp P. and Wood P. (Editor), Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 109-124


Hirji, R. and Davis, R. 2009. Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans and Projects: Findings and Recommendations. The World Bank, Environment and Development series.

Hirji, R. and R. Davis. 2009. Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans, and Projects: Findings and Recommendations. The World Bank. Environment and Development series.

Hughes, D.A. & Münster, F. (2000) Hydrological information and techniques to support the determination of water quantity component of the ecological reserve for rivers. Water Research Commission Report N TT 137/00, 91 pp, Pretoria, South Africa.

International Water Management Institute (IWMI) 2011. Eco-hydrological databases. Estimates of environmental flows worldwide. http://dw.iwmi.org/ehdb/efr/wetlandvisitor/information.aspx


International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 2004. http://www.lk.iwmi.org/ehdb/EFM/efm.asp

ISPRA, 2011, Implementazione della Direttiva 2000/60/CE. Analisi e valutazione degli aspetti idromorfologici. Versione 1.1. Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Roma.

Jowett, LG. 1989. River hydraulic and habitat simulation, RHYHABSIM computer manual. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Fisheries Miscellaneous Repon 49. Christchurch. 39 pp.

Junk, W. J.; P. B Bayley y R.E. Sparks. 1989. “The Flood Pulse Concept In River-Floodplain Systems”. In: Doge, D.P.(Ed.). Proc. Int. Large River Symp (Lars) – Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 106: 110-127.


Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B. & Sparks, R.E. (1989). The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106: 110-27.

Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R. and Schlosser, I.J. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication. Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A.

Katz, D. (2006) “Going with the Flow: Preserving and Restoring Instream Water Allocation.” pp. 29-49, in The World’s Water - 2006-2007: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, Gleick, P. (ed.), Island Press.

Keddy, P.A. (2002). Wetland ecology: Principles and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 614pp.

Keddy, P.A. and L.H. Fraser. 2000. Four general principles for the management and conservation of wetlands in large lakes: the role of water levels, nutrients,


competitive hierarchies and centrifugal organization. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 5:177-185.

Kennard, M.J., Mackay, S.J., Pusey, B.J., Olden, J.D. and Marsh, N., 2010. Quantifying uncertainty in estimation of hydrologic metrics for ecohydrological studies. River Res. Appl., 26, 137-156.

King, A, J. Brooks, G. Quinn, A. Sharpe, S. McKay (2003). Monitoring programs for environmental flows in Australia – A literature review. Freshwater Ecology, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment; Sinclair Knight Merz; Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology and Monash University

King, J. M., and D. Louw. 1998. Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the Building Block Methodology. Aquatic Ecosystems Health and Restoration 1:109-124.


King, J. M., R. E. Tharme, y M. S. de Villiers, editors. 2008. “Environmental flow assessments for rivers: manual for the Building Block Methodology”. WRC Report No TT 354/08. Updated Edition. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

King, J. R. Tharme and C. Brown. 1999. Definition and Implementation of Instream flows. Contributing Paper. World Commission on Dams.

King, J., C. Brown y H. Sabet. 2003. “A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers”. Regulated Rivers: Research and Assessment. Volume 19 Issue 5-6, Pages 619 - 639

King, J., C. Brown. 2004. “Development of Drift, a Scenario-Based Methodology for Environmental Flow Assessments”. Report No 1159/1/04

King. 1998. The Bulk Water Estimates. Unpublished report


Lake P.S. (2001). On the maturing of restoration: linking ecological research and restoration. Ecological Management & Restoration 2(2). pp. 110–115.Ecological Managemen

Le Quesne, T., E Kendy, and D. Weston. 2010. The Implementation Challenge: Taking stock of government policies to protect and restore environmental flows. WWF Report.

Lloyd, N., Qinn, G., Thoms, M. et al. (2003) Does flow modification cause geomorphological and ecological response in rivers? A literature review from an Australian perspective. Technical report 1/2004, Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology.

Loar, J.M., Sale, M.J. & Cada, O.F. 1986. Instream flow needs to protect fishery resources. Water Forum '86: world water issues in evolution. Proceedings of


A.S.C.E. eonferenceIHY. IR, EE, WR, WW Divs. Long Beach, California, August 4-6, 1986.

Lytle, D, y N. Poff. 2004. “Adaptation to natural flow regimes”. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:94-100.

MacKay, H., and Roux, D. 2004. Water Services: Taking South Africa into the next century, Service Delivery Review 3(3): 46-50. Department of Public Service Administration, Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.dpsa.gov.za/documents/service_delivery_review/SDR_Vol3_Ed_03_complete.pdf

Martínez Santa-María, C. et al. 2010. IAHRIS 2.2 Indicators of HydrologicAlterationin Rivers. User’s Manual.


Martínez, C.S. e Fernández, J.Y. (2010). AHRIS 2.2 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration in Rivers. User’s Manual. Ministry of the Environment. Polytechnic University of Madrid. Spanish Government.

Martínez, C.S. e Fernández, J.Y. (2010). IAHRIS 2.2 Índices de Alteración Hidrológica en Ríos. Manual de referencia metodológica. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. Gobierno de España.

McKay, S.F. and King, A.J. (2006). Potential ecological effects of water extraction in small, unregulated streams. River Research and Applications 22: 1023-1037.

Meile, T., Boillat, J.-L., and Schleiss, A. J. (2011). Hydropeaking indicators for characterization of theUpper-Rhone River in Switzerland. Aquatic Sciences, 73(1):171–18.


Meitzen, K.M. and Doyle, M.W. and Thoms M.C and Burns, C.E. (2013) Geomorphology within the interdisciplinary science of environmental flows. Geomorphology (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.03.013

Merritt, D.M., Scott, M.L., LeRoyPoff, N., Auble, G.T. and Lytle, D.A., 2010. Theory, methods and tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetation-flow response guilds. Freshwat. Biol., 55, 206-225.

Milhous, R. T., J. M. Bartholow, M. A. Updike, and A. R. Moos. 1990. Reference manual for generation and analysis of habitat time series. Version II. Biological Report 90(16), Instream flow information paper 27. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (MARM). 2009. ORDEN ARM/2656/2008, de 10 de septiembre, por la que se aprueba la instrucción de planificación hidrológica. BOE Núm 229.


Mitsch, W. y J. Gosselink. 2000. “Wetlands”. 3rd Edition. Wiley and Sons, Nueva Cork. 920 pp.+

Moore, M. 2004. Perceptions and interpretations of environmental flows and implications for future water resource management: A survey study. Masters Thesis, Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, Sweden.

Naiman, R. J., J. J. Magnuson, D. M. McKnight, and J. A. Stanford. 1995. “The freshwater imperative: A research agenda”. Island Press, Washington, DC, 165 pp.

National Park Service (NPS). 2001. Economic benefits of conserved rivers: An annotated bibliography. Trails, Rivers, and Conservation Assistance Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, June.


Nel, J.L., Turak, E., Linke, S. and Brown, C., 2011. Integration of environmental flow assessment and freshwater conservation planning: a new era in catchment management. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 290-299.

Nilsson, C., C.A. Reidy, M. Dynesius, and C. Revenga, 2005. Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of the World’s Large River Systems. Science 308:405-408.

Parasiewicz, P., Rogers, J.N., Vezza, P., Gortazar, J., Seager, T., Pegg, M., Wiśniewolski, W. and Comoglio, C., 2013. Applications of the MesoHABSIM Simulation Model. In: H.A. Maddock I., Kemp P. and Wood P. (Editor), Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 109-124

Petts, G.E., 2009. Instream Flow Science For Sustainable River Management. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45, 1071-1086.

Poff N.L., Richter B., Arthington A.H., Bunn S.E., Naiman R.J., Kendy E., Acreman M., Apse C., Bledsoe B.P., Freeman M., Henriksen J., Jacobson R.B., Kennen J., Merritt


D.M., O’Keeffe J., Olden J.D., Rogers K., Tharme R.E. y Warner A. 2009. “The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards”. Freshwater Biology.

Poff, L. & J. K. Zimmerman. 2010. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology (2010) 55, 194–205

Poff, N.L. and J. K. H. Zimmerman (2010). Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology, 55: 194-205.

Poff, N.L., Allen, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E. & Stromberg, J.C. (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769-784.


Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J.R. Karr, B. Richter, R. Sparks, y J. Stromberg. 1997. “The natural flow regime: a new paradigm for riverine conservation and restoration”. BioScience 47:769-784.

Pusey, B.J. (1998). Methods addressing the flow requirements of fish. In Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods. (Eds A.H. Arthington and J.M. Zalucki.) pp. 66–105. LWRRDC Occasional Paper No. 27/98. (LWRRDC: Canberra.)

Reiser, D.W., Wesche, T.A. & Estes, C. 1989. Status of instream flow legislation and practise in North America. Fisheries 14(2): 22-29.

Resh V.H., Brown A.V., Covich A.P., Gurtz M.E., Li H.W., Minshall G.W., Reice S.R., Sheldon A.L., Wallace J.B. & Wissmar R. (1988) The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7, 433–455.


Richter B. D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell y D.P. Braun. 1996. “A method for assessing hydrological alteration within ecosystems”. Conservation Biology 10(4): 1163-1174.

Richter B. D., J.V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington y D.P. Braun. 1997. “How much water does a river need?” Freshwater Biology 37: 231-249.

Richter B.D., Baumgartner J.V., Powell J. & Braun D.P. (1996) A method for assessing hydrological alteration within ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 10, 1163–1174.

Richter, B. D., A. T. Warner, J. L. Meyer, y K. Lutz. 2006. “A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations”. River Research and Applications, 22, 297-318.

Richter, B.D., Davis, M.M., Apse, C. and Konrad, C., 2012. A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res. Appl., 28, 1312-1321.


Rinaldi et al. (2013) A method for the assessment and analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italianstreams: the MorphologicalQuality Index (MQI). Geomorphology, doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.09.009, 180-181, 96-108.

Rinaldi M, Belletti B, Van de Bund W, Bertoldi W, Gurnell A, Buijse T, Mosselman E River Futures. An Integrative Scientific Approach to River Repair, Brierley G, Fryirs KA (eds). Society for Ecological Restoration International, Island Press, Washington, USA, 100-124.

Robinson, C.T., 2012. Long-term changes in communityassembly, resistance, andresiliencefollowing experimental floods. Ecol. Appl., 22, 1949-1961

RRA, 2003. Environmental Flows for River Systems. River Research and Applications, Special Issue, 19(5-6):375-681.

Sanchez Navarro R. and Schmidt G. 2012. Environmental flows as a tool to achieve WFD objectives. Eflows WG discussion paper.


URL:http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/working_groups/scarcity_drought/final_products_wds/55171-eflows-discpap-ed2/_EN_1.0_&a=i

Schmidt, G. & C. Benítez-Sanz (2012): Topic report on: Assessment of Water Scarcity and Drought aspects in a selection of European Union River Basin Management Plans. Study by Intecsa-Inarsa for the European Commission (under contract “Support to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)” (070307/2011/600310/SER/D.2)). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf.

Smakhtin, V. U.; and Shilpakar, R. L. 2005. Planning for environmental water allocations: An example of hydrologybased assessment in the East Rapti River, Nepal. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 20 pp. (IWMI Research Report 89).


Smakhtin, V.; Anputhas, M. 2006. An assessment of environmental flow requirements of Indian river basins. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 42p. (IWMI Research Report 107)

Stalnaker, C.B. & Arnette, S.C. 1976. Methodologies for the determination of stream resource flow requirements: an assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biological Services Western Water Association. 199 pp.

Stanford, J. A., M. S. Lorang, and F. R. Hauer. 2005. The shifting habitat mosaic of river ecosystems. Internationalen Vereinigung fu¨ r Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie Verhandlungen 29:123–136.

Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, W.J. Liss, C.A. Frissell, et al., 1996. A General Protocol for Restoration of Regulated Rivers. Regulated Rivers 12:391-413.

Statzner, B. & Higler, B. 1986. Stream hydraulics as a major determinant of benthic invertebrate zonation patterns. Freshwat. Biol., 16, 127-39.


Tharme, R. 2003. “A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers”. River Research and Applications 19: 397-441.

Tharme, R.E. 1996. Review of international methodologies for the quantification of the instream flow requirements of rivers. Water law review. Final report for policy development. Commissioned by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Freshwater Research Unit, University of Cape Town, Cape Town. 116 pp.

Tharme, R.E. and King, J.M. (1998). Development of the Building Block Methodology for instream flow assessments, and supporting research on the effects of different magnitude flows on riverine ecosystems. Water Research Commission Report No. 576/1/98. 452 pp.


The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2011a. Conservation Gateway. “Environmental Flow Components” http://www.conservationgateway.org/content/environmental-flow-components

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2011b. Conservation Gateway. “Three-Level Hierarchy of Environmental Flow Methods ” http://www.conservationgateway.org/content/environmental-flow-components

UK TAG 2007. Guidance on environmental flow releases from impoundments to implement the Water Framework Directive. Final report.

USEPA, 2005. “Use of Biological Information to Better Define Designated Aquatic Life Uses in State and Tribal Water Quality Standards: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses”.

van der Valk. A. G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: A Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62: 688–696.


Waddingham, J., D. Cadman, J. Murray-Bligh and K. Tanner. 2008. Towards appropriate emphasis on regulation of the hydrological regime in integrated river basin management. BHS 10th Natinal Hydrology Symposium. Exeter

Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic ecosystems. Pages 29-42 in T. D. Fontaine and S. M. Bartell, editors. Dynamics of lotic ecosytems. Ann Arbor Sciences.

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2003a. Guidance Document No. 3. Analysis of Pressures and Impacts - Impress.

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2003b. Guidance Document No. 4. Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies – HMWB.


WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2003c. Guidance Document No. 7. Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive – Monitoring.

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2003d. Guidance Document No.10. Rivers and Lakes – Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems – REFCOND.

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2003e. Guidance Document No. 12. Horizontal Guidance on the Role of Wetlands in the Water Framework Directive.

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2005. Guidance Document No. 13. Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential – Classification.


WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy) 2006. Policy Paper: WFD and Hydro-morphological pressures. Focus on hydropower, navigation and flood defence activities. Recommendations for better policy integration.

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy). 2009. Guidance Document No. 18. Guidance on groundwater status and trend assessment. Technical Report - 2009 - 026

WFD CIS (Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy) 2011. Workshop on Water management, Water Framework Directive & Hydropower. Issue paper (final version).

WFD CIS Expert Group on Water Scarcity & Drought, 2012. EU Working definitions of water scarcity and drought. Draft Report prepared by Schmidt, G., C. Benítez


and J.J. Benítez for the European Commission in the frame of the Water Framework Directive’s Common Implementation Strategy (Version 3.1, 12 April 2012).

Winter, T. C. 1988. “A conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts on the hydrology of nontidal wetlands, ” Environmental Management 12(5), 605-620.

Wood, P.J. and Petts, G.E. (1994). Low flows and recovery of macroinvertebrates in a small regulated chalk stream. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 9: 303-316.

Wright, J.F. and Berrie, A.D. (1987). Ecological effects of groundwater pumping and a natural drought on the upper reaches of a chalk stream. Reg. Riv.: Res. and Man. 1: 145-160.


How To Use This Document TemplateHeadings and subheadingsThe following styles should be used for headings and subheadings. Heading 1

Font type: VerdanaFont Size: 14Colour: R:38, G:54, B:115

Heading 2Font type: VerdanaFont Size: 11Colour: R:38, G:54, B:115


Heading 3Font type: VerdanaFont Size: 10Colour: R:38, G:54, B:115

Do not use capital letters for the headings/subheadings, the format should always be "sentence case", except for abbreviations. Body textFont style: VerdanaFont size: 10


Font colour: Gray 80%Bulleted listThe bullet should be square and the colour should be Black. For reference please see list under "Headings and subheadings". To apply the style of the list, select "List Bullet 2" from the "Style" drop down menu.

HyperlinksBy default the hyperlinks will appear in blue (colour coder: R:26, G:63, B:124), no underline.

Guidance on Ecological Flows (Eflows) - circabc.europa.eu€¦ · Web viewStructure and...

Documents

Transcript of Guidance on Ecological Flows (Eflows) - circabc.europa.eu€¦ · Web viewStructure and...