Hydromorphological assessment within the EU-Water Framework Directive—trans-boundary cooperation and application to different water basins

Abstract

Many water authorities face the challenge to comply with WFD criteria. Overview survey methods are faster and more economic compared to more intensive field surveys. This work tests the quality of both approaches, with a focus on the hydromorphological status assessment. First, WFD criteria and descriptions for hydromorphological quality components and monitoring demands are summarized. A practical assessment of hydromorphological features follows, performed in German and Czech sub-catchments of the Elbe River. Three different methods of stream habitat survey were applied, two German field and overview survey standards by LAWA (Weisseritz basin), and a new Czech field survey method EcoRivHab (Rolava basin). Comparability of results and suitability to fulfil the WFD and CEN standard requirements were tested. Results show that the field and overview survey methods are non-interchangeable and irreplaceable. The overview method provides good results when conditions of large areas need to be evaluated but results seem to overestimate the true quality of the aquatic ecosystem. The field survey methods provide more accurate information. Both field survey methods (LAWA and EcoRivHab) offer good results on hydromorphological river characteristics, evaluated by a point system. Both methods are powerful in evaluating riparian belts and floodplain hydromorphology. The relative added effort of field mapping is overcompensated by the quality of the outputs, which are fully compatible with the aims of the WFD.

Benchmarking habitat quality: observations using River Habitat Survey on near‐natural streams and rivers in northern and western Europe

“…For the UK and Ireland this would largely be based on the RHS dataset, relevant benchmark sites, SERCON outputs and expert opinion. For those European hydroecoregions with little or no RHS or other survey information available, expert opinion, maps, aerial photography and local knowledge are required in the first instance, supported by data from those regions with good baseline information (WeiX et al, 2008). This could lead to development of a web-based, shared portfolio of benchmark sites and scoring protocols for European hydro-ecoregions, taking forward work started by the STAR project (Furse et al, 2006).…”

Habitat degradation and trout stocking can reinforce the impact of flash floods on headwater specialist Alpine bullhead Cottus poecilopus - A case study from the Carpathian Mountains

“…The level of habitat degradation within the sampled stretches was evaluated before the flash flood following a method proposed by Weiß, Matouskova, and Matschullat () for EU‐Water Framework Directive. The method assesses the eco‐hydrological quality of rivers based on 32 parameters e.g., character of flow, diversity of microhabitats, human‐made changes in flow regime, occurrence of artificial steps, vegetation, land‐use in the floodplain, retention of the floodplain, flood protection measures, river valley type, etc.).…”

“…The level of habitat degradation within the sampled stretches was evaluated before the flash flood following a method proposed by Weiß, Matouskova, and Matschullat (2008) for EU-Water Moderately changed, (IV) Strongly changed, and (V) characterizes a completely changed habitat. The average water depth was calculated based on measurements with a calibrated bar at five sites in each section.…”

Some Problems and Improvement of Domestic System for River Environment Assessment

“…즉 수질이 양호하더라 도 하천의 물리적 구조가 불량하면 야생동물을 부양하는 서 식처 기능을 충분히 달성하기 어렵다는 현실적 상황인식으로 (WHG, 1996), 자연에 가까운 하천구조의 복원을 위한 정책 수립 및 시행사업의 성공 여부를 판단하기 위한 수단으로서 연방정부 차원의 하천 서식처 평가인 LAWA-FS(Field Survey) 와 LAWA-OS(Overview Survey)가 개발되었다 (Kamp et al, 2007;Weiß et al, 2008). (7) River environments (7) Grade (5) (Fig.…”