Much of the knowledge developed in REFORM has found its way to over 50 peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. But how can we make this knowledge available for practitioners? That was the challenge for REFORM Work Package 6 “Applications and tools”. The work package team developed a web-based information system, or wiki, along with a separate document for guidance. This document, deliverable D6.3 of the project [8], provides guidelines and decision support for cost-effective river restoration and its benefits. It summarizes the contents of the wiki and serves as a portal to the system.

Figure 1: “What’s in this wiki?” (source: REFORM Wiki web page [9])

Structure along the planning process for river restoration

The REFORM guidance and decision support document and the wiki have been structured along the planning process for river restoration. This process is cyclic, but requires understanding of the river first. The guidance thus starts with the question: How does my river work? [10] A key step for this is hydromorphological characterization, looking at rivers from a perspective that discloses the relevant processes and forms. Hydromorphology is a matter of water and sediment, but also of riparian and aquatic vegetation interacting with water and sediment. This makes both geomorphological and ecological processes relevant. REFORM developed a multiscale hierarchical framework for this hydromorphological river characterization.

The next question is: What’s wrong? [11] Here REFORM developed a coherent set of methods and tools for practical assessment and monitoring of hydromorphological conditions, building on understanding the river in the multiscale hierarchical framework (see article on methods and tools in this REFORM newsletter). The assessment comprises four stages: (1) delineation and characterization of the river system; (2) assessment of past temporal changes and current river conditions; (3) assessment of future trends; and (4) identification of management actions.

Figure 2: “What’s wrong?” (photo: Erik Mosselman)

This leads to the final question in the planning cycle: How can we improve? [12]According to the conclusions of REFORM scientists, there is no single “best measure” for river restoration, but the measure of river widening generally has a high effect. Restoring specific habitats appears more important than merely increasing habitat diversity. It is also worth noting that small restoration projects do work, although we recommend larger projects with a long-term plan.

Wiki

The web-based information system remains our main vehicle for making knowledge available to practitioners and scientists alike. Key information is placed at the highest level. Clickable hyperlinks give access to deeper levels of more detailed information, including REFORM deliverables [13], scientific publications [14], and information on existing tools that are relevant for river restoration.

The REFORM project produced factsheets for different types of rivers in various ecoregions across Europe which provide a synthesis of restoration experiences per river type, describe best and efficient restoration practices and include promising restoration techniques and variables suited for monitoring restoration.

The description of the factsheets is preceded by a literature meta-data analysis. Of the 22 REFORM river types, 12 types occurred in the database together with four combinations of 2-3 river types. In total, 11 pressure categories and 23 pressures were classified. Channelization was the most common pressure category in all river types. This is not surprising as the focus of the review was on hydromorphology. The second most common pressure category was habitat degradation followed closely by barriers/connectivity, bank degradation and flow alteration.

In-channel habitat conditions are mostly improved by restoration with a broad spectrum over actual measures. Next, floodplain and river planform appeared as mostly restored. Within the floodplain, the attention went to reconnecting and creating existing backwaters, oxbow-lakes and wetlands. The river planform measures dealt with re-meandering, widening and re-braiding. The riparian zone, mainly the development of natural vegetation on buffer strips, was also often implemented. Hydrological measures were much less often executed.

Figure 1: Small, single-thread, lowland river in the Netherlands (photo: Piet Verdonschot)

The literature meta-data analysisis was followed by the factsheets for 11 river types (Table 1). Each factsheet gives information on: River type name, Pressure categories/pressures, Measure categories/measures, and Monitoring scheme (Table 2). The factsheets are meant to give insight into the diversity and similarities of restoration techniques for different types of rivers in terms of present practice and promising, but to date little used, approaches.

The river typology adopted for the factsheets differs from the river reach typology developed in REFORM and refers to the (sub)catchment setting of a river in terms of altitude, size and geology and as such links to the European broad river types (ETC/ICM, 2015). The setting of these types does not change in time. In contrast, the REFORM river reach typology is designed for assessing the hydromorphological functioning of individual river reaches. REFORM river reach types may change in time because they represent the response of the river reaches to processes of flow, sediment and vegetation. Furthermore, river (sub-)catchments of a single type according to the types presented in these factsheets may and often will contain different REFORM reach types. Thus when identifying the most appropriate restoration techniques it is even for apparently similar river types (i.e. covered by the same factsheet) not a ‘one size fits all’ approach, but a tailor-made approach acknowledging the governing hydrological and morphological conditions and the interaction with vegetation. The factsheets drawn up by regional experts are thus meant to support decision making, and should not be used as cookbooks.

Table 1 River types (source: REFORM deliverable 4.5 ‘Factsheets for restoration projects’)

Table 2 Contents of a factsheet (source: REFORM deliverable 4.5 ‘Factsheets for restoration projects’)

For further reading: REFORM deliverable 4.5 ‘Factsheets for restoration projects [23]’

Reference

ETC/ICM, 2015. European Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment: Cross-walk between the Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive types, status and pressures, ETC/ICM Technical Report 2/2015, Magdeburg: European Topic Centre on inland, coastal and marine waters, 95 pp. plus Annexes

River infrastructure that changes the flow regime can have severe effects on hydromorphology and ecosystems. Specifying environmental flows (e-flows) to address these impacts is a key strategy for maintaining functional river processes and ecosystems and to reach the environmental objectives of the European Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD).

The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) guidance on ecological flows [31] identifies a series of overall key indications to tackle some critical aspects linked to the management and restoration of water bodies affected by hydrological pressures. Among these, the guidance suggests to consider sediment dynamics and river morphology together with hydrology and hydraulics in order to determine e-flows.

The links of sediment dynamics to e-flows were discussed by a panel of international experts from relevant agencies and academia during the REFORM workshop organized by ISPRA (the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) in Rome on 9-10 September 2015. The aim of the workshop was to agree on a common approach to specify efficient e-flow based measures that consider river sediment dynamics and morphological evolution, in order to supplement the CIS guidance on e-flows. The discussion could draw on the newly developed REFORM multi-scalar and process-oriented framework [32]  since it is ideally suited for tackling hydrology-sediment relationships.

Workshop structure and content

During the first day the invited speakers gave an overview of the relevant EU activities (REFORM, WFD CIS working group on e-flows) and highlighted the critical aspects related to e-flow specification (role of sediment dynamics, biological response to hydrological and morphological pressures). The latest results from scientific activities and from experimental implementations of e-flows were also presented. In particular, Dr. Nikolai Friberg (NIVA, NO) illustrated the variable and weak response of metrics on biological quality elements to flow alteration, and the possible alternative indicators and methods. Prof. Gordon Grant (Oregon State University, US) evidenced how water flows and sediment flows are interdependent, and how actions on one aspect will inevitably affect the other. Moreover, Prof. Grant underlined how a multiscale process based approach, like the framework developed in REFORM, is needed to understand river processes.

Figure 1: REFORM Stakeholder Workshop on Linking E-flows to Sediment Dynamics, Rome (photo: Attilio Castellucci, ISPRA).

The case of the Mediterranean context was presented by Prof. Diego García de Jalón (UPM, ES), given that in the Mediterranean context the combination of pressures and water availability issues makes vegetation play a critical role, with permanent encroachment affecting channel morphology and dynamics.

Innovative approaches to e-flow modeling at the mesohabitat scale, consistent with geomorphic taxonomy as developed in REFORM, were presented by Dr. Paolo Vezza (Politecnico di Torino, IT), and an overview of implementation of e-flows in Spain was given by Dr. Fernando Magdaleno Mas (CEDEX, ES).

During the afternoon, the discussion was guided by a series of questions related to the necessities of knowledge, tools and instruments in the field of ecological and geomorphological assessment in order to support the evaluation and implementation of e-flows. The outcomes of the discussion were finalized in the successive morning session and they will be the topics of an ad-hoc comprehensive policy discussion paper, which is currently under preparation.

Some main points can be summarized as follows:

• Water and sediment flows sustain aquatic life and ecosystem services. They are intrinsically interconnected and have to be considered and managed together in order to set and maintain/achieve effective environmental objectives. Together with water, sediments have to be considered into the analytical and decision-making framework when specifying e-flows.
• In absence of quantitative evidence on the linkages between ecology and hydrology and also given the shortness of time series of ecological data, rehabilitation of hydromorphological processes cannot but be beneficial for ecology, assumed that no alteration of biotic interactions has irreversibly taken place. Therefore, one approach to estimating e-flows is to identify those flows required to maintain certain geomorphic processes and forms that directly contribute to aquatic habitat and ecosystem functioning.
• The choice of the best option to be considered in combination with changes in the hydrologic regime (i.e., sediment transport vs. morphological reconstruction) depends on the specific context, for example the reach sensitivity and morphological potential. Therefore, selecting the appropriate measures requires setting the river reach within a wider spatial-temporal framework, such as that developed in REFORM.
• Hydromorphological alteration is directly detected by process-based hydromorphological methods. The limitations of the sensitivity of current biological methods to hydromorphological alteration can be overcome by integrating them with hydromorphological assessment.
• Besides the current biological methods, supplementary and more sensitive alternative biological methods/indicators are required, among which are: biological traits (habitat template theory), ecosystem functioning (as secondary production), stressor-specific deviation, riparian organism, riparian zones, and alternative sampling strategies.

Italian stakeholder workshop to present key REFORM findings

A national stakeholder workshop followed the thematic workshop on sediment dynamics and e-flows in the afternoon of 10 September to disseminate the main outcomes of REFORM. The national workshop was oriented to discuss and clarify the aspects related to the sensitivity of current metrics to hydromorphological pressures, how REFORM can help overcome the current shortcomings of current biological methods and which is the way forward. Presentations were given by Dr. Tom Buijse (REFORM project leader, DELTARES, NL), Prof. Massimo Rinaldi (REFORM, University of Florence, IT), Dr. Nikolai Friberg (REFORM, NIVA, NO) and Martina Bussettini, (REFORM, ISPRA, IT) and a public discussion followed.

Many Italian public and private stakeholders, including river basin water managers, attended the workshop (also via web) and gave their positive feedback.

Figure 2: Italian stakeholder workshop to present REFORM findings, Rome (photo: Attilio Castellucci, ISPRA).

References

Keynotes of the convenors of the E-flows and Sediments Workshop can be found in this link [33].
Keynotes of the convenors of the Italian Stakeholder Workshop can be found in this link [34].

Further links 

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/en/events/4th-reform-national-stakeholder-workshop?set_language=en [35]