• Linking
  hydromorphology
  to ecology
• Network Contacts
• Resources
• Physical Habitat Assessment Methods in Rivers
• 2009 AGU Session
• 2008 AGU Session
• Ballater Workshop
• Relevant Literature
• Ongoing progress
• Contact
• South Korean 4-rivers project
• Catchment Management Homepage

Break-out session 1. Hydromorphology (covering topics 1-4).

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group A:

What is the state-of-the-art in hydromorphology in terms of concepts, methodologies, and tools available to assess the current and past physical status of fluvial systems?

The term hydromorphology is “inaccurate”

• Encompasses geomorphology and hydrology
• Includes the channel, the floodplain, and the riparian ecotone
• “Sub-disciplines” include:
  • Hydraulics
  • Sediment transport
  • Morphodynamics
  • Geotechnical engineering
  • Hydrology
  • Riparian and biological drivers

State of the art concepts

• Dynamism
• Complexity
• The river/catchment is an open system
• Connectivity
• Recognition of scales of processes (catchment vs. reach)

Methods/tools

• Historical, analogue, theoretical, experimental
• Reconnaissance level survey (river styles, fluvial audit, RGA etc.)
• Modeling methods (Netmap, Ripple, Shalstab, etc.)
• Remote sensing tools (LiDAR, thermal imagery, satellite imagery, CASI, hyperspectral, etc.)
• Hydraulic models (HEC-RAS, 1-D and 2D flow models)
• Hydrologic models (DHSVM, HSPF, SCIMAP)
• Morphodynamic models (similar details could follow, but we ended here to address methods that are used for historical/current comparisons)
• (NOTE: management tools and approaches may lag behind the state of the art)

Methods/tools for comparing reference to current condition

• Combinations of methods are common
• Tools vary with scale and objective
• Tools for quantifying processes
  • Sediment supply and transport
    • Sediment budget
    • Models
  • Channel form
    • Historical assessment
    • Analogue
    • Modeling
• Due to time constraint, at this point changed topic to general considerations

General points in selecting methods/tools

• Relevance of various metrics/tools to biota/ecology
• Consider explicitly the time spatial scales of responses

“Summary” points

• Concepts are somewhat ahead of tools and methods
• More tools are available to assess current state than to compare current condition to historical
• Scales of tools vary with scales of problem (pressure or cause)
• Do key concepts also apply to or inform ecological responses?
• Risk-based or probability approaches are important at large scales
• A key future challenge is the modeling of channel migration and multi-channel systems

Group B:

Is the concept of hydromorphological reference condition useful and meaningful? Should it be differently defined in systems of varying degree of human impact?

Yes!

• WFD says we have to use the concept
• Stakeholders – flood risk management
• Status mis-match for various reasons
• “Field of dreams”
• Structural metrics (bad?)
• Process-process
• Other frameworks
• Catchment-riparian-river
• Reference condition guidance – biology, hydromorph?
• H-M reference condition = sustainable, no maintenance
• Climate change, land use change
• Cultural landscapes
• Properties of reference systems
• Indicators of reference systems
• Ecosystem services
• World outside of WFD: HM ‹-› functions
• Resilient to even big rare events – genetic signature?
• HM refcond not equal to ecol refcond (in some cases at least)
• WFD is a big leap forward
• GIG, what is achievable in 2 ½ years
• Floods directive – second round of RBMPs
• Typologies
  • Ecological reference condition
  • Hydromorph – Montgomery and Buffington + extra types
    • Process
    • Probabilistic implementation

Question 2 (HM assessments)

• A. linked to ecosystem
• B. in its own right

• Exposed riverine sediments natural or anthropogenic?
• State shifts - indicators
• Reference => self-sustaining (but self-sustaining => reference?)
• Exotic types, unique
• Scales again
• Preconceptions/values, e.g.,
  • Swedish rivers, boulders removed,
  • Scottish rivers, salmon fishing
• Habitats directive
  • Takes precedence over WFD
  • Stds lag behind WFD?
• HM reference condition require catchment context
• Same for ecological reference conditions

Group C:

What are the legislative requirements for defining hydromorphology in fluvial systems? Required timescales, knowledge gaps and practicalities of watershed-wide application.

What is hydromorphology?

• We have working understanding and definition within WFD
• But still debate (agree to disagree) about what it is

What is the most appropriate time horizon for management?

• 10 yrs, 30 years … Scale relevant for hydromorph processes and recovery
• Monitoring and time scales to ensure compliance
  • Needs to be able to detect and quantify variability
  • What should units be? (reaches? Catcments?)
• Issue: what percent of catchment can be degraded for it to still attain “good” status?
• Do monitoring/assessment tools tackle this? (MiMAS)
• Need to consider spatial relationships between activities that degrade habitats
  • Upstream – downstream controls

Research needs/knowledge gaps

• Interactions between stressors
  • Additive,synergistic?
• How important is hydromorph really?
  • Nutrients more important
• Need to come of the channel deal explicitly with land-use for WFD compliance
• Or are riparian buffers enough?
• Do thresholds exist? Where are they?
• How can we incorporate uncertainty into management actions such as restoration?
• How much fragmentation can the landscape take?
  • Role for landscape ecologists?

Break-out session 2. Linking hydromorphology to ecology (covering topic 5)