On 26-27 February 2013, the REFORM project will hold a technical and interactive Stakeholder Workshop on River Restoration to Support Effective Catchment Management in Brussels.

The workshop will serve as a platform for consultation and exchange between REFORM scientists, European technical experts working on river degradation and restoration, and members of the WFD CIS WG A Ecological Status (ECOSTAT).

Specifically, the workshop is aimed at experts involved in river basin management planning and participants with a good technical understanding of the methods used in their respective countries to assess hydromorphological alterations, their ecological impacts, and restoration measures that can reverse or mitigate these. The event is planned for 120 participants.

At this event, first results of the REFORM project will be presented and invited experts can give their feedback during interactive breakout sessions on how REFORM can contribute to the next round of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) by creating tools and approaches for managing the different types of rivers and pressures across Europe.

Keynote speeches will be given by the REFORM partners, the ECOSTAT leaders, the EEA, the WISER project, and the Life+RESTORE project, among others.

You will find the draft version of the workshop programme at: http://reformrivers.eu/events/stakeholder-workshop/programme.

The workshop will include presentations on the following:

• An overview of the initial outcomes of REFORM to support the drafting of the 2nd River Basin Management Plans
• Feedback on assessment methods and measures for river restoration in the 1st River Basin Management Plans
• Methods for understanding the root causes of degradation and specifying the expected outcome of restoration
• Reporting on tools for assessing the effectiveness of restoration for river basin planning considering project scale and catchment status
• Discussion of a European multi-scale ecohydromorphological assessment framework (prioritisation of assessments in different scales)
• Knowledge sharing on hydromorphological degradation and restoration 
• Dissemination of information about related European research projects and activities and their relationship to REFORM

Breakout sessions for interactive discussion will address the following themes:

• Highland/midland river systems
• Lowland river systems
• Mediterranean river systems
• Unraveling the impact of hydromorphological pressures in multiple-pressure settings
• Designing programmes of measures
• Dealing with heavily modified water bodies

The breakout sessions will address REFORM’s outputs and plans for the next stages of the project and also reflect on relevant activities in the Member States and other European countries.

For further information about the workshop, please consult the workshop website (http://www.reformrivers.eu/events/stakeholder-workshop) or contact the workshop secretariat at: reform-workshop@ecologic-events.eu

About 56% of Europe’s river water bodies with a total length of 630,000 km have not reached good ecological status or potential. Of these water bodies, 48% are affected byhydromorphological pressures and 43% contain altered habitats. An early task in workpackage 1 of REFORM was to comparatively analyse the Member States’ River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), the Programmes of Measures (PoMs), and already implemented hydromorphological restoration projects. The goal was to investigate the consistency of measures with pressures, preferences for measures based on existing knowledge, knowledge gaps, and potential ecological effects of the planned measures.

A previous assessment of the German PoMs revealed a reasonable selection of measures in accordance with the analysis of pressures and impacts (Kail & Wolter 2011). At the same time, it showed a general lack of knowledge on the effectiveness of restoration measures, especially to enhance the ecological status of lowland rivers and heavily modified water bodies (HMWB).

Therefore, the objectives of this task within REFORM were to analyse the RBMPs and PoMs at the European scale and to compare the planned measures with those that are already implemented to investigate whether:

1. traditional restoration measures for which more experiences exist are favoured in the PoM,
2. more measures are planned for well-known taxa, i.e., for fish,
3. regional differences in restoration measures reflect different main pressures and impacts, and
4. there is a tendency to plan investigating studies first in order to address a general lack of knowledge on ecologically efficient measures. 

The RBMPs and PoMs of the Member States have been accessed through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) (http://water.europa.eu). The supplementary measures to enhance ecological status have been translated and classified according to measure groups developed in the project FORECASTER (IWRM.NET, BMBF 02WM1031). In parallel, a restoration project database was compiled containing projects and measures targeting hydromorphological improvements of streams, rivers, and floodplains. Projects solely focusing on connectivity, i.e., fish passage facilities, or water quality have not been taken into consideration unless they were combined with measures to improve hydromorphology.

In total, 49,055 supplementary measures were listed for European river basin districts (17,341 for Continental Europe CE, i.e., excluding UK which had a more detailed list of measures than other Member States). Conceptual measures (e.g., investigations, stakeholder information, legislation) were the most frequently planned and accounted for 56% (CE) of all measures, followed by measures addressing hydromorphology (14%), and water quality (18%). The share of hydromorphological measures was dominated by floodplain rehabilitation (15%), instream habitat enhancement (11%), hydrology (16%), connectivity (17%), and riparian buffers (12%) (see Figure below, right side). The restoration project database contains 878 reports on 813 hydromorphological restoration projects (649 European and 164 non-European). Instream habitat enhancement was the dominating measure both in (68%) or outside (53%) Europe, whilst differences appeared in particular with the higher numbers of projects in Europe addressing floodplain morphology (42% vs. 11%) and river planform (40% vs. 19%).

Proportion of measures targeting hydromorphological improvements in 649 implemented European restoration projects (left) and of 2,428 (Continental Europe without UK) supplementary hydromorphological measures planned for European river water bodies in the PoMs (right).

Although an analysis of pressures, ecological status, and partially measures in the European RBMPs have been performed already by the European Commission and the EEA (see EC 2012, EEA 2012, Fehér et al. 2012, Lyche-Solheim et al. 2012), our findings provide different viewpoints and new insights:

• While hydromorphological measures are planned for 96% of the designated 157 European river basin districts (EC 2012), only 14% of all planned supplementary measures address hydromorphology, despite the conclusion that hydromorphological modifications are among the most significant pressures identified throughout Europe (EEA 2012, Fehér et al. 2012).
• Further, a surprisingly low 11% of the planned hydromorphological measures address instream habitat enhancement, although this measure is implemented in 68% of European restoration projects in our database, implying that ample experience should be available.

This obvious discrepancy between implemented restoration projects and further planning of measures (in RBMPs and PoMs) raises questions on the reasons why instream measures still appeared less successful, whether they are no longer required or whether planning and implementation is hampered by other constraints which are important for successful river restoration. This discrepancy will be subjected to further research within REFORM.

References

EC – European Commission. 2012. Commission Staff Working Document. European Overview (2/2) accompanying the document report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) River Basin Management Plans. European Commission, Brussels, SWD(2012) 379 final.

EEA – European Environmental Agency. 2012. European waters – assessment of status and pressures. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, EEA Report No 8/2012.

Fehér J, Gáspár J, Szurdiné-Veres K, Kiss A, Kristensen P, Peterlin M, Globevnik L, Kirn T, Semerádová S, Künitzer A, Stein U, Austnes K, Spiteri C, Prins T, Laukkonen E, Heiskanen A-S. 2012. Hydromorphological alterations and pressures in European rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. Thematic assessment for EEA Water 2012 Report. European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters, Prague, ETC/ICM Technical Report 2/2012.

Kail, J. & Wolter, C. (2011) Analysis and evaluation of large-scale river restoration planning in Germany to better link river research and management. River Research and Applications 27: 985-999.

Lyche-Solheim A, Austnes K, Kristensen P, Peterlin M, Kodeš V, Collins RP, Semerádová S, Künitzer A, Filippi R, Prchalová H, Spiteri C, Prins T. 2012. Ecological and chemical status and pressures in European waters. Thematic assessment for EEA Water 2012 Report. European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters, Prague, ETC/ICM Technical Report 1/2012.

All reported RBMPs are publicly available at www.circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_documents_1/submitted_rbmps&vm=detailed&sb=Title

WISE data are available at http://water.europa.eu and http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/interactive/water-live-maps/wfd

With an increasing emphasis on river restoration comes a need for new techniques and guidance. These are tools to assess stream and watershed condition, to identify factors degrading aquatic habitats, to select appropriate restoration actions, and to monitor and evaluate restoration actions at appropriate scales. Unfortunately, despite the rapid increase in river restoration projects, little is known about the effectiveness of these efforts (see Figure 1). Restoration outcomes are often not fully evaluated in terms of success or reasons for success or failure. This seems an anomaly if restoration measures are to be carried out in an efficient and cost effective manner.  REFORM strives to meet this need by developing a protocol for benchmarking and setting specific and measurable targets for restoration and mitigation. This is carried out in work package 5 (Task 5.1).

Example of a restoration action - Remeandering of the River Dearne at Pastures Bridge, England: But was it successful? (photo: Ian Cowx)

Despite large economic investments in what has been called the “restoration economy”, many practitioners do not follow a systematic approach for planning restoration projects. As a result, many restoration efforts fail or fall short of their objectives, if objectives have been explicitly formulated. This often appears not to be the case. Some of the most common problems or reasons for failure include:

• Not addressing the root causes of habitat degradation
• Not considering upstream processes or downstream barriers to connectivity
• Inappropriate uses of common techniques (one size fits all)
• No or an inconsistent approach for prioritizing projects
• Poor or improper project design
• Failure to get adequate support from public and private organizations
• Lack of or inadequate monitoring to determine project effectiveness

These challenges and problems can be overcome by systematically following several logical steps that are crucial to developing a successful restoration programme or project. One of the first steps is to establish benchmark conditions against which to target restoration measures. This requires i) assessment of catchment status and identifying restoration needs before selecting appropriate restoration actions to address those needs, ii) identifying a prioritization strategy and prioritizing actions, and iii) developing a monitoring and evaluation programme. In addition to these steps, a basic understanding of the social dimension of watershed restoration is needed.

This work should take place within the context of the River Basin Management Plans for the Water Framework Directive. Nevertheless, it is our impression that this diagnosis is inadequately specified and insufficiently quantified to identify the causes and bottlenecks of degradation. Thus, it does not necessarily help plan the most effective ways for improvement. Goals and objectives need to be set at multiple stages of the restoration process. There are multiple steps within each stage, but the initial stage is to identify endpoints and benchmarks against which to measure performance. This needs to be reviewed against reference conditions, to determine appropriate targets for restoration, rehabilitation and mitigation activities. Unfortunately, this step is often missing from most restoration planning, although excellent examples exist on which to base the process e.g. Kissimmee River Restoration (Anderson et al. 2005).

To support this process, REFORM is developing a protocol for benchmarking and setting specific and measurable targets for restoration and mitigation measures. This includes the following steps.

• Step 1: Data mining of existing projects to determine how scheme objectives were established, if at all, and against what criteria
• Step 2: Determine whether the objectives have been achieved and if not, determine why
• Step 3: Determine criteria for establishing endpoints and benchmarks against which to measure performance - and determine appropriate targets for restoration activities
• Step 4: Develop a protocol to set realistic quantifiable endpoints for restoration projects

This process of evaluating restoration is ongoing and will be finalized in summer 2013, but examples of good restoration practice are limited to assist the outcomes of REFORM. Readers are therefore encouraged to provide examples of restoration actions that have assessed outcomes, whether successful or otherwise.

Reference

Anderson, D.H., S.G. Bousquin, G.E. Williams and D.J. Colangelo (eds.), 2005 Defining success: expectations for restoration of the Kissimmee River. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach FL USA Technical publication ERA 433

Authors: Ian Cowx (UHULL), Natalie Angelopoulos (UHULL), Tom Buijse (Deltares), Deborah Slawson (IRSTEA)

The Austrian River Drava (in German “Drau”) is part of the Danube catchment. The Drava flows 264 km along the border between the Central Alps and the Southern Alps and across the Austrian federal states Tyrol and Carinthia. In Osijek (Croatia), the river joins the Danube River.

Catchment of the Austrian River Drava

Until approximately 140 years ago, the Upper Drava was a free flowing, meandering mountain river with numerous braiding stretches due to alluvial cones of the tributaries. In this dynamic river system with its annual floods and high bedload transport, the river course frequently changed. A braiding river - floodplain system with large gravel banks, grey alder, willow wetlands, and wetland meadows characterized the valley bottom (cp. Amt der Kärntner Landesregierung, 2004).

Side arm restoration measure, Kleblach - Lind (S. Kaufmann / A. Loach)

Human impacts

The first substantial human changes began with the building of the railroad line through the Upper Drava valley in 1868. In the following years, river-engineering channelized the river to reduce flood risk, as well as to allow intensive agricultural land use and the expansion of settlements. When the river was forced into a single main channel, the river dynamics were restricted and the number of side arms, gravel banks, wetland water bodies, and other natural habitats decreased.

Due to the regulation processes and reduced sediment supply by the tributaries caused by torrent control structures, river bed incision occurred. This incision resulted in a decreased ground water level, causing desiccation of the remaining wetlands (cp. Amt der Kärntner Landesregierung, 2004).   

River bed widening, Kleblach - Lind (A. Loach)

Restoration measures

In 1998, the river and its riparian zones became protected by designation as a Natura 2000 area. From 1999 to 2003 two EU LIFE projects were initiated under the title "Restoration of the wetland and riparian area on the Upper Drau River" and 2006 to 2011 (“Life vein – Upper Drau river”).

These projects defined goals such as species and habitat protection and water management interests. Approximately 15 km of bank protection structures were removed, and several large scale river bed widening measures including new arms were realised.

Furthermore, the development of new wetland water bodies and floodplain forests was initiated, providing adequate habitats for formerly typical animal and plant species. In total, approximately 42 hectares of alpine river habitats were created.

The restored river stretches comprise habitat types according to the EU Habitats Directive (e.g., dynamic gravel banks (3220) and tamarisk and willow pioneer communities (3230, 3240)), which will further develop to alluvial forests (91 E0). These sites provide:

• improved spawning habitats for amphibians and fish, in particular the Danube salmon (Hucho hucho), Souffia (Leuciscus souffia), European bullhead (Cottus gobio), Ukrainian brook lamprey (Eudontomyzon mariae), and Atlantic stream crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes);
• extended habitats for 140 bird species, including 51 red listed species, and resting places for migrating birds crossing the Alps. Typical species that will benefit include the common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), the common sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), the grey wagtail (Motacilla cinerea), the lesser spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor), and the golden oriole (Oriolus oriolus);
• extended habitats for two plants which were both nearly extinct in Austria: German tamarisk (Myricaria germanica) and the dwarf bulrush (Typha minima);

In the framework of the project, an additional 5 hectares of water bodies in the floodplain area were created. These areas connect habitats for amphibians, such as the Italian crested newt (Triturus carnifex) and yellow-bellied toad (Bombina variegata). They provide important habitats for small fish species, such as the Amur bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus) and crucian carp (Carassius carassius) and improve valuable food supply for the white stork (Ciconia ciconia). The European otter (Lutra lutra) re-settled in the region, also benefitting from the Life Nature restoration measures.

The River Drava in the Austrian federal state Carinthia is one of the flagship restoration case study sites in work package 4 of REFORM. The project aimed to increase flood retention, to reach good ecological status, and to provide an appropriate river landscape for recreational use. The restoration measures were implemented in 2003 as part of the already mentioned LIFE Nature project “Restoration of the wetland and riparian area on the Upper Drau River”. Bank stabilization structures were removed and the river bed was widened. Lateral erosion increased the sediment input and initialized the development of gravel / sand bars and islands. One of the former side arms was reconnected to the river for annual flooding, and a second side arm was widened to a width of 30 m, creating diverse instream structures and increasing aquatic habitat diversity. This project was designed to reduce human intervention as much as possible and to promote dynamic, self-sustaining river processes.

Reference:

AMT DER KÄRNTNER LANDESREGIERUNG (2004):  LIFE-Projekt Auenverbund Obere Drau, Endbericht; Klagenfurt; 2004