1. REFORM NIKOLAI FRIBERG Norwegian Institute for Water Research Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO, Norway Nikolai Friberg1

2. 2 REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management Tom Buijse NL Roy Brouwer NL Ian Cowx UK Harm Duel NL Nikolai Friberg DK/N Angela Gurnell UK Daniel Hering GE Eleftheria Kampa GE Erik Mosselman NL Susanne Muhar AU Matthew O’Hare UK Tomasz Okruszko PL Massimo Rinaldi IT Jan Vermaat NL Christian Wolter GE November 2011 – October 2015

3. 3 Nasjonalt restaureringsseminar 2014 Oslo, 18 – 19 November 2014 Partners 26 partners from 15 European countries NoNameShort name Country 1Stichting DeltaresDeltaresNetherlands 2Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig OnderzoekAlterraNetherlands 3Aarhus UniversityAU-NERIDenmark 4Universitaet fuer Bodenkultur WienBOKUAustria 5Institut National de Recherche en Sciences et des Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture IRSTEAFrance 6Institutul National de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Delta Dunarii DDNIRomania 7Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology EAWAGSwitzerland 8Ecologic Institut Gemeinnützige GmbhEcologicGermany 9Forschungsverbund Berlin E.V.FVB.IGBGermany 10Joint Research Centre- European CommissionJRCBelgium 11Masaryk UniversityMUCzech Republic 12Natural Environment Research Council - Centre for Ecology and Hydrology NERCUnited Kingdom 13Queen Mary University of LondonQMULUnited Kingdom 14Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesSLUSweden 15Finnish Environment InstituteSYKEFinland 16Universitaet Duisburg-EssenUDEGermany 17University of HullUHULLUnited Kingdom 18Universita Degli Studi Di FirenzeUNIFIItaly 19Universidad Politecnica de MadridUPMSpain 21Warsaw University of Life SciencesWULSPoland 22Centro de Estudios y Experimentacion de Obras Publicas CEDEXSpain 23Dienst Landelijk GebiedDLGNetherlands 24Environment AgencyEAUnited Kingdom 25Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale ISPRAItaly 26Norsk Institutt for VannforskningNIVANorway 27Stichting VU-VUmcVU-VumcNetherlands 26

4. 4 Objectives of REFORM APPLICATION 1.Select indicators for cost-effective monitoring 2.Improve tools and guidelines for restoration RESEARCH 1.Review existing information on river degradation and restoration 2.Develop a process-based hydromorphological framework 3.Understand how multiple stress constrains restoration 4.Assess the importance of scaling on the effectiveness of restoration 5.Develop instruments for risk and benefit analysis to support successful restoration DISSEMINATION 1.Enlarge appreciation for the benefits of restoration

5. HYdroMOrphological stress Quantitatively the main problem in most river basins and a large proportion of HYMO degradation is historical Flood protection, hydropower, navigation, urban sprawl are among contemporary challenges

6. Photo:Friedrich Böhringer Photo:Kimberly Fleming Photo: Piet Spaans

7. Morphological index ranging from completely uniform (0) to very complex (1) A standard metric

8. Metrics sensitive to hydrological alterations MESHLIFE Normal flow 0.610.52 Low flow-0.58-0.47 high positives = good/low negatives = bad (+1 to – 1)

9. Metrics sensitive to hydrological alterations vs. other stressor specific metrics MESHLIFEASPT (or ganic) EPT (general) SPEAR (pesticides) Q900.610.520.590.440.6 Q10-0.58-0.47-0.52-0.43-0.55 high positives = good/low negatives = bad (+1 to – 1)

10. Data analyses Several large WFD-compliant data sets were analysed across Europe Species data, species traits and a range of metrics were analysed against: – Measures of HYMO stress – Water chemistry – Land use 10

11. HYMO Degradation assessment method Process oriented Spatial and temporal scales Riparian vegetation Potential links Quantifiable links Possible indicators Ecology HYMO assessment metrics Sensitive Stressor specific Low uncertainty Scale dependent Analytical approach

12. Potential links – HYMO stress Loss of hyporheric zone (macroinverts, fish) Low oxygen levels (macroinvertebrates) Scouring at high flows (perifyton) Changes in biotic interactions (realised habitat)

13. Quantifiable links

14. Why it also was difficult to detect HYMO degradation using WFD compliant monitoring data Hydromorphology Measured on a different spatial scale than the biota Static rather than dynamic measurements; often very limited number of consistent HYMO variables available across data sets Hydrology Few hydrological stations compared with biological monitoring stations and often not at the same place

15. HYMO Degradation assessment method Process oriented Spatial and temporal scales Riparian vegetation Potential links Quantifiable links Possible indicators Ecology HYMO assessment metrics Sensitive Stressor specific Low uncertainty Scale dependent Analytical approach

16. HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Geomorphic unit Hydraulic unit River element Region Catchment Landscape unit Segment Reach A framework of nested spatial units for investigating hydromorphological processes, forms (habitats) and their changes, particularly at the reach scale 1.Conforms with existing WFD typologies and spatial units 2.Process-based 3.Investigates current and past condition 4.Considers responses to future scenarios

17. HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Geomorphic unit Hydraulic unit River element Region Catchment Landscape unit Segment Reach Open Ended and Prescribed Versions Links with existing regions Links with existing river types at catchment scale Can include WFD water bodies at segment scale 1.River (reach) types 2.River floodplain types 3.Groundwater-surface water interaction types 4.Flow regime types Indicative units including vegetation-driven landforms

18. HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Geomorphic unit Hydraulic unit River element Region Catchment Landscape unit Segment Reach How are reaches functioning? Indicators of controls at the region, catchment, landscape unit, and segment scales that affect hydromorphological processes and forms at the reach scale Indicators at sub-reach scales of hydromorphological alteration, condition and function of reaches Emphasis on VEGETATION AS A CRUCIAL COMPONENT OF HYDROMORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND FORMS

19. Degradation classes of MQI Good (MQI = 0.70 - 0.85) MQI=0.79 MQI=0.60 Moderate (MQI = 0.50 – 0.70) MQI=0.43 MQI=0.04 Poor (MQI = 0.3 – 0.5)Very poor (MQI = 0 – 0.3)

20. Geomorphic unit Hydraulic unit River element Catchment Landscape unit Segment Reach Region To interpret river behaviour across scales from the catchment to the geomorphic units.. and so to the habitats …

21. REFORM International Conference on River and Stream Restoration “Novel Approaches to Assess and Rehabilitate Modified Rivers” Wageningen, 29 th June – 4 th July 2015 BIOTA To understand the links among large scale (catchment to reach) controls and, through the geomorphic units, habitats availability and biological response GEOMORPHIC UNITS REACH PHYSICAL HABITATS

22. riffle glide step pool dune system riparian zone island bank-attached bar

23. Implications The way most countries are using their methods, and if sampling is not revised to be in accordance with the more process-based HYMO methods, we get in particular to many false positives using macroinvertebrates, i.e. good status in rivers that are more HYMO degraded than a slight deviation for reference conditions. However, false negatives are also a risk: HYMO indicators based on biota may show HYMO degradation where to problems might relate to other stressors such as water chemistry Not good as e.g. program of measures could be based on a wrong perception of the primary pressures Nikolai Friberg23

24. Recommendations Use the HYMO method together with chemistry and BQEs to assess all five status classes in WFD BQEs, with the current sampling methodology, can primarily inform on the impact of other stressors, which are relevant in multiple stress scenarios Fish is the most sensitive BQE with regard to HYMO; macrophytes in lowland rivers. Methods needed! Alternative/new methods linking HYMO to biota should be developed up to 2019 WFD revision

25. Thank you! Nikolai Friberg25