In our 3^rd newsletter, we highlighted the importance of adopting a hierarchical, multi-scale, approach to river hydromorphological assessment. We explained that this is important because the shape and behaviour of a river, as well as the landforms it creates and the habitats that it supports, are controlled by processes at a wide range of spatial scales. In other words, what we see within a river reach is the result of a cascade of influences from further upstream and downstream in the catchment. Information concerning the REFORM spatial hierarchical framework is now available as Deliverable 2.1, which is comprised of four volumes or parts: an overview of the framework (part 1); some more detailed discussion of some of its components (part 2); and two parts (3 and 4) illustrating applications of the framework to a selection of river catchments from different geographical areas of Europe. The four parts can be downloaded here.

Another crucial aspect of hydromorphology that is too often neglected, is the influence of vegetation on river channel form and dynamics. Riparian vegetation is not included as a biological quality element in the Water Framework Directive, and yet research conducted over the last 20 years has clearly shown that riparian vegetation has a fundamental influence on the hydromorphology of rivers and their floodplains, with a geographically more widespread impact than aquatic vegetation. Within the REFORM project, we have assembled evidence from published sources and available data sets to illustrate how vegetation interacts with hydromorphology to constrain numerous aspects of river morphology and dynamics, so providing a vital component of any river management and restoration efforts. Our findings are reported in Deliverable 2.2 part 1, which can also be downloaded here.

Here, we briefly focus on a conceptual model of vegetation-hydromorphology interactions that we have developed and tested in several catchments across Europe. The model highlights the natural functioning of vegetation as a control on river hydromorphology, indicating that if vegetation is heavily managed, the hydromorphological character of the river will change. If vegetation is allowed to colonise freely, it will accelerate river channel recovery from management interventions.

Vegetation interacts with hydromorphological processes. From one perspective, vegetation is constrained by hydromorphological processes that reflect the climate, moisture availability and physical disturbances to which the vegetation is subjected. These constraints operate over the different spatial scales of the hierarchical, multi-scale framework (Table 1).  Against this background, vegetation within river channels and floodplains is very heavily affected by fluvial disturbances, such that only certain species can colonise the most disturbed parts of the river corridor.

Table 1:  Hydromorphological processes and related factors reflecting climate , moisture availability and degree of fluvial disturbance, that constrain the plant species and communities that can occupy the spatial units found within river catchments.

Our conceptual model defines up to 5 zones that may be present within a river corridor (Figure 1):

• In moist environments, a zone of perennially-flowing water is present in the low flow channel (zone 1). Beyond this, the frequency, duration and depth of inundation decreases towards the outer limits of the river corridor (the outer edge of the floodplain and the base of bordering hillslopes).
• Within zone 2, inundation is frequent, deep, and prolonged, leading to relatively high flow velocities and shear stresses and so a high potential for the flowing water to erode, transport and deposit sediment and also to damage, uproot or bury plants.
• With increasing distance from the river (zone 3), inundation depth, duration and frequency decrease, reducing the potential for sediment erosion and transport, and leading to a progressive fining of transported and deposited sediment coupled with an increase in its organic content until, in zone 4, sediment dynamics are negligible during inundation.
• In zone 5, which includes the most elevated areas of the river corridor, and those that are most remote from the perennial channel, inundation is extremely rare and subsurface water dynamics become the dominant control on vegetation.

The relative size of these five zones varies greatly from river source to mouth and with the width of the river corridor. The relative proportions of the river corridor that the zones occupy also vary with the type of river that is being considered (Figure 2).

Figure 1:  Schematic representation of the five zones of natural vegetation- hydromorphology interactions in river corridors of different confinement and width from the source to mouth of a river.

Figure 2:  Schematic representation of the proportions of the width of a floodplain river corridor that may be occupied by the five zones of natural vegetation- hydromorphology interactions according to the type of river channel that is present.

These five zones are subject to different vegetation – hydromorphology interactions, and the nature of the interactions also varies according to the biogeographical region in which the river is located. However, in all cases, there is a critical zone of very tight and strong interactions that is important for understanding the consequences of vegetation management and recovery for river channel form and adjustment. This critical zone bridges river corridor zones 1 to 3 and is a zone where certain plant species can act as physical ecosystem engineers, colonising bare river sediment surfaces and then trapping transported sediments as the plants grow. In this way, the plants create landforms that can then be colonised by other plant species.  Riparian tree species and rigid, emergent, aquatic plant species can often take on this role, and very large pieces of dead wood can often contribute by acting as retention structures for plant seeds and plant fragments that can sprout.

The engineer plants and the landforms that they create are located in the critical zone of intense plant-hydromorphology interactions, where they may be removed by the force of extreme floods but where they also colonise eroded areas and extend towards and into the channel during periods of less intense river flow disturbances. If these plants and any associated wood pieces are removed or cut back, this allows fluvial processes to push back the leading edge of the vegetation, increasing river bank erosion, widening the channel, and reducing the habitat complexity of the river channel and its riparian margins. In severe circumstances this can lead to a change in river type. For example, in extreme cases river channels have been observed to change from single thread to braided as a result of degradation of floodplain vegetation cover.

The photographs in Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate a small sample of the landforms that plants can create within the critical zone of the river corridor. The presence of such pioneer vegetated landforms, indicates the leading edge of vegetation-hydromorphology interactions that is so critical for river size and dynamics, and also for the diversity of the habitat mosaic that is available within the river ecosystem.

Figure 3: Early stage landforms built around sprouting uprooted trees, branches and tree seedlings. A. Pioneer island centred on a single uprooted and deposited tree. B. a building island which forms when a feature similar to A traps large quantities of fine sediment and grows through the sediment to form a large mound-like feature. C. a levee-like feature created by fine sediment accumulating around a line of tree seedling at the edge of the low flow channel. D. sprouting uprooted trees and branches trapping sediment and growing to give a sequence of ridges of increasing size and tree age parallel to the edge of the channel and usually on the inside of river bends (photos: Angela Gurnell).

Figure 4:  An evolutionary sequence of landforms created by emergent aquatic plants trapping and reinforcing fine sediment. A. a submerged shelf of fine sediment on the channel bed, formed around the base of a stand of aquatic plants. B. a submerged shelf, similar to A. but retained by tussock-forming aquatic plants. C. a berm formed by further sedimentation of features such as those in A and B, but now the sediment surface has aggraded to the low flow water surface level. D. a bench formed by further sedimentation of a berm feature such as that in C so that the surface is now located well above the low flow water surface level (photos: Angela Gurnell).

Figure 5: A. vegetated bars and islands created by sediment trapping and reinforcement by aquatic plants in a similar manner to the features shown in Figure 5. B. a river bank composed entirely of decaying plant material and reinforced by aquatic and wetland plants (photos: Angela Gurnell).

About "PhD research in REFORM"

In the newsletter items dedicated to PhD research in REFORM, PhD students introduce the topic and the initial results of their research.

Introduction

Wetlands are one of the most important and productive natural ecosystems on Earth. They play a significant role for the functionality of whole ecosystems and human wellbeing (e.g. role in water cycle, carbon storage, wildlife refuge). Wetlands have economic, cultural and touristic values providing numerous of benefits to people, called ecosystem services. Nowadays most of these ecosystems are degraded so there is need to restore them. Proper management of wetlands is crucial to protect and increase the values of these ecosystems and hence also ecosystem services. Therefore, a valorization of ecosystem services of restored areas is important to assess the performance of restoration projects and improve their implementation by choosing the best scenario.

Objectives

The main aim of this PhD research is to assess restoration projects using the ecosystem services approach. This assessment is meant to show whether the project objectives have been achieved. The information about benefits obtained from wetlands should be considered in the future performance of restoration projects. Different alternative scenarios for restoration will be developed, aiming to support better decision-making in restoration planning.

Approach

Three different wetlands were chosen for this PhD research in the Biebrza National Park, the Kampinos National Park and the Warta Mouth National Park. This article is concerned with the evaluation of The North Polder in the Warta Mouth National Park (see photos) which is one of the REFORM project case study sites. The „Project of revitalization of wet-meadow habitats in the Warta Mouth National Park – North Polder Wetlands are good!” mainly aims at restoring wetland habitats in conjunction with extensive grazing management and flood control function of the North Polder. The main threat to the natural values of this area is very strong desiccation. This process leads to soil degradation and secondary succession of vegetation on meadows and pastures unused by farmers. Water scarcity and willow thickets emerging in the southern part of the polder as well as herbs in the northern part, significantly contribute to the loss of valuable habitats which serve as breeding places for many rare and endangered species of birds.

Ecosystem services will be assessed before and as far as possible after the restoration project is finished.

Ecosystem services (quality and quantity) will be evaluated based on 4 issues: hydrology, carbon in the soil, functional diversity and socio-economic aspects. All evaluated ecosystem services will be mapped and compiled. The compilation allows finding hot spots of the most important ecosystem services.

Figure 1: Scheme of work

Preliminary Results

Based on preliminary research on available metadata, a table with ecosystem services significant for this area has been created (Table 1). The table is based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). It consists of three general types of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating and cultural. After collecting detailed information, all types will be analyzed to choose the most important ecosystem services for wetlands.

Table 1: Ecosystem services based on CICES classification.

Further work will allow assessing ecosystem services in terms of the four issues mentioned above (hydrology, carbon in the soil, functional diversity and socio-economic aspects). In addition, mapping of the ecosystem services will be undertaken, which is an easy way to determine synergies and trade-offs between different ecosystem services and shows their spatial distribution. The mapping will form the base to evaluate the restoration project. Such assessment can help in the subsequent management of the ecosystem (e.g. by identifying highly valuable areas).

Photos

Figure 2: Area covered with reed (Luiza Tylec)

Figure 3: North Polder area (Luiza Tylec)

Figure 4: Old Warta riverbed (Luiza Tylec)

Figure 5: Project area

References

Okruszko T., 2009: The concept of revitalization wet-meadow habitats in the Warta Mouth National Park - North Polder [in polish], report, Warsaw

Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2013. The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), 6th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

SIDŁO P. (red.) 2005: Evaluation of birds’ population in the areas covered by the Ramsar Convention. Report prepared for the Ministry of the Environment [in polish], OTOP, Warsaw

Sidło P.O., Błaszkowska B. & Chylarecki P. (red.) 2004: Important Bird Areas of European importance in Poland [in polish], OTOP, Warsaw

Further links

www.kampinoski-pn.gov.pl

www.pnujsciewarty.gov.pl

www.biebrza.org.pl

Author

Luiza Tylec, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (in cooperation with the University of Antwerp, Department of Biology)

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN!

REFORM will host its International Conference on Novel Approaches to Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers (http://reformrivers.eu/events/final-conference) in Wageningen, The Netherlands, on 30 June to 2 July 2015. We aim for a conference with 200 participants allowing an excellent exchange of experiences and get-to-know each other.

Registration to the conference is now open under: http://reformrivers.eu/events/final-conference/registration-call-abstracts

Conference objectives

The purpose of the Conference is to enlarge awareness of the need and appreciation for the benefits of river rehabilitation. It will serve as a platform to present and discuss aspirations, challenges, analytical frameworks and novel approaches to improve our understanding of the causes and consequences of hydromorphological degradation and to enhance river rehabilitation.

REFORM has generated tools for cost-effective restoration of river ecosystems, and for improved monitoring of the biological effects of physical change by investigating natural, degradation and restoration processes in a wide range of river types across Europe. The conference aims to present the major outcome of REFORM mixed with excellent work from other studies from Europe and other continents.

Topics at the Conference include:

1. Assessment and rehabilitation of hydromorphological processes in rivers
2. Discerning the impact of hydromorphological modification from other stressors
3. Achievements by restoration and mitigation practices
4. How to improve the (cost-)effectiveness of river rehabilitation?
5. Benefits of river rehabilitation and synergies with other uses (flood protection, navigation, agriculture, hydropower)
6. Linking science to practice: tools to assess river status and guide rehabilitation to optimize river basin management

Important dates

Registration open 23 January 2015

Notification of abstract acceptance 25 February 2015

Deadline for extended summary 2 April 2015

Special rate hotel accommodation until 6 May 2015

Registration close 15 May 2015

Programme

The three-day programme will encompass 2,5 days of presentations with ample breaks to interact and socialize followed by half day excursion to experience the materialisation of Room for the Rivers project along the River Rhine.

Keynote speakers

• Prof. Gary Brierley (University of Auckland, New Zealand)
• Prof. Stan Gregory(Oregon State University, USA)
• Prof. Phoebe Koundouri (Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece) 
• Dr Hervé Piégay (National Center for Scientific Research CNRS, France)
• Dr Peter Pollard (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, UK)
• Dr Phil Roni (NOAA Fisheries, USA)
• Dr Guy Woodward(Imperial College London, UK) 
• Prof. Roy Brouwer (Institute for Environmental Studies, the Netherlands)
• Dr Tom Buijse(Deltares, the Netherlands)
• Prof. Ian Cowx (University of HULL, UK)
• Prof. Angela Gurnell (Queen Mary University of London, UK)
• Dr Nikolai Friberg (NIVA, Norway)
• Prof. Daniel Hering (UDE, Germany)
• Dr Erik Mosselman (Deltares, Netherlands)
• Dr Christian Wolter (IGB, Germany)

For further information about the conference, please consult the website (http://reformrivers.eu/events/final-conference).

Summer school

The summer school on “Restoring regulated streams linking theory and practice” will take place on 27 June – 29 June addressing students and young researchers before the final conference. The 3-day programme encompasses field visits to stream restoration projects, theory for assessing degradation and plan restoration and drafting a restoration strategy. The number of participants is limited to 30. For further information on the programme and registration, please visit the summer school webpage (http://reformrivers.eu/events/summer-school).

Figure 1: Fish passage at the weir Hagestein, location: River Rhine (more precisely the Rhine branch named ‘Lek’) near Hagestein, the Netherlands, 13 October 2004 (photographer: Tom Buijse)

Figure 2: Navigation & low discharge on the River Rhine, location: River Rhine (more precisely the Rhine branch named ‘Waal’) near Ewijk, the Netherlands, 25 May 2011 (photographer: Tom Buijse)

Since 2000 Peter Pollard has worked for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and is currently manager of the national water policy unit. SEPA is responsible for river basin management planning in Scotland. It is also responsible for monitoring the water environment and is Scotland's principal environmental regulator, controlling, among other things, water abstraction, dam construction and operation, other engineering works in the water environment; and point and diffuse source pollution. Peter has advised on the development of much of the legislation that now underpins protection of water in Scotland. Prior to joining SEPA, Peter worked for a number of years as an environmental consultant and then for a non-government environmental organization, coordinating the production of catchment management plans.

1.      Please introduce yourself and explain your affiliation with rivers.

Within SEPA I am currently involved in Scottish river basin planning. I manage a team of 9 people in the National Water Policy Unit, which is focused on the coordination of our work on water, from river basin management plan production to implementation of measures and legislation development. We also work closely with colleagues across the UK, in the UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive (WFD). At European level, I am involved in the Common Implementation Strategy on the WFD as one of the chairs of the working group ECOSTAT on the ecological quality of surface waters. I have been coordinating the intercalibration exercise on good ecological potential, which of course has quite a big focus on rivers.

2.      In your opinion, has progress been made since the 1^st RBMPs in terms of awareness of hydromorphological issues in the EU and specifically in Scotland?

In Scotland, there has been a significant increase in awareness of, and focus on, hydromorphological issues over the course of the first cycle of river basin management. This has been helped by an initiative called the Water Environment Fund that I will talk about in more detail later on. SEPA and other partner organisations have been working with farmers, other rural land managers and local government authorities on a number of restoration projects. As well as delivering environmental benefits, these projects are playing an important role in increasing understanding within the organisations involved as well as spreading awareness more widely. However, there is still a long way to go to raise full awareness about the need to, and benefits of, improving hydromorphology.

At the EU level, the European Commission has made hydromorphology a key topic, emphasising the importance it attaches to hydromorphology. There are now a number of work streams under the Common Implementation Strategy looking at issues relating to hydromorphology. These include work by the ECOSTAT Working Group on comparing Member States’ understanding of good ecological potential, the improvement target for heavily modified water bodies.

3.      Has progress also been made on novel approaches to mitigate the impact of such degradation?

In Scotland, we have made significant steps in terms of improving the delivery framework and securing real improvements on the ground.  

The majority of restoration projects supported so far have involved removing or easing barriers to fish migration. However, more natural river habitats have been restored in a small number of water bodies and we now need to build on these successes and increase the number and scale of restoration projects.

To help get restoration projects going, we have established a dedicated team in SEPA, known as the Water Environment Fund Unit.  The Unit administers funding provided by Scottish Government and running to around 5 million pounds per year. This is supporting initiatives by groups and individuals across the country. We are also working with local authorities and land managers in four catchment-based pilot projects. The pilots are aimed at demonstrating how improvements to river habitats can be combined with measures that help reduce flood risk.

For the second river basin management planning cycle, we are proposing to:

• significantly increase work with public bodies, voluntary organisations and businesses to actively promote, encourage and develop improvement projects;
• prioritise this effort according to where we expect improving river habitats will deliver the greatest benefits;
• expand the role of the water environment fund in supporting measures to improve the physical condition of water bodies; and
• work with managers of artificial structures on the beds, banks or shores of water bodies to ensure those structures are appropriately maintained or modified to reduce their impacts on the water environment.

Our 2^nd draft river basin management plans published at the end of 2014 identified the need for this step change in effort and set out 3 scenarios on how hydromorphological impacts may be tackled over the next two planning cycles.

River restoration has to be balanced with the needs of important land uses. Where a river is surrounded by high value agricultural land or hemmed in by urban land uses, the scope for improvement will normally be considerably less than if the river were surrounded by low value land. One of the things we believe we need to develop to underpin our work is an effective way of communicating what we are aiming to achieve by way of hydromorphological improvement in different land use settings.

Concerning novel approaches at EU level, I can share my experience with the work done on the “intercalibration” of good ecological potential. This exercise is assessing how Member States compare with respect to the hydromorphological improvements they expect for:

• rivers and lakes affected by water storage for uses such as hydroelectricity generation and drinking water supply;
• rivers affected by modifications for land drainage and flood protection
• estuaries and lagoons affected by modifications for a wide range of water and land uses.

With regard to water storage schemes, most countries involved (especially those with extensive hydropower) have well developed approaches for identifying what is required by way of mitigation to achieve good ecological potential.

At the moment, it appears that equivalent methods in relation to modifications of rivers for land drainage and flood protection are much less advanced in most countries, with a few exceptions such as Germany. This has implications for how far we can progress in comparing approaches.  It also suggests to me that working out how to address hydromorphological alterations still remains one of the big challenges for river basin planning across Europe.

4.      What are the key hydromorphological issues that currently need to be addressed in the EU Common Implementation Strategy of the WFD?

First of all, an important exercise on the agenda is the “intercalibration” of good ecological potential, which I mentioned above. This is providing an opportunity to share implementation practices and ideas, which is a very valuable process in itself.

Second, we still do not have a common understanding of “what good hydromorphology looks like” across Europe. I think there would be benefits of a further exchange of ideas and approaches on this topic. There is also a real gap in terms of ecological assessment methods that can indicate the ecological effects of hydromorphological alterations.

The ongoing work in the working group on Programme of Measures is providing an opportunity to share ideas and experiences on effective delivery frameworks for hydromorphological improvements, e.g. in terms of funding schemes, etc.

One additional item that needs to be addressed is ecosystem services. Some hydromorphological improvements (to rivers in particular) might have benefits in terms of reducing flooding; reducing river maintenance costs; or improving amenity or fisheries. Because of the awareness gap on hydromorphological issues, it is important to show what these wider benefits are from hydromorphological restoration measures. This is also about understanding synergies with other policy areas. For example, some improvements in floodplains can be achieved by planting more trees alongside rivers. Therefore, we need to make links to policies related to re-forestation and wood industry and show how they can work in practice. It is important to communicate broadly available evidence about possible synergies and spin-offs.

5.    What do you consider as valuable contributions of REFORM so far to river restoration practices and river basin management planning? What do you hope REFORM can deliver by the end of the project in 2015?

A lot of information has been put together in the REFORM WIKI. At the very technical level, the synthesis of understanding about river processes and interactions with aquatic plants and animals is already helping thinking about river hydromorphology and, for me in particular, has highlighted the importance of riparian vegetation. The case study outputs are also valuable in showing what can be achieved on the ground.

REFORM has been evaluating different ecological assessment systems. I am hopeful that the results of this work will provide a useful pointer to how the current gaps in such assessment systems in Scotland and elsewhere could be filled.

The WIKI already includes suggestions on measures that may be appropriate in relation to different hydromorphological impacts. This is very useful but I think the next step would be to pull together available guidance (e.g. from the case studies etc) for practitioners on how to design the measures in the field, including the “dos” and “don’ts”. I hope this might be possible but, even without it, the outputs are helpful in thinking about how to address impacts.

In the final phase of the project, I would suggest producing some sort of synthesis that brings together the ideas on restoration options and the potential ecosystem service benefits of restoration. This could perhaps be done using simple, stylised river catchments to represent a series of common hydromorphological impacts in different land use settings. This links back to what I said earlier about the need to communicate what can be achieved in different landscapes and the associated benefits.

Perhaps the only other wish from me is that REFORM finds some way of helping different audiences with different needs navigate easily to the information relevant to them. This is only an issue because the project has gathered so much information spanning a wide range of disciplines and levels of detail!

6.      How does EU-funded research in general contribute to the implementation of WFD and to what extent are scientific results adopted by Member States? How could REFORM be effective in the take-up of its results in its final year?

There are some obvious examples of the contribution of EU-funded research to the implementation of the WFD. One clear case is EU research done on priority substances and the development of quality standards. I might say that all EU countries have been affected by that. Also the EU FAME project had quite a big influence on the way we think about fish assessment. I believe many EU countries adopted the assessment methods of the FAME project, or, like us, modified or built on them in some way.

Overall, however, I would say that at least in the Scottish context, it is very much national research projects that have directly influenced WFD implementation. For example, we have commissioned our own research on good ecological potential, morphological assessment systems; river flows and ecological assessment methods. Any influence of EU projects on this work is likely to have been indirect – by influencing the researchers involved in the national research programmes. It is not possible for me to assess to what extent this has happened.

Concerning the outreach of REFORM, I believe that the WIKI is a good format to disseminate results. As I said earlier, I think that the current version would still benefit from developing a kind of “sign-posting” for different audiences, indicating the parts of the WIKI which you need to consult “if you are a practitioner” or “if you are a policy-maker working on the delivery framework”, etc.

In general, I think any project, EU or national, is well advised to identify and engage its target audiences at an early stage so that its outputs and their presentation best meet needs of those audiences. REFORM has made considerable efforts to do this and this is already reflected in the quality of the work to date.

Peter Pollard was interviewed on 07 January 2015 by Eleftheria Kampa (Leader of Dissemination and Stakeholder Involvement of REFORM, Ecologic Institute).