REFORM - Report

Guidance and decision support for cost-effective river and floodplain restoration and its benefits

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:46:23 +0000

The present report presents guidance and decision support for cost-effective river and floodplain restoration and its benefits. It serves as a portal to the web-based information system or wiki developed within REFORM and summarizes the contents, structure and functionality of this wiki. The wiki guides the planning process and design of cost-effective and hydromorphologically relevant restoration and its benefits.

It has been structured around the phases of the river basin management planning cycle. A prerequisite of planning is a good understanding of how a river works and an evaluation of status by asking, “What’s wrong?” An integrated planning framework supports the design of river restoration measuresand addresses the question, “How can we improve?”, including risk analysis, the wider benefits of restoration and the restoration potential of other human interventions. This framework is cyclic for both programmes of measures in entire river basins and the planning and evaluation of individual projects.

This report thus provides guidance on finding results of REFORM. All further details are given in the wiki, the REFORM deliverables and scientific publications.

D6.3_REFORM_deliverable_Guidelines_and_decision_support v4.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D6.3 Guidelines and decision support for cost-effective river-floodplain restoration and its benefits

Document type:

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

REFORM newsletters & leaflet

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:57:44 +0000

This document gives an overview of the REFORM newsletters and leaflets. All newsletters and leaflets are available online at the public website of REFORM (http://www.reformrivers.eu). For each item in the newsletter the teaser is given as well as the hyperlink to the full article.

7.6_REFORM_newsletters and leaflets - FINAL.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D7.6 Newsletters and project leaflet

Document type:

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Fact sheets for restoration projects

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:38:48 +0000

This deliverable D4.5 summarizes information and experiences for thirteen river types and lists meta-data analysis results based on 844 publications. The report starts with a summary of a literature meta-data analysis, using the REFORM river reach typology. The main component of the report deals with fact sheets and per river type provides a synthesis of restoration experiences describing best and efficient restoration practices, including promising restoration techniques and variables suited for monitoring restoration.

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. Second 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 in this category. Next floodplain and river planform appeared 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, also was often implemented. Hydrological measures were much less often executed.

The main component of the report deals with fact sheets and per river type provides a synthesis of restoration experiences describing best and efficient restoration practices, including promising restoration techniques and variables suited for monitoring restoration. The river typology that is being developed for the classification of fact sheets is based on an integration of four different classifications commonly used in Europe. Each single fact sheet consists of the paragraphs: River type name, Pressure categories/pressures, Measure categories/measures, and Monitoring scheme.

The river typology adopted for the fact sheets in this Deliverable differs from the river reach typology developed in REFORM. The relation between these typologies is not straightforward. The river typology adopted here, refers to the catchment or subcatchment setting of a river in terms of altitude, size and geology. This setting 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, which can all change through time. Furthermore, river catchments or sub-catchments of a single type according to the typology used in this deliverable may contain several reaches of different REFORM types, and indeed all of the REFORM river types could potentially be found within many of the river types used in this deliverable. Notwithstanding the differences in nature, purpose and scale of these two different typologies, Table 11in the deliverable presents an indication of the range of REFORM river types that might most commonly be encountered in reaches of river located within the categories of the river typology adopted in this deliverable.

D4_5 REFORM Factsheets for restoration projects final v2.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D4.5 Fact sheets for restoration projects

Document type:

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Large river regulation and rehabilitation in Europe – six selected case studies

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:08:11 +0000

Large rivers have been selected as one of the satellite topics both within WP3 and WP4, because of their particular features which could not be analysed in the case study catchments framework. Large rivers are considered rivers with a catchment larger than 10,000 km² and > 100 m³/s. This encompasses rivers such as the Danube, Rhine, Rhône, Ebro, Vistula but also major tributaries such as the Sava, Narew, and Main rivers. Most fulfil major socio-economic functions, which will remain strongly modified and thus direct the options for rehabilitation. Because of their multifunctional use, large rivers can often only be partially rehabilitated or mitigated to achieve Good Ecological Potential according to the Water Framework Directive. This report addresses both hydrological modifications and restoration (rehabilitation, mitigation) following a DPSIR approach for six case studies that are spread across Europe

The historical trajectory of driving forces, river regulation (100 – 200 years) and rehabilitation (20 years) is used to underpin and illustrate the state-of–the-art regarding the effectiveness and potential of large river rehabilitation. For this, experiences and case studies from various large rivers in Europe are presented. For each case study the following information is given:

General characteristics of the river (stretch);
Description of historical state or reference condition(s) used in the rehabilitation project;
Functions of the river (stretch): for which socio-economic functions is the river used, and what are the resulting pressures for its ecological functioning?
The effects of identified pressures on hydromorphology and ecology;
Mitigation and rehabilitation measures; what measures have been taken or planned to improve the hydromorphological and ecological status of these rivers?
Ecological effects of measures.

The six case studies are representatieve of various European conditions with regard to climate, hydromorphological characteristics and catchment size. The case studies are situated in three biogeographical regions and six countries, viz. Atlantic region: River Trent (UK) and Delta Rhine (Netherlands), Continental region: Middle Vistula (Poland), Lower Danube and Po River (Italy) and Mediterranean region: Ebro (Spain). All these rivers can be characterized as large rivers (viz. catchment area larger than 10,000 km²), although they differed strongly in climatic zone, river length, catchment size, discharge, slope and river style. Large rivers can be considered as unique ecosystems and results are difficult to generalize. Still these case studies together give a good impression on the present regulation and rehabilitation of large rivers in Europe.

The case studies share but also differ substantially in drivers and associated pressures. Both flood protection and navigation are important drivers for the occurrence of many pressures. The rivers Trent, Po, Ebro and Delta Rhine have a large number of drivers and associated pressures, while the Danube Delta and middle Vistula are less impacted. For the majority no information was available regarding the extent of drivers and pressures.

There was a general pattern in the chronological sequence of the impact of drivers and associated pressures. The primal drivers for early regulation of all rivers were flood protection (embankments) and agriculture (deforestation). For most, these forms of river regulation started already centuries ago. Navigation became an important driver during the 19^th century requiring further channelisations. As a result, the occurrence of highly dynamic habitats strongly declined caused by stabilisation of the river bed (by groynes, bank protection) as well as by deepening of the main channel. Of our case studies, only the river Vistula in Poland is currently not regulated for navigation purposes, and – hence – large parts of the main channel of the river have not been channelised. More recently, especially after the Second World War, many dams were constructed in the rivers, which resulted in a decreased longitudinal connectivity, thereby impeding conditions for migratory fish and other species. Additionally, the hydrological regime of rivers was strongly altered and sediment supply to downstream sections was strongly reduced. Especially the rivers Trent, Po, Ebro and Lower Danube have been severly impacted by the construction of dams.

For the majority of the case studies, only limited information was available regarding the impacts of pressures on hydromorphology and ecology. Large rivers are impacted by multiple stressors which complicate to identify the primal causes for degradation. It seems that the sequence of drivers (and associated pressures, see above) have initiated major transition points for ecological processes and biota along large rivers. We discuss the effects briefly in respect to the time line of occurrence of these drivers and pressures.

There are some striking differences in the restoration measures taken. Along the lowland stretches of large rivers, such as the Lower Danube and the Delta Rhine, measures focus on restoring lateral connectivity gradients between main channel and floodplains. Because of constraints imposed by navigation, only a limited number of measures are taken that improve conditions for lateral migration to rejuvenate riparian zones and bar and island formation, because these will affect navigational depth in the main channel. Along the river Trent and Po (and to some extent, the Delta Rhine), measures are taken that increase variation in width and depth of the main channel, which variation is an important variable for the occurrence of several hydromorphological processes. Restoring conditions for island and shoal formation will only be carried out along the river Vistula where navigation is not an important driver.

In summary, along relatively intact river stretches, such as the Vistula and Danube delta only a limited amount of measures can already improve ecological conditions. In highly regulated rivers such as the river Trent and Delta Rhine having extensive and diverse pressures a large number of measures are required and have been taken or planned. By contrast, the Mediterranean Rivers Ebro and Po are also highly regulated, but along these rivers only a small number of measures are planned at present.

3.5_Satellite topic Large Rivers 09 Nov 2015-def.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

Document type:

Report

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Policy discussion paper "Linking e-Flows to sediment dynamics"

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:58:50 +0000

Fluvial communities and their ecological integrity are the result of their evolutionary adaptation to river habitats. Flowing water is the main driver for development and maintenance of these habitats, which is why environmental flows (e-Flows) are needed where societal demands are depleting water resources. Fluvial habitats are not only the result of water flow, however, but are shaped by the combined interaction of water, sediments woody/organic material, and riparian vegetation. Water abstraction, flow regulation by dams, gravel pits or siltation by fine sediments eroded from hillslopes are pressures that can disturb interactions among water, sediments, and other constituents that create the habitats needed by fluvial communities.

Present e-Flow design criteria are based only on water flow requirements. Here we argue that sediment dynamics need to be considered when specifying instream flows, thereby expanding the environmental objectives and definition of e-Flows to include sediments (extended e-Flows).

We recognize that currently used biological assessment systems and metrics are not sufficiently sensitive indicators of ecological status of water bodies impacted by sediment and flow management. To overcome current limitations of available metrics that use biological quality elements (BQEs) in assessing flow related impacts, we are proposing alternative assessment criteria that include hydromorphological (HYMO) aspects. Our broadened definition of extended e-flows requires a broader set of protocols and tools derived from specific HYMO approaches (e.g. REFORM multiscale hymo framework).

To this aim, a framework for e-Flows assessment and identification of best strategies for fluvial restoration, including the context of rivers regulated by large dams, is presented.

7.7 Policy discussion paper III Linking e-flows to sediment dynamics FINAL.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D7.7 Policy Briefs and policy discussion papers

Document type:

Report

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Risks and Uncertainty in River Rehabilitation

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:50:03 +0000

Analyses of costs and benefits require the prediction of the effects of restoration measures and the quantification of societal values. Both of these estimates are uncertain. In this report, some of the key issues related to the assessment, description and quantification of uncertainty are discussed and guidelines are provided for considering uncertainty.

This report provides a brief overview on the representation and quantification of uncertainty in scientific prediction followed by examples of typical risks associated with river restoration that could lead to unintended, adverse effects and in more detail, how uncertainty can be considered in CEA/CBA and in MCDA.

There are two important sources of uncertainty to consider in environmental management in general, and in particular for river restoration:

Uncertainty about scientific predictions of outcomes.

Depending on alternatives, this requires prediction and uncertainty estimation of the behavior of a natural system, natural-technical system, or even of a combined natural-technical-socio-economic system (e.g. in case of measures that include incentives to some of the affected stakeholders). In particular, one has to consider the potential for adverse outcomes as discussed in chapter 3.

Uncertainty about the preferences of the society elicited from inquiries or stakeholders.

In addition to the difficulties of the stakeholders to be aware of their own preferences and to be able to quantify them, this also includes their risk attitude (how uncertainty about the outcomes affects their preferences).

Policy recommendations:

Communication of uncertainty is a key element of any communication of scientific predictions. Visualization of uncertainty ranges can support this task. Lack of communication of scientific uncertainty in the past led to a reduction of trust of stakeholders to scientists.
Clearly separating scientific predictions and societal valuations is an essential element of any decision support procedure. Uncertainties in both elements should be clearly communicated separately. In particular if there are disagreements among experts about scientific predictions and of stakeholder groups about preferences.
Uncertainty about scientific predictions can be addressed by probability distributions and scenarios; uncertainty about societal preferences are often better addressed by sensitivity analysesof the ranking of the alternatives resulting from combining predictions of the outcomes of decision alternatives with preferences.

5.4 Risks and Uncertainty in River Rehabilitation - FINAL.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D5.4 Risks and uncertainty of different restoration strategies and options analysis

Document type:

Report

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Effects of climate and land use changes on river ecosystems and restoration practices

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:30:38 +0000

Rivers are highly complex ecosystems with interrelated processes between physical, chemical and biological components. River restoration efforts are put in place to overcome pressures from the development sector to improve river process and function, nevertheless, river restoration tends to encounter obstacles as a result of these societal demands. To stop restoration projects falling short of their objectives, there is a need to demonstrate and predict the effects of human activities on these components spatially and temporally.

The overall aim of this document is to provide guidance and tools for river managers to analyse the potential effects of degradation, restoration, climate and land use change to optimise benefits between cross-sectoral river services and ecological requirements whilst considering climate change effects. Failure to plan across the full array of ecological and socioeconomic co-benefits can have undesirable and unanticipated consequences.

The motives, pressures and restoration measures for the dominant sectors are summarised in this document to identify the potential for interactions between pressures and restoration measures (benefits and losses for different conservation features). Guidance, tools and models to identify options for restoration and multiple-benefits are overviewed with focus on the potential effects of climate and land use changes on river processes. Specific emphasis is on synergistic strategiesto assist project managers with decision making, problem solving and planning strategies to identify suitable Programme of Measures (PoM) to support future RBMP cycles and the tuning of the WFD with other directives (Habitats, Birds, Flood, Groundwater, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Transport).

Synergies in river restoration occur when benefits can be found for both ecosystem services and the environment, whereas a trade-off occurs when one changes at the expense of another. Adopting a ‘synergy and trade-off’ approach to river restoration is discussed with specific focus on soft engineering techniques in relation to climate change enabling planners to consider the links in integrated freshwater conservation planning and overcome constraints that might hinder other (or multiple) sectors. Synergistic approaches are now emerging in river restoration and cross-sectoral interactions, and are supported by various policy documents. For example, synergies between flood-risk and river management or between hydropower development and restoration of longitudinal connectivity for fisheries. Flood-risk management is perhaps the policy with the best potential for synergies with other aspects of water management, provided that adequate strategies are implemented (CIS 2007). Working with natural processes & nature-based restoration are key features of the strategy to overcome climate change impacts whilst providing multiple-benefits thus, allowing important opportunities for synergies between directives such as EU Floods Directive, WFD, Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, amongst others.

The main methods promoted in this document are hydro-economic models, cross-impact balance analysis and the nested-DPSIR framework.

Hydro-economic modelling can support integrated river basin management and they represent regional scale hydrological, engineering, environmental and economic aspects of water resources systems within a single framework. The complexity of interactions between water and the economy can be captured through formal, mathematical models linking relevant hydrological and biogeochemical processes to economic ‘laws’ of supply and demand underlying the provision of scarce water services (Brouwer & Hofkes 2008). Integrated hydro-economic models can suggest least-cost combinations of actions to attain specified goals and examine how alternative choices will affect different interests. In summary it can be argued that hydro-economic modelling is especially suitable to address water quantity issues, but that it is much more difficult to make the link with WFD environmental objectives that are ecological in nature. The main bottleneck in full application of hydro-economic modelling is to integrate type-specific pressure-impact relationships where hydrological regime is linked with ecological status.
Cross-impact Balance Analysis creates a hypermatrix and can be applied by river managers to anticipate the potential impacts of possible hydrological changes on stream channel morphology, ecological function and services provision (Slawson 2014). CIB analysis is a helpful approach that can give a number of options for plausible future scenarios. It is based on a qualitative judgement scale and relies on expert judgement across a number of disciples, the benefit here is that CIB is not data dependant, however, expert judgement can result in bias and strongly influence any outcome.
The nested-DPSIR framework is a conceptual tool that identifies key relationships between society and the environment and should be applied in the early stages of project planning. It aims to reconcile conflicting interests between societal and the ecological needs of rivers, in addition to land uses change by capturing key relationships between society and the environment, encouraging decision-makers to think about the challenges at a larger scale, across multiple sectors. At a catchment scale the nested-DPSIR can identify restoration potential and aid decisions for PoM objectives. The outcome from a CIB Analysis can be used alongside DPSIR to explore synergies and new opportunities.

Weighted prioritisation matrices are easily understood, simple to apply and have the advantage of allowing various alternatives to be compared numerically. Scoring is based on existing information, both quantitative and qualitative, and incorporates the opinions of stakeholders, ecological specialists and economists. Physical, chemical and biological aspects of broad-scale processes of freshwater rivers and interfaces between connecting ecosystems, such as natural habitat continuum from upstream to downstream catchments and between river and its surrounding land use are considered during the scoring. Nevertheless, there are a few disadvantages to this method, mainly because the evaluation procedure depends heavily on the weightings assigned and these can be subjective and open to bias.

Conclusions and recommendations from this document are:

Ø In many scenarios the domains of environment, society and institutions are disconnected and sustainability is compromised

Ø Identifying relevant political and economic incentives can help overcome the inadequate budget situation for restoration

Ø Simple decision support methods are generally easier to use, but lack a full understanding of the economic and social interactions, while complex models incorporate these aspects but suffer from data paucity and need huge investments to achieve the required input

Ø Optimising ecosystem services in conjunction with the ecosystem approach appears to be a useful mechanism for selecting the best management options, but to convince other users of the importance of ecological services requires ecological and socio-economic information at a catchment scale and the more fundamental economic data to support the dialogue.

Ø Adopting a synergy approach to river restoration will maximise multiple benefits between sectors and ecosystem form and function, tools such as DPSIR help identify synergies but its application by river managers is generally lacking

Ø The consequences of climate change e.g. through more extreme discharge regimes create a moving target for planning and implementation and require an anticipating and adaptive strategy

Ø Identifying the impacts of different sectors and the potential synergies should be part of the project planning cycle and be inherent in the identification and formulation phases of the project development.

Case studies to support the processes described are provide in Part 2 of the deliverable.

5.3 Restoration practises climate and land use change.zip

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D5.3 Effects of climate and land use changes on river ecosystems and restoration practices

Document type:

Report

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Methods, models, tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers - Part 5 Applications

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:35:40 +0000

Work Package 6 of REFORM focuses on monitoring protocols, survey methods, assessment procedures, guidelines and other tools for characterising the consequences of physical degradation and restoration, and for planning and designing successful river restoration and mitigation measures and programmes. Deliverable 6.2 of Work Package 6 is the final report on methods, models and tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers. This report summarises the outputs of Tasks 6.1 (Selection of indicators for cost-effective monitoring and development of monitoring protocols to assess river degradation and restoration), 6.2 (Improve existing methods to survey and assess the hydromorphology of river ecosystems), and 6.3 (Identification and selection of existing hydromorphological and ecological models and tools suitable to plan and evaluate river restoration).

The deliverable is structured in five parts. Part 1 provides an overall framework for hydromorphological assessment. Part 2 includes thematic annexes on protocols for monitoring indicators and models. Part 3 is a detailed guidebook for the application of the Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Part 4 describes the Geomorphic Units survey and classification System. Part 5 (this volume) includes a series of applications to some case studies of some of the tools and methods reported in the previous parts.

Summary of Deliverable 6.2 Part 5

This part provides a series of applications of some of the methods reported in the Part 1. The document is organised in three chapters. In Chapter 1, the Morphological Quality Index (MQI) and the Morphological Quality Index for monitoring (MQIm) have been applied to eight case studies. Chapter 2 presents the application of semi-automated procedures based on remote sensing datasets for monitoring and characterising channel forms to the River Orco (Italy). In Chapter 3, the Hydromorphological Evaluation Tool (HYMET) is applied to the Drau River (Austria).

6.2 Methods to assess hydromorphology of rivers part V.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D6.2 Final report on methods, models, tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers

Document type:

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

The Geomorphic Units survey and classification System (GUS)

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:33:45 +0000

Work Package 6 of REFORM focuses on monitoring protocols, survey methods, assessment procedures, gudelines and other tools for characterising the consequences of physical degradation and restoration, and for planning and designing successful river restoration and mitigation measures and programmes. Deliverable 6.2 of Work Package 6 is the final report on methods, models and tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers. This report summarises the outputs of Tasks 6.1 (Selection of indicators for cost-effective monitoring and development of monitoring protocols to assess river degradation and restoration), 6.2 (Improve existing methods to survey and assess the hydromorphology of river ecosystems), and 6.3 (Identification and selection of existing hydromorphological and ecological models and tools suitable to plan and evaluate river restoration).

The deliverable is structured in five parts. Part 1 provides an overall framework for hydromorphological assessment. Part 2 includes thematic annexes on protocols for monitoring indicators and models. Part 3 is a detailed guidebook for the application of the Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Part 4 (this volume) describes the Geomorphic Units survey and classification System. Part 5 includes a series of applications to some case studies of some of the tools and methods reported in the previous parts.

Summary of Deliverable 6.2 Part 4

This part provides a detailed description of the Geomorphic Units survey and classification System (GUS). This method is used to identify, characterise and analyse the assemblage of geomorphic units within a given reach. The system is suitable for integrating the MQI and is also aimed at allowing the establishment of links between hydromorphological conditions at reach scale, characteristic geomorphic units, and related biological conditions.

The document is organised in two parts. Part A provides the general background and describes characteristics, analysis, testing, and typical applications of the method. Part B is an Illustrated Guidebook to the identification and classification of geomorphic units. A series of Forms for the application of the GUS are reported in Appendix 1. The list of gemorphic units included in the GUS is reported in Appendix 2. A brief glossary of significant terms is reported in Appendix 3.

6.2 Methods to assess hydromorphology of rivers part IV revised.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D6.2 Final report on methods, models, tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers

Document type:

File status:

Final

Policy Brief:

Methods, models, tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers - Part 2 Thematic annexes

tom.buijse@deltares.nl — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 09:27:16 +0000

The deliverable is structured in five parts. Part 1 provides an overall framework for hydromorphological assessment. Part 2 (this volume) includes thematic annexes on protocols for monitoring indicators and models. Part 3 is a detailed guidebook for the application of the Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Part 4 describes the Geomorphic Units survey and classification System. Part 5 includes a series of applications to some case studies of some of the tools and methods reported in the previous parts.

Summary of Deliverable 6.2 Part 2

Part 2 of Deliverable 6.2 provides detailed information on some specific aspect outlined in Part 1.

In Annex A, a series of indicators is presented for the different stages of hydrological characterization, assessment of current status (alteration) and design (rehabilitation measures), including groundwater – surface water indicators.

Annex B reviews monitoring indicators, evaluation tools, and analyses which are suitable for monitoring morphological conditions.

Annex C reports monitoring protocols for riparian vegetation.

In Annex D, a summary of models used in hydromorphology is reported.

6.2 Methods to assess hydromorphology of rivers part II.pdf

Work packages:

Deliverables:

D6.2 Final report on methods, models, tools to assess the hydromorphology of rivers

Document type:

File status:

Final