REFORM NIKOLAI FRIBERG Norwegian Institute for Water Research Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO,...
-
Upload
beverley-sharp -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of REFORM NIKOLAI FRIBERG Norwegian Institute for Water Research Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO,...
Nikolai Friberg 1
REFORM
NIKOLAI FRIBERGNorwegian Institute for Water Research
Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO, Norway
2
REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management
Tom Buijse NLRoy Brouwer NLIan Cowx UKHarm Duel NLNikolai Friberg DK/NAngela Gurnell UKDaniel Hering GEEleftheria Kampa GEErik Mosselman NLSusanne Muhar AUMatthew O’Hare UKTomasz Okruszko PLMassimo Rinaldi ITJan Vermaat NLChristian Wolter GE
November 2011 – October 2015
4th All Partner Meeting – June 2014
3Nasjonalt restaureringsseminar 2014
Oslo, 18 – 19 November 2014
Partners
26 partners from 15 European countries
No Name Short name
Country
1Stichting Deltares Deltares Netherlands2Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek Alterra Netherlands3Aarhus University AU-NERI Denmark4Universitaet fuer Bodenkultur Wien BOKU Austria 5Institut National de Recherche en Sciences et des
Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture
IRSTEA France
6Institutul National de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Delta Dunarii
DDNI Romania
7Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
EAWAG Switzerland
8Ecologic Institut Gemeinnützige Gmbh Ecologic Germany9Forschungsverbund Berlin E.V. FVB.IGB Germany
10Joint Research Centre- European Commission JRC Belgium11Masaryk University MU Czech
Republic12Natural Environment Research Council - Centre
for Ecology and HydrologyNERC United
Kingdom13Queen Mary University of London QMUL United
Kingdom 14Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU Sweden15Finnish Environment Institute SYKE Finland16Universitaet Duisburg-Essen UDE Germany17University of Hull UHULL United
Kingdom 18Universita Degli Studi Di Firenze UNIFI Italy19Universidad Politecnica de Madrid UPM Spain21Warsaw University of Life Sciences WULS Poland22Centro de Estudios y Experimentacion de Obras
PublicasCEDEX Spain
23Dienst Landelijk Gebied DLG Netherlands24Environment Agency EA United
Kingdom 25Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca
Ambientale ISPRA Italy
26Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning NIVA Norway27Stichting VU-VUmc VU-Vumc Netherlands
26
4
Objectives of REFORM
APPLICATION1. Select indicators for cost-effective monitoring
2. Improve tools and guidelines for restoration
RESEARCH3. Review existing information on river degradation and restoration
4. Develop a process-based hydromorphological framework
5. Understand how multiple stress constrains restoration
6. Assess the importance of scaling on the effectiveness of restoration
7. Develop instruments for risk and benefit analysis to support successful restoration
DISSEMINATION8. Enlarge appreciation for the benefits of restoration
HYdroMOrphological stress
• Quantitatively the main problem in most river basins and a large proportion of HYMO degradation is historical
• Flood protection, hydropower, navigation, urban sprawl are among contemporary challenges
Photo:Friedrich BöhringerPhoto:Kimberly Fleming Photo: Piet Spaans
0.0 0.5 1.00
2
4
6
8R 2 = 0.43
Morphological Index
ASPT
Morphological index ranging from completely uniform (0) to very complex (1)
A standard metric
Metrics sensitive to hydrological alterations
MESH LIFE
Normalflow
0.61 0.52
Low flow -0.58 -0.47
high positives = good/low negatives = bad (+1 to – 1)
Metrics sensitive to hydrological alterations vs. other stressor specific
metricsMESH LIFE ASPT
(organic)EPT
(general)SPEAR
(pesticides)
Q90 0.61 0.52 0.59 0.44 0.6
Q10 -0.58 -0.47 -0.52 -0.43 -0.55
high positives = good/low negatives = bad (+1 to – 1)
10
Data analyses
• Several large WFD-compliant data sets were analysed across Europe
• Species data, species traits and a range of metrics were analysed against:– Measures of HYMO stress– Water chemistry– Land use
HYMODegradation assessment method
• Process oriented• Spatial and
temporal scales• Riparian vegetation
Potentiallinks
Quantifiablelinks
Possibleindicators
Ecology
HYMOassessment
metrics
• Sensitive• Stressor specific• Low uncertainty• Scale dependent
Analytical approach
Potential links – HYMO stress
• Loss of hyporheric zone (macroinverts, fish)
• Low oxygen levels• (macroinvertebrates)• Scouring at high flows• (perifyton)• Changes in biotic
interactions (realised habitat)
Quantifiable links
Why it also was difficult to detect HYMO degradation using WFD
compliant monitoring data
Hydromorphology• Measured on a different spatial scale than the
biota• Static rather than dynamic measurements;
often very limited number of consistent HYMO variables available across data sets
Hydrology• Few hydrological stations compared with
biological monitoring stations and often not at the same place
HYMODegradation assessment method
• Process oriented• Spatial and
temporal scales• Riparian vegetation
Potentiallinks
Quantifiablelinks
Possibleindicators
Ecology
HYMOassessment
metrics
• Sensitive• Stressor specific• Low uncertainty• Scale dependent
Analytical approach
HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Geomorphic unit
Hydraulic unit
River element
Region
Catchment
Landscape unit
Segment
Reach
A framework of nested spatial units for investigating hydromorphological processes, forms (habitats) and their changes, particularly at the reach scale
1. Conforms with existing WFD typologies and spatial units
2. Process-based 3. Investigates current
and past condition4. Considers responses to
future scenarios
HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Geomorphic unit
Hydraulic unit
River element
Region
Catchment
Landscape unit
Segment
Reach
Open Ended and Prescribed Versions
Links with existing regions
Links with existing river typesat catchment scale
Can include WFD water bodies at segment scale
1. River (reach) types2. River floodplain types3. Groundwater-surface
water interaction types4. Flow regime types
Indicative units including vegetation-driven landforms
HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Geomorphic unit
Hydraulic unit
River element
Region
Catchment
Landscape unit
Segment
Reach
How are reaches functioning?
Indicators of controls at the region, catchment, landscape unit, and segment scales that affect hydromorphological processes and forms at the reach scale
Indicators at sub-reach scales of hydromorphological alteration, condition and function of reaches
Emphasis on VEGETATION AS A CRUCIAL COMPONENT OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND FORMS
Degradation classes of MQI
Good (MQI = 0.70 - 0.85)
MQI=0.79 MQI=0.60
Moderate (MQI = 0.50 – 0.70)
MQI=0.43 MQI=0.04
Poor (MQI = 0.3 – 0.5) Very poor (MQI = 0 – 0.3)
Geomorphic unit
Hydraulic unit
River element
Catchment
Landscape unit
Segment
Reach
Region
WHY GUS? Hymo processesTo interpret river behaviour across scalesfrom the catchment to the geomorphic units.. and so to the habitats …
REFORM International Conference on River and Stream Restoration “Novel Approaches to Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers”
Wageningen, 29th June – 4th July 2015
BIOTA
To understand the links among large scale (catchment to reach) controls and, through the geomorphic units, habitats availability and biological response
GEO
MO
RPH
IC
UN
ITS
WHY GUS? Links to habitats and biota
REACH PHYSICAL HABITATS
riffle
glidestep
pool
dune system
GU: not only riffles and pools!
riparian zone
islandbank-attached bar
Nikolai Friberg 23
Implications
• The way most countries are using their methods, and if sampling is not revised to be in accordance with the more process-based HYMO methods, we get in particular to many false positives using macroinvertebrates, i.e. good status in rivers that are more HYMO degraded than a slight deviation for reference conditions.
• However, false negatives are also a risk: HYMO indicators based on biota may show HYMO degradation where to problems might relate to other stressors such as water chemistry
• Not good as e.g. program of measures could be based on a wrong perception of the primary pressures
Recommendations
• Use the HYMO method together with chemistry and BQEs to assess all five status classes in WFD
• BQEs, with the current sampling methodology, can primarily inform on the impact of other stressors, which are relevant in multiple stress scenarios
• Fish is the most sensitive BQE with regard to HYMO; macrophytes in lowland rivers. Methods needed!
• Alternative/new methods linking HYMO to biota should be developed up to 2019 WFD revision
Nikolai Friberg 25
Thank you!