Merkske hydromorphologicalmonitoring

Hydromorphological monitoring Merkske

Suzan P.M. Otten Breda, August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Author: Suzan P.M. Otten Student number: 3746976 S.P.M.Otten@students.uu.nl Supervisor Utrecht University: Dr. M.G. Kleinhans Supervisors regional water authority Brabantse Delta: Dr. K-J. Douben MSc Mr D. Coenen Department of Physical Geography Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University, the Netherlands August 2013

August 2013

Preface & Acknowledgements This report shows the results of a short MSc internship at regional water authority Brabantse Delta, forming part of the Master study Earth Sciences within a combination of the tracks Earth, Life and Climate and Earth, Surface and Water at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. June 2013 I started my internship at the department of Knowledge and Advice within the regional water authority Brabantse Delta in Breda. Subject of the traineeship are the European Union Water Framework Directive regulations and the hydromorphological monitoring of the Merkske. This Master’s internship contributes to the water management of the regional water authority Brabantse Delta. Maarten Kleinhans from Utrecht University, the Netherlands, supervised the Master internship.

Performing this Master internship was not possible without the help of staff from the Department of Knowledge and Advice and the Department of Physical Geography. Special thanks goes to Klaas-Jan Douben, for all the support and the supervision during the entire process. I also want to thank Maarten Kleinhans and Mark Bierkens for the valuable comments and supervision during the internship. Further, I want to thank Daniel Coenen for his valuable comments on the draft version of this report. I greatly acknowledge Hans van Kapel from the regional water authority Brabantse Delta for the help and shared insights at the office and in the field. I also like to thank Theo Bakker from Staatsbosbeheer, who gave me an exciting guided tour in the field.

Suzan Otten August 2013

P a g e iii |

August 2013

Summary The Water Framework Directive is introduced in 2000 to protect certain water bodies in Europe. This directive aims that these waters should achieve a ‘good status’ before 2015. This is done by the development of a management system per water body, the maintenance and improvement of the environmental interest and the reduction of pollutants. The regional water authority Brabantse Delta is affected as well by this new regulation; for several streams in the management area hydromorphological monitoring is required for assessing the water quality and ecological value of the stream.

In this report, a hydromorphological monitoring was performed for one stream in Noord-Brabant; the Merkske. For this purpose, a monitoring method developed by an earlier trainee, was used. This method was based on different European techniques (Hrvatske Vode, 2013), and uses a spreadsheet with different parameters (Ruiz, 2012). The monitoring strategy was developed and was based on differences in geology (soil type, geomorphology and seepage), river planform (meander or straight), slope (elevation), discharge (input branches and changes in the mainstream), land use (agriculture, housing) and sediment transport (artificial structures). The more differences in geology, river planform, drainage, land use and sediment transport, the more reaches are needed. The Merkske is divided in nine reaches with a length of 200 meter along the stream and 50 meter from the centre of the stream to the floodplain. Each reach was subdivided in five subreaches; the data for the spreadsheet was collected on these five subreaches. When the monitoring strategy was completed, first all the data for the spreadsheet was collected in the office, the unknown parameters were collected in the field and office data was verified. The spreadsheet was filled in with the collected data; this resulted in the final average hydromorphological state of the Merkske 1.61 – slightly modified. Because the WFD requires a hydromorphological state of 1.00 – near natural, the hydromorphological conditions of the Merkske needs to improve slightly. There were also some shortcomings discovered in the hydromorphological monitoring method developed by Ruiz (2012).

To improve the hydromorphological monitoring strategy different other methods were developed to achieve the data of the parameter channel section. Some calculations were preformed and suggested for the naturalness of the planform and the degree of lateral movement of the channel.

The given scores in the spreadsheet were not correct for the channel section features, this is corrected as well. The storage of the collected data and the hydromorphological monitoring in ArcGIS was advised. The addition of missing hydromorphological parameters such as groundwater levels, surface hydrology and hydraulics, and the EEE3 ecological parameters was suggested. The hydromorphological quality of the Merkske can be improved by the addition of woody debris in the channel. This will affect almost all the parameters that need to improve; other suggestions to improve the hydromorphological state of the Merkske are given below: 1. The increase of woody debris will decrease channel bottom and increase the hydromorphological and ecological status of the Merkske; 2. The removal of bank protection will improve the hydromorphological state of the bank structure; 3. A more extensive channel vegetation management will increase channel organisms and vegetation; 4. The development of more forests and trees along the Merkske will also have a positive effect on the hydromorphological quality, the shading area increase, which will in turn support the development of aquatic vegetation.

5. Direct sand supplementation is a more aggressive way to rise the channel bottom, this method will increase the hydromorphological status of the Merkske on a longer timescale.

P a g e iv |

August 2013

Samenvatting De Kaderrichtlijn Water is geintroduceerd in 2000 om bepaalde waterlichamen in Europa te beschermen. Deze richtlijn richt zich op het behalen van de ‘goede’ status van deze waterlichamen voor 2015. Dit wordt gedaan met behulp van een management systeem per waterlichaam, het onderhouden en verbeteren van de natuurwaarden en de verlaging van verontreinigingen. Het waterschap Brabantse Delta wordt ook beinvloed door deze nieuwe richtlijn: voor verschillende waterlichamen in het beheergebied moet een hydromorfologische monitoring worden uitgevoerd om de water kwaliteit en de ecologische waarde van het waterlichaam te bepalen.

In dit rapport wordt het hydromorfologische monitoring proces beschreven voor een beek in NoordBrabant: het Merkske. Hiervoor werd een eerder ontwikkelde monitorings methode gebruikt , deze methode is gebasseerd op verschillende Europeese technieken (HrVatske Vode, 2013) en gebruikt een spreadsheet met verschillende parameters (Ruiz, 2012). De monitoring strategie is vervolgens ontwikkeld en was gebasseerd op verschillen in geologie (bodem type, geomorfologie en kwel), rivier planform (meanderend of recht), helling (hoogteverschil), afvoer (zijstromen en veranderingen in de hoofdstroom), land gebruik (akkerbouw, bewoning) en sediment transport. Hoe meer verschillen in geologie, rivier planform, helling, afvoer, land gebruik en sediment transport, des te meer onderzoeklocaties zijn er benodigd voor het uitvoeren van de monitoring. Het Merkske is onderverdeeld in 9 verschillende onderzoeklocaties van elk 200 meter langs de beek en 50 meter vanaf het midden van de beek de overstromingsvlakte op. Elke onderzoeklocatie was vervolgens onderverdeeld in vijf sublocaties waar de benodigde data voor het spreadsheet werd verzameld.

Toen de monitoringstrategie ontwikkeld was, is eerst alle benodigde data voor het spreadsheet in kantoor verzameld, alle onbekende parameters zijn vervolgens verzameld in het veld waar de kantoordata bevestigd werd. Alle data is vervolgens ingevuld in het spreadsheet wat resulteerde in de uiteindelijke hydromorfologische status van het Merkske: 1.61 – enigszins gewijzigd. Omdat de Kaderrichtlijn Water een 1.00 – goede hydromorfologische status vereist, moet de hydromorfologie van het Merkske nog iets verbeteren. Daarnaast zijn er verschillende tekortkomingen in de hydromorfologische monitorings methode gevonden van Ruiz (2012).

Om de hydromorfologische monitoring strategie te verbeteren zijn andere methodes ontwikkeld om data te verkrijgen in het veld voor de parameter ‘channel section’. Daarnaast zijn verschillende aanvullende berekeningen uitgevoerd en voorgesteld om de natuurlijkheid van de planform en de mate van zijwaarde verplaatsing van de meanders te bepalen. In het spreadsheet klopte de score bij de parameter ‘channel section’ niet, de kwaliteit werd onterecht veel lager ingeschat, dit is ook verbeterd. De mogelijkheid om alle verzamelde data en de hydromofologische monitoring te verzamelen en op te slaan in ArcGIS is ook geadviseerd. De toevoeging van verschillende hydromorfologische parameters zoals grondwaterstanden, oppervlaktewater hydrologie en hydraulica, en de EEE3 ecologische parameters is voorgesteld om de methode iets uit te bereiden. De hydromorfologische kwaliteit van het Merkske kan verbeterd worden door de toevoeging van dood hout in de beek, dit heeft invloed op de meeste slechter beoordeelde parameters. Andere suggesties om de hydromorfologische kwaliteit van het Merkske te verbeteren zijn hieronder gegeven.

1. Toevoeging van dood hout zal de beekbodem laten stijgen en de hydromorfologische en ecologische kwaliteit van het Merkske laten stijgen; 2. De verwijdering van oeverbescherming verbeterd de hydromorfologische kwaliteit van de oeverstructuur; 3. Extensief beek vegetatie management resulteerd in een toename van beekorganismen en vegetatie; 4. De ontwikkeling van meer bomen en bos langs het Merkske zorgt voor een toename van schaduw plekken in de beek, en heeft de ontwikkeling van beekvegetatie tot gevolg.

5. Directe zand toevoeging is een meer aggressieve manier om de beekbodem te laten stijgen, op langere termijn zal de hydromorfologische kwaliteit hierdoor stijgen.

P a g e v|

August 2013

Table of contents Preface & Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................................... iii Summary............................................................................................................................................................................................................ iv Samenvatting ......................................................................................................................................................................................................v 1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Idea behind the research - Context ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Internship objectives .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Report outline......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.

Regional water authority Brabantse Delta .............................................................................................................................................. 3

3.

Water Framework Directive and hydromorphological monitoring ......................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Water Framework Directive ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.

3.1.1

Requirements ‘good status’ water bodies .............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1.2

Hydromorphological monitoring ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Research locations .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 4.1 Merkske .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

5.

Survey strategy ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

6.

Hydromorphological monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 6.1 Channel geometry ................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 6.1.1

Planform ............................................................................................................................................................................... 13

6.1.2

Channel section..................................................................................................................................................................... 14

6.2 Substrates ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 6.2.1

Extent of artificial material ................................................................................................................................................... 19

6.2.2

Natural substrate mix or character altered ........................................................................................................................... 20

6.3 Channel vegetation and organic debris ................................................................................................................................................ 21 6.3.1

Aquatic vegetation management .......................................................................................................................................... 21

6.3.2

Extent of woody debris if expected....................................................................................................................................... 22

6.4 Erosion and deposition character ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 6.5 Flow ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 6.5.1

Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach .................................................................................................. 24

6.5.2

Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character ..................................................................................... 25

6.5.3

Effects of daily flow alternation ............................................................................................................................................ 25

6.6 Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures ................................................................................................................... 26 6.7 Bank structure and modifications ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.8 Vegetation type and structure on banks and adjacent land ................................................................................................................. 29 6.9 Channel-floodplain interactions ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 6.9.1

Adjacent land-use and associated features........................................................................................................................... 30

6.9.2

Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain ........................................................................................................... 32

6.9.3

Degree of lateral movement of river channel ....................................................................................................................... 33

7.

Results hydromorphological monitoring ............................................................................................................................................... 35

8.

Synthesis ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 8.1 Hydromorphological monitoring strategy Merkske .............................................................................................................................. 36 8.1.1

Channel geometry ................................................................................................................................................................ 37

August 2013 8.1.2

Substrates ............................................................................................................................................................................. 41

8.1.3

Channel vegetation and organic debris ................................................................................................................................. 41

8.1.4

Flow ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

8.1.5

Vegetation type / structure on banks and adjacent land ...................................................................................................... 43

8.1.6

Channel-floodplain interactions ............................................................................................................................................ 43

8.1.7

Additional hydromorphological parameters ........................................................................................................................ 43

8.1.8

Presentation hydromorphological monitoring results .......................................................................................................... 45

8.2 Hydromorphological improvement Merkske ........................................................................................................................................ 45

9.

8.2.1

Channel zone ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45

8.2.2

Riparian zone ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47

8.2.3

Floodplain zone ..................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Conclusion and advice ........................................................................................................................................................................... 49

References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Websites .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix I. Hydromorphological monitoring system ....................................................................................................................................... LIII Appendix II. Location Merkske and selected reaches ...................................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix III. Spreadsheet input per reach ....................................................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix III.1 Reach 7 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 Appendix III.2 Reach 2 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 99 Appendix III.3 Reach 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 100 Appendix III.4 Reach 5 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Appendix III.5 Reach 9 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 102 Appendix III.6 Reach 4 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 103 Appendix III.7 Reach 6 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 104 Appendix III.8 Reach 3 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 105 Appendix III.9 Reach 8 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 106

List of Figures Figure 1. Overview location Merkske (red) in the management area of the water board Brabantse Delta. ...................................................... 1 Figure 2. Classification ecological status (Solheim, A.L., Austnes, K., Kristensen, P., Peterlin, M., Kodeš, V., Collins, R., Semerádová, S., Künitzer, A., Filippi, R., Prchalová, H., Spiteri, C. and Prins, T., 2012). ................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3. Stream valley Merkske (Everts et al., 2002). ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4. Meandering Merkske (Melisie et al., 2007). ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5. Day average flow rate at the Stenenbrug in Castelrè (measurement location shown in figure 6: Merkske Castelre4503 A6 h q). ... 10 Figure 6. Selected reaches Merkske. The red areas indicate the buffer zones around the monitoring points (green dots). The purple dot indicates the measurement location of Merkske Castelre4503 A6 h q. The orange dots indicate groundwater measurement locations. ..... 11 Figure 7. Topographic map in which the grey line represents the valley centreline, the blue line represents the river channel length. The boundaries of the reach are indicated by the red area. ................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Determination channel width using a metric rod, reach 2 (photograph made by author, 2013). ..................................................... 15 Figure 9. Cross sections reaches Merkske. ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 10. Determination of the depth variation in reach 2 (photograph made by author, 2013)................................................................... 17 Figure 11. Channel bottom, sand ripples, bars and water ripples (red circle) are clearly visible in reach 7 (photograph made by author, 2013)................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 12. Water extraction hose fixed with a brick, reach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013). ................................................................ 20 Figure 13. Emergent and submerged vegetation in reach 9 (photograph made by author, 2013). ................................................................. 21 Figure 14. Submerged and floating vegetation in reach 5................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 15. Woody debris in reach 8 (photograph made by author, 2013). ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure 16. Erosion (blue arrow) and sedimentation (red arrow) in reach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013). .......................................... 23 Figure 17. Small wooden piles in reach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013). .............................................................................................. 24 Figure 18. Measurement surface surrounded by drainage ditches in reach 7. ................................................................................................ 25

August 2013 Figure 19. Weirs in the tributaries of the Merkske. ......................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 20. Artificial structures in, and around the Merkske. Red dots indicate the culverts, blue dots indicate fish ladders while purple bridge symbols indicate bridges....................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 21.Left: fish ladder downstream of the ‘Stenen Brug’, Castelrè. Top right: bridge in reach 7 is in decay. Lower right: culvert in reach 5. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 22. Plastic bank protection in reach 2, subreach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013). ..................................................................... 29 Figure 25. Determining the number of cuttings per year (http://brabantsedelta.webgispublisher.nl/?map=maaibestekken%202013#). ..... 30 Figure 23. Bank structure and vegetation reach 9. .......................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 24. Bank structure and vegetation reach 2. .......................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 26. Land use in reach 8.......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 27. Land use left side (south) of the Merkske, reach 8 (photograph made by author, 2013). .............................................................. 31 Figure 28. The T=10 inundation areas along the Merkske, inundation areas is the white area along the Merkske. ........................................ 32 Figure 29. Determining the maximum separation between meanders and the MVL in reach 6. ..................................................................... 34 Figure 30. Equilibrium river pattern plotted with the potential specific stream power and the median grain size D50: the results for the Merkske (Kleinhans & van den Berg, 2011). .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 31. Measuring channel width using an aerial photograph (winter). Figure 32. Measuring channel width using a DTM. ................. 39 Figure 33. The channel bottom is clearly visible in reach 5, stream goes right (photograph made by author, 2013). ..................................... 41 Figure 34. Reach 2 woody debris (willow) but no forest cover (photograph made by author, 2013). ............................................................. 42 Figure 35. Woody debris nearby reach 9 (photograph made by author, 2013). .............................................................................................. 46 Figure 36. Plastic bank protection reach 2 (photograph made by author, 2013). ............................................................................................ 47

List of Tables Table 1. Core features and subsidiary features according to the EN 15843 (En 15843) and the measurement method according to the monitoring strategy of Ruiz (2012). ................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Score system hydromorphological monitoring (EN 15843, 2010). ....................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Hydromorphological targets for the Merkske (Melisie et al., 2007; Buskens and de Wilde, 2002). ................................................... 10 Table 4. Selection and changing environmental conditions per reach. ............................................................................................................ 12 Table 5. Scores sinuosity feature 1a. ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Table 6. Variation in width (feature 1b). .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 7. Variation in depth (feature 1b). ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 8. Overview hydromorphological state features per reach. ................................................................................................................... 17 Table 9. Overview scoring features per reach. ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 10. Overview scoring features per reach. ............................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 11. Extent of artificial material per reach. * the extent of artificial material is not measured due to an invisible channel floor or too deep water. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 12. Degree of naturalness bed substrate per reach. .............................................................................................................................. 20 Table 13. Results aquatic vegetation management. ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Table 14. Percentages woody debris per reach. .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Table 15. Erosion and sedimentary structures scorings per reach. .................................................................................................................. 23 Table 16. Artificial in-channel structures. ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 17. Effects of catchment – wide modifications. ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 18. Number of weir and dams in the Merkske and tributaries. .............................................................................................................. 26 Table 19. Fish and sediment continuity assessment. ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 20. Scores bank structure and modifications. ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 21. Hydromorphological state vegetation type, bank structure and total state. .................................................................................... 29 Table 22. Land use scores per reach. ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 23. Maximum widths and average score per reach. ............................................................................................................................... 32 Table 24. Maximum separation meanders from the MVL and average score per reach. ................................................................................. 33 Table 25. Hydromorphological state Merkske. Blue is near natural, green is slightly modified, yellow is moderately modified and red is extensively modified. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 26. Shortcomings of the hydromorphological monitoring strategy. ....................................................................................................... 36 Table 27. Calculated characteristics Merkske. ................................................................................................................................................. 38 Table 28. Scoring depth variation method II. ................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 29. Woody debris in reach 2, there is no forest cover so this parameter is not taken into account. ..................................................... 42 Table 30. Peak discharge scoring hydromorphological state. .......................................................................................................................... 43 Table 31. Seepage scoring hydromorphological state. ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 32. Score system and control variables EEE3 (EEE3). ............................................................................................................................. 44 Table 33. Scoring EEE3 and WFD...................................................................................................................................................................... 45

August 2013

1.

Introduction

Regional water authority Brabantse Delta originates from 2004 by the fusion of four regional water authorities and one Water Control Board in western Brabant. The key tasks are the prevention of floods, pollution, depletion and extinction. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) protects water bodies in Europe and aims that these should achieve a ‘good status’ before 2015. In order to fulfill the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive, the regional water authority has to take some measurements. This is done by the development of a management system per water body, transboundary cooperation, the maintenance and improvement of the environmental interest and the reduction of pollutants. This affects the regional water authority Brabantse Delta as well; for several streams in the management area hydromorphological monitoring is necessary for assessing the quality of the water and the ecology of the stream.

1.1 Idea behind the research - Context During the internship a hydromorphological monitoring, survey and analysis was performed for one stream in Noord-Brabant; the Merkske (figure 1). An earlier trainee developed a monitoring method, based on different European techniques (Hrvatske Vode, 2013), using a spreadsheet with different parameters (Ruiz, 2012). First a survey strategy was developed for the Merkske. Then all the data, necessary for the spreadsheet, has been collected in the office, the unknown parameters were collected in the field and office data was verified if necessary. Improvements for the spreadsheet were advised when necessary. At the end the regional water authority Brabantse Delta will be informed about the current hydromorphological status and possible improvements of the hydromorphological monitoring method, the spreadsheet and the storage possibilities of the collected data.

Figure 1. Overview location Merkske (red) in the management area of the water board Brabantse Delta.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 1|

August 2013

1.2 Internship objectives A hydromorphological monitoring, survey and analysis has been performed to assess the hydromorphological conditions of a water system in the management area of regional water authority Brabantse Delta, to analyse into what extent the water system meets the EU-WFD requirements. The monitoring was carried out with an earlier developed method in which hydromorphological parameters of the Merkske stream were arrived from the EU-WFD. The method was used during the hydromorphological monitoring and the expectation of the hydromorphological state of the Merkske was assessed based on the results. Because the monitoring method has not been applied in the field yet, shortcomings regarding not measurable or missing parameters were expected. An analysis to additions and advice regarding the monitoring method and the current water management is performed.

The two major research questions were therefore:  Does the hydromorphological condition of the Merkske meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, and how are shortcomings resolved?  To what extent is the hydromorphological monitoring method suitable for (WFD) water bodies in western Brabant, and what are possible improvements?

The major research questions have been answered by a number of objectives: 1. The requirements of the Water Framework Directive; 2. Hydromorphological monitoring requirements; 3. Review and analysis of the current monitoring method and the current spreadsheet; 4. Development of monitoring strategy; 5. Apply monitoring strategy; 6. Analysis, reporting and advice.

These objectives were divided in a theoretical and a practical examination. Objective one and two were covered during a theoretical investigation. The third to the sixth objective were completed during a practical examination.

1.3 Report outline This thesis exists out of 9 different chapters, after the introduction chapter 2 starts with some general information of the regional water authority Brabantse Delta. This is followed by a literature study which focuses in chapter 3 on the Water Framework Directive and the possible hydromorphological parameters and scoring systems. The literature review focuses on the requirements of the European Union. The best survey strategy is selected and elaborated in chapter 5. The collected data in the field and at the office are described in chapter 6. This data can be used to assess the final hydromorphological conditions of the water body. The results of the hydromorphological monitoring are given in chapter 7. A synthesis of the results follows in chapter 8.

In this chapter possible adjustments in the current monitoring and survey method are given, this is followed by different methods to improve the current hydromorphological state of the Merkske. This synthesis is followed by chapter 9, which provides conclusions answering the major research question and a set of recommendations for adjustments in the current management method and methods to improve the hydromorphology of the Merkske.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 2|

August 2013

2.

Regional water authority Brabantse Delta

Regional water authority Brabantse Delta originates from 2004 by the fusion of four regional water authoritys and one Water Control Board in western Brabant. The key tasks are the prevention of floods, pollution, depletion and extinction. The western part of Noord-Brabant from the line Waalwijk/Baarle-Nassau is the management area of this regional water authority (figure 1).

The northwestern part of the management area is dominated by polders located at or -1.80 meter below N.A.P. (Amsterdam Ordnance Datum). The southeasterly part of the area exists out of sandy soil with an elevation of approximately 30.00 meter above N.A.P. The internship is carried out for the department Knowledge and Advice housed in the headquarter of the regional water authority Brabantse delta in Breda. This department supports the primary sector water systems, monitors the processes of water systems and advices on operational and water management policies. The main tasks include monitoring of water quality and quantity and advising from different disciplines such as hydrology / hydraulics, ecology and water quality (chemistry).

Klaas-Jan Douben, water management specialist, and Daniel Coenen, senior advisor water management, of the regional water authority Brabantse Delta are the supervisors of the MSc internship.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 3|

August 2013

3.

Water Framework Directive and hydromorphological monitoring

This chapter pay some attention to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive with respect to the ‘good status’ and the most important hydromorphological parameters.

3.1 Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive was introduced in 2000 to protect inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. This directive requires that all these waters need to achieve a ‘good’ ecological and chemical status before 2015. This ecological status depends on the chemistry, biology and hydromorphology. The interpretation of the ecological status and functioning of a water system is performed by a hydromorphological monitoring. The ‘good’ ecological and chemical status is achieved (or maintained) by the development of a management system per river basin, trans boundary cooperation, maintenance and improvement of the environmental interests and reduction of pollutants. The protection of further degradation of an aquatic ecosystem is mandatory and enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment is intended. Sustainable water use should be promoted and progressive reduction of groundwater pollution is required. The Water Framework Directive contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.

In the Netherlands the Water Framework Directive is translated into national policy principles, frameworks and tools. In the water management agreement is recorded how the cooperation should be between the provinces, regional water authorities and municipalities. The Minister of Infrastructure and Environment is responsible for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands.

3.1.1 Requirements ‘good status’ water bodies The ‘good status’ of ground- and surface waters in the European Union is defined in terms of ecosystem ‘health’ based upon classification of the elements below:  Biological quality: assessed by fish, benthic invertebrates and aquatic flora.  Hydromorphological quality: assessed by river bank structure, river continuity and substrate of the river bed.  Physical-chemical quality: assessed by temperature, oxygenation and nutrient conditions.  Chemical quality: assessed by environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants.  Groundwater: assessed by quantitative status and chemical status.

Especially the biological quality is important since this reflects the quality of water and disturbance of the environment over a longer period of time. The ecological status is assessed per water body (river, lake, transitional or coastal water). The status classification scheme includes five different classes:  High: no to very low human pressure (reference condition);  Good: slightly altered from the reference condition;  Moderate: one or more of the biological elements may be moderately altered;  Poor: one or more biological quality elements are major altered;  Bad: severe alternations such that a large proportion of the reference biological community is absent (Solheim, A.L., Austnes, K., Kristensen, P., Peterlin, M., Kodeš, V., Collins, R., Semerádová, S., Künitzer, A., Filippi, R., Prchalová, H., Spiteri, C. and Prins, T., 2012).

A schematic overview of the ecological classification is given in figure 2.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 4|

August 2013

Figure 2. Classification ecological status (Solheim, A.L., Austnes, K., Kristensen, P., Peterlin, M., Kodeš, V., Collins, R., Semerádová, S., Künitzer, A., Filippi, R., Prchalová, H., Spiteri, C. and Prins, T., 2012).

3.1.2 Hydromorphological monitoring Hydromorphology is the study of landscape shapes as developed under the influence of water. The shapes and the water are part of a larger system in which plants and animals are affected by water, sediment and soil location, and the landscape and vice versa. During a hydromorphological monitoring the ecological status of a water body is investigated. Since the introduction of the Water Framework Directive, hydromorphological monitoring plays an important role. The hydromorphological conditions were determined using different hydromorphological parameters.

These parameters were derived from the European hydromorphological quality elements defined in the manual hydromorphology of Rijkswaterstaat (van Dam et al., 2007). In this manual the Dutch water systems are classified into three main types: 1. The R-type: rivers, streams and tidal rivers; 2. The M-type: lakes, ditches and canals; 3. The K&O-type: coastal and transitional waters.

For these water systems types different hydromorphological parameters are defined. In this report the R-type monitoring is assessed. During a hydromorphological monitoring of a river system the characteristics of river dynamics, forms, water balance, bank characteristics are investigated and described. This will give a water manager more insight in the current situation, problems and possible solutions (van Dam et al., 2007).

A standard protocol for determining the degree of river morphology modification is described in the EN 15843 guidance standard. This standard assesses the modification of hydromorphological features of river channels, banks, riparian zone and floodplain. According to the European Standard EN 15843 the hydromorphological assessment of a river should be based on 16 features (table 1) which are subdivided in core- and subsidiary features. Core features are used to determine the departure from naturalness as a result of human pressures on hydromorphology. Subsidiary features contribute to habitat quality assessment (Boon et al., 2010). It is dependent on the parameter, which WFD-score can be used. This subdivision affects the score: core features are double as important as subsidiary features. Each feature is tested in the field or in the office using one or a number of

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 5|

August 2013

parameters. This results in a score of 1 to 5 for core features, and 1, 3 or 5 for subsidiary features.

Parameters that have not been evaluated are assigned with value zero, these are not taken into account during the assessment.

Table 1. Core features and subsidiary features according to the EN 15843 (En 15843) and the measurement method according to the monitoring strategy of Ruiz (2012).

Category 1. Channel geometry 1a. Planform 1b. Channel section (long-section and cross-section) Variation in width Variation in depth Features 2. Substrates 2a. Extent of artificial material 2b. "Natural" substrate mix or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3a. Aquatic vegetation management 3b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion / deposition character 5. Flow 5a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type / structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel - floodplain interactions 10a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Core

Subsidiary

V V

Quantitative measurement

Qualitative measurement

V

V

V V V V V

V V

V V V

V V V

V V

V V

V

V

V

V

V V

V

V

V V V

V

V

V

V

A detailed approach of every feature as is described by Daniel Montejo Ruiz (2012) is given in appendix I. In the final report all the scores of the parameters are presented in one table. The scores of all parameters are combined to create a single mean score for hydromorphology, scores should be rounded up or down to the nearest integer. Each parameters or set of parameters is evaluated and given a WFD-score with color coding. The used scores, colors and the degree of naturalness are used to describe the hydromorphological status (table 2).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 6|

August 2013 Table 2. Score system hydromorphological monitoring (EN 15843, 2010).

Core feature Degree of naturalness Near natural (reference) Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified

Subsidiary feature Score 1.0 tot < 1.5 1.5 tot < 2.5 2.5 tot < 3.5 3.5 tot < 4.5 4.5 tot < 5.0

Degree of naturalness Near natural to slightly modified

Score 1.0 tot < 2.5

Slightly to moderately modified

2.5 tot < 3.5

Extensively to severely modified

3.5 tot < 5.0

The derivation of a parameter usually leads directly to a score, if this is not the case, reference metrics of Stowa are used (van Dam, et al., 2007).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 7|

August 2013

4.

Research locations

The research was performed in the Merkske valley, below a short introduction is given about the history and the current situation of these two streams.

4.1 Merkske The Merkske is a small stream along the border between the Netherlands and Belgium. The stream basin has a surface of 5980 hectares, of which 2860 ha is located in the Netherlands and 3175 ha in Belgium. The Merkske originates in seepage source areas in the valley of the Merkske, the Marksken and the Noordermark (Belgium), and is supplemented with areas with seepage of deep groundwater like the Manke Goren (near Broskens) and the Moer (Belgium) (Melisie, 2007). The valley has a total length of approximately 15 km, while the mean stream has a length of 11 kilometres. The surface level varies between 29 meters above NAP in the east, to 11 meters in the west of the area. Over a length of approximately 15 kilometres the surface thus decreases nearly 20 meters. The main watercourses are shown in figure 3.

Figure 3. Stream valley Merkske (Everts et al., 2002).

Originally the Merkske valley was covered with forests. Since the Medieval the landscape changed as people settled in the area. On higher elevations, settlements arose and lands were mined for arable land. The soil was used as meadows and pastures while the forests were transformed into heath for sheep. This mining structure changed in the 19th century, due to the invention of the fertilizer, drainage and land consolidation increased. Due to lowering of the water level, depletion and incision occurred. This resulted in a decrease of seepage in the adjacent grasslands and more seepage in the stream (Melisie, 2007). The extent of the agricultural lands rose sharply and heath lands were transformed into agriculture. Forests, heath and very extensive wet grasslands decreased rapidly (Melisie et al., 2007). In the current situation the natural flow of the Merkske is still intact, heath lands were restored, and agriculture remained relatively extensive, this resulted in a unique nature area (Melisie, 2007). Nowadays, the valley consists out of a succession of pastures, hayfields, carr, hedgerows, agriculture and small cultivations.

The Merkske meanders spontaneously and water depth and stream profile varies by the presence of outer-bend scours (Kleinhans, 2010) (figure 4).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 8|

August 2013

Figure 4. Meandering Merkske (Melisie et al., 2007).

The water quality is characterized by high percentages of phosphate, nitrate and heavy metals.

Discharge is relatively constant and varies throughout the season, high peak discharges only occur during extreme rainfall events. The average flow rate is approximately 20 centimetres per second (Melisie et al., 2007). The fish population is diverse and surrounding fens are inhabited by a speciesrich amphibian population. The valley has still some associated landscape and nature values like the dragonflies Calopteryx virgo and Calopteryx splendens and the European tree frog (Hylaarborea). The Halsche Beemden is one of the most natural areas in the Merkske stream valley.

The flow rate is measured in the Merkske at the Stenen brug in Castelrè, the flow rate per year is shown in the figure below, and during winter season the flow rate is relatively high. The measurement location â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Merkske Castelre4503 A6 h qâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is shown in figure 6. The average daily flow rate is 0.54 m3/s, this value is calculated for the period between 1986 and 2013. The flow rates of the small tributaries channels along the Merkske are not measured.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 9|

August 2013

8 7 6

Flow rate (m3/s)

5 4 3 2 1 0 1986

1991

1996

Year

2001

2006

2011

Figure 5. Day average flow rate at the Stenenbrug in Castelrè (measurement location shown in figure 6: Merkske Castelre4503 A6 h q).

In the Water Framework Directive the Merkske is described as ‘Permanent slowly flowing upper reach on sand’ (R4). The hydromorphological targets from the regional water authority Brabantse Delta and the province Noord-Brabant are shown in the table below.

Table 3. Hydromorphological targets for the Merkske (Melisie et al., 2007; Buskens and de Wilde, 2002).

Hydrology Gradient Flow velocity Supply Hydrous Flood frequency Level fluctuation Incision Morphology Profile shape Trace shape Sedimentation and erosion Transporting power Stream section Vegetation cover stream Substrate and soil Substrate type Morpho-dynamics

Unit m/km m/sec weeks/year x days/year m m Unit

Near natural (good) <1 0,1 - 0.5 Mixed (40% precipitation) > 50 >0 <1 <1 Near natural (good) Assymetric Curling to meandering Sinuosity > 1.2 Moderate

Near natural (very good) <1 0,1 - 0.5 Mixed > 50 < 60 <1 < 0.6 Near natural (very good) Assymetric Meandering Sinuosity > 1.5 Moderate

m3/year Unit (%)

25 - 150 Near natural (good) <20

25 - 150 Near natural (very good) <40

Unit

Near natural (good) Sand, loam Moderate

Near natural (very good) Sand, loam Moderate

The fieldwork was carried out in July 2013. During the fieldwork, the waterlevel at the Stenenbrug in Castelrè was approximately 9 meters above NAP, water velocity was 0,11 m/s and the discharge was approximately 0,37 m3/s.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 10 |

August 2013

5.

Survey strategy

Before all data was collected in the field, first a survey strategy was made. According to the European standard (EN 14641, 2002), three survey strategies were possible:  Survery of the whole reach; o Single survery: the entire reach is assessed in a single survey unit; o Contiguous survery: the reach is split into a series of contiguous survey units.  Sampling within a reach; o Survey units are located at random along the reach, or using any other statistically valid approaches.

The survey strategy and parameters depend on the size of the river: the smaller the river the smaller the reach length. For small rivers (≥ 1 meter deep and ≤ 7 meter wide or surface river basin < 100 m 2) the total reach length is 200 meter with sub-reaches of 40 meter (Lehotský & Grešková, 2004; Scheifhacken et al., 2012; Šípek, V., Matoušková, 2010; Iovak Rupublic, 2004). For larger rivers the reach length is 500 meter with sub-reaches of 100 meter (Lehotský & Grešková, 2004). The reaches are subdivided into five sub-reaches of the same length (40 meters). Through the use of sub-reaches, subjective choice in the field is prevented (Lehotský & Grešková, 2004). The above mentioned survey strategy was used to give a degree of naturalness classification. In posterior river management a more detailed collection of data was needed, with a higher accuracy.

Because the Merkske is located in a relative homogenous landscape, the sampling within a reach survey strategy is chosen. Because the Merkske is, according to above strategy, a small river, reaches of 100 meter up-and downstream (200 m in total) of a monitoring point were chosen (Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, 2013). Lateral survey boundaries of 50 meter from the centre of the stream encompass all floodplain features (CEN 14614, 2002; Weiβ, 2008). The reaches have been selected at representative locations for the general water body condition. The reaches were selected by differences in geology (soil type, geomorphology, seepage), river planform (meandering, straight), slope (elevation), discharge (input branches and changes in the mainstream), land use (agriculture, housing) and sediment transport (artificial structures). The more differences in geology, river planform, drainage, land use and sediment transport, the more reaches were needed to cover the hydromorphological factors of the water body. The total length of the Merkske is 10,935 kilometres which is divided in nine different reaches (figure 6).

Figure 6. Selected reaches Merkske. The red areas indicate the buffer zones around the monitoring points (green dots). The purple dot indicates the measurement location of Merkske Castelre4503 A6 h q. The orange dots indicate groundwater measurement locations.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 11 |

August 2013

In addition to the nine reaches, all artificial structures and associated tributaries were inspected in the field. The changes in environmental conditions are summarized in the table below.

Table 4. Selection and changing environmental conditions per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 4 9

6 3 8

Changing environmental conditions Land use (intensive agriculture: corn), slope (low elevation) and broad floodplain.

Soil type (loamy fine sand) and geomorphology (stream valley deposits are interrupted by sandy aeolian deposits.

Soil type (poor and weak loamy fine sand), land use (intensive agriculture: potatoes).

Seepage (low), land use (extensive agriculture: hay fields).

Seepage (high), sinuosity (average), land use (forest).

Sinuosity (low), land use (forests and extensive agriculture: hay fields), soil type (poor and week loamy fine sand), seepage (average), narrow floodplain.

Land use (unknown) and soil type (peat on sand).

Soil type (peat surrounded by sand).

Slope (high elevation), sinuosity (high), seepage (high) and narrow floodplain.

GPS coordinates 112.281, 382.544 112.602, 382.410 113.409, 382.456 114.376, 382.282 116.670, 381.487 115.385, 381.884

117.016, 381.120 117.369, 380.937 118.167, 380.583

The reaches were divided in different sub-reaches of 40 metres in which the following parameters are monitored during the fieldwork:  1.b Channel section;  2. Substrates;  3. Channel vegetation and organic debris;  4. Erosion / deposition character;  5.a Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach;  7. Bank structure and modifications;  8. Vegetation type / structure on banks and adjacent land.

In addition to the monitoring at the sub-reaches, the artificial structures along the stream were separately examined to determine their impact on the hydromorphology. When the hydraulic structures do not have an influence on hydromorphology, they were not taken into account.

However, when clear hydromorphological changes and influences were visible, a new reach was ascribed. The input of associated tributaries and the subsequent changes in the main stream are also investigated in the field. The average result of the hydromorphological effects of the tributaries are used during the hydromorphological monitoring. The hydraulic structures and associated tributaries which needed an individual, more extensive monitoring were added afterwards to the selected and investigated reaches. So this assessment is no longer necessary in the future.

The five sub-reaches per reach have each individual codes and coordinates, so the regional water authority Brabantse Delta will easily find the reaches in the field. All parameters measured or determined are accompanied by photographs of the relevant parameter in the sub-reaches. In the end this will lead to the final score for each parameter (Waterschap Peel en Maasvalley, 2005).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 12 |

August 2013

6.

Hydromorphological monitoring

The hydromorphological monitoring is performed for the Merkske. For this research, the hydromorphological monitoring system of Daniel Montejo Ruiz was used (Ruiz, 2012). This monitoring system uses the 16 features of the European Standard EN15843, these features are divided in three different zones: channel, riparian and floodplain (CEN 15843, 2010). The used features are summarized in table 1. The hydromorphological classification of the features may be quantitative or qualitative depending on the type of determination. A short description and a table of details of all features are given in appendix I. At the office and in the field the spreadsheet was used to collect data and to calculate the final hydromorphological state, the completed sheets can be found in appendix III. Between July 1th and 23th all data are collected for the Merkske in the field and at the office. In the subparagraphs below the results are shown for all reaches.

6.1 Channel geometry The channel geometry feature is part of the channel zone. The channel geometry is estimated on small and larger scale geometry. On the large scale the naturalness of the planform is determined while on the small scale the channel section is estimated with channel depth, width and the presence of features.

6.1.1 Planform The length of the valley centreline is determined using a digital elevation map in GIS, reach seven is used as an example (figure 7). The naturalness of the planform is determined with the sinuosity (meander ratio in Ruiz, 2012). This feature is measured quantitatively; calculation of sinuosity, and qualitatively; the visual expert judgment of the channel planform.

Figure 7. Topographic map in which the grey line represents the valley centreline, the blue line represents the river channel length. The boundaries of the reach are indicated by the red area.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 13 |

August 2013

The calculation of the sinuosity of reach 7 is given below:

The sinuosity of 1.59 indicates a moderately modified system. The sinuosity corresponds with the ‘not real meandering’ class, with 3 – moderately modified as hydromorphological state. The same calculation is done for the other reaches, the results are given in the table below.

Table 5. Scores sinuosity feature 1a.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Sinuosity 1.59 1.26 1.39 1.06 1.04 1.32 1.41 1.48 2.13

Hydromorphological state 3.0 – moderately modified 2.5 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 3.5 – extensively modified 5.0 – severely modified 2.5 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 2.5 – slightly modified 3.0 – slightly modified

The final average hydromorphological state for the channel geometry parameter planform is 2.67 – moderately modified.

Because the meandering of the Merkske seemed to be quite natural and the monitoring strategy is not tested yet for a large stream, another calculation method is applied for the whole Merkske.

When the sinuosity of the whole Merkske was calculated, this results in a sinuosity of 1.52.

This sinuosity score seems to represent the hydromorphological state of the planform much better, probably due to the large spread meanders of the meanders and the relatively small length of the reaches. The sinuosity of the whole Merkske is therefore used as final hydromorphological state for this feature for every reach. The final hydromorphological state is thus 2.5 – moderately modified.

6.1.2 Channel section The channel section is determined using three different parameters: variation in width, variation in depth and the presence of special features. All these parameters are measured in the field, examples of the different parameters are given below.

Variation in width The width variation was quite difficult to measure in the field on 6 subreaches due to the steep river banks and the depth of the Merkske. The width at the reaches 7, 2 and 1 were measured using a metric rod (figure 8). In case the water depth was too deep or the river banks to steep, the channel width was determined in ArcGIS with aerial photographs and a digital elevation model. The results are shown in the table below.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 14 |

August 2013 Table 6. Variation in width (feature 1b).

Reach 7 2

Used measurement technique Metric rod Metric rod

Number of measuring points 6 6

Differences in width 24 % 30 %

1

Metric rod

6

32 %

5

GIS and aerial photographs

6

36 %

9

GIS and aerial photographs

6

38 %

4 6 3

GIS and aerial photographs GIS and aerial photographs GIS and aerial photographs

6 6 6

22 % 16 % 30 %

8

GIS and aerial photographs

6

20 %

Hydromorphological state 2.4 – slightly modified 3.0 – moderately modified 3.2 – moderately modified 3.6 – extensively modified 3.8 – extensively modified 2.2 – slightly modified 1.6 – slightly modified 3.0 – moderately modified 2.0 – slightly modified

The average hydromorphological state for this parameter is 2.76 – moderately modified. In the figure below the measurement of the channel width in reach 2, was carried out with a metric rod.

Figure 8. Determination channel width using a metric rod, reach 2 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 15 |

August 2013

Variation in depth The variation in depth is measured on five different locations in a cross section with a metric rod. A standard deviation is used when using the metric rod and a score from 1 to 5 is given. Changes in discharge do not influence the hydromorphological state.

Table 7. Variation in depth (feature 1b).

Reach Used measurement technique 7 Metric rod 2 Metric rod 1 Metric rod 5 Metric rod 9 Metric rod 4 Metric rod 6 Metric rod 3 Metric rod 8 Metric rod

Differences in depth

Hydromorphological state

Standard deviation ≥ 0.05 – 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.05 – 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.05 – 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.05 – 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.01 – 0.05 Standard deviation ≥ 0.05 – 0.08 Standard deviation ≥ 0.05 – 0.08

2.4 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural 1.4 – near natural 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.6 – moderately modified 1.6 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified

The cross sections of all reaches measured in the field are given in the figure below. The average hydromorphological state is 1.93 – slightly modified.

16

15

14

Height (+NAP) (m)

7 13

2 1 5

12

9 4

11

6 3

10

8 9

8 0

2

4

6

8

10

Width (m) Figure 9. Cross sections reaches Merkske.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 16 |

August 2013

In above figure the bank height is determined in ArcGIS, the measured channel depth and width are given relatively to the bank height. As can be seen from above figure there is no two phase profile present at the Merkske. All profiles are measured in the field July 2013. The method of channel depth determination in reach 2 is shown in figure 10.

Figure 10. Determination of the depth variation in reach 2 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Features: bars, riffles, pools and canalizations Sedimentary and stream features such as the visibility of the channel bottom, sand ripples, bars, pools or water ripples and canalizations are determined in the field. The more features are visible, the more natural the channel. The hydromorphological state for this feature and the hydromorphological state per reach for this feature are given in the table below.

Table 8. Overview hydromorphological state features per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Hydromorphological state 3.0 – moderately modified 1.2 – near natural 3.0 – moderately modified 3.0 – moderately modified 2.4 – moderately modified 3.0 – moderately modified 3.0 – moderately modified 1.8 – slightly modified 3.0 – moderately modified

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 17 |

August 2013

The average hydromorophological state for this parameter is 2.6 – moderately modified. However, this score does not seems to correspond with the scoring method as described in appendix I (Ruiz, 2012). When all three features are present and there is no canalization, the final hydromorphological state should be 1 – near natural. This is not the case in above table, these scores were therefore modified. The correct scores are given in the table below and appendix III. Table 9. Overview scoring features per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Hydromorphological state 1.2 – near natural 0.4 – near natural 1.4 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.4 – near natural 1.2 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 0.8 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

The final hydromorophological state for this parameter is 1.04 – near natural. In the figure below an example is given of the found features. Water ripples or pools were less visible compared to bars and sand ripples in the Merkske.

Figure 11. Channel bottom, sand ripples, bars and water ripples (red circle) are clearly visible in reach 7 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 18 |

August 2013

The final results of the feature channel section are given in the table below.

Table 10. Overview scoring features per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Width variation

Hydromorphological state Depth variation Features

2.4 – slightly modified 3.0 – moderately modified 3.2 – moderately modified 3.6 – extensively modified 3.8 – extensively modified 2.2 – slightly modified 1.6 – slightly modified 3.0 – moderately modified 2.0 – slightly modified

2.4 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural 1.4 – near natural 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.6 – moderately modified 1.6 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified

Total

1.2 – near natural

2.0 – slightly modified

0.4 – near natural

1.6 – slightly modified

1.4 – near natural

2.0 – slightly modified

1.0 – near natural

2.2 – slightly modified

1.4 – near natural

2.4 – slightly modified

1.2 – near natural

1.8 – slightly modified

1.0 – near natural

1.7 – slightly modified

0.8 – near natural

1.8 – slightly modified

1.0 – near natural

1.7 – slightly modified

The average hydromorphological state for the channel geometry parameter channel section is 1.91 – slightly modified. The final hydromorphological state for the feature channel geometry is 2.21 – slightly modified.

6.2 Substrates The bed substrate is the second feature of the European standard (EN14614, 2002). This feature uses two different approaches; the presence of substrate modifications due to river management and the presence of not completely natural substrate mixture. The substrate feature is part of the channel zone.

6.2.1 Extent of artificial material The extent of artificial material is tested by the presence of an artificial river bed. This parameter is determined for all the reaches in the field, the results of the reaches are given in the table below.

Table 11. Extent of artificial material per reach. * the extent of artificial material is not measured due to an invisible channel floor or too deep water.

Reach

Extent of artificial material (%)

Kind of artificial material

7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3

0% 5% 0% 2% 0 %* 0 %* 0 %* 0 %*

None Rocks None Water extraction hose, brick None None None None

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

Hydromorphological state 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural

P a g e 19 |

August 2013

Reach

Extent of artificial material (%)

Kind of artificial material

8

0 %*

None

Hydromorphological state 1 – near natural

In reach 2 rocks were present in the river bed while in reach 5 a water extraction hose was located on the channel bottom (figure 12). The overall hydromorphological state for this parameter is 1 – near natural.

Figure 12. Water extraction hose fixed with a brick, reach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013).

6.2.2 Natural substrate mix or character altered The degree of naturalness of the bed substrate is per reach determined in the field. The results of all the reaches are given in the table below.

Table 12. Degree of naturalness bed substrate per reach.

Reach

Extent of artificial material (%)

Kind of artificial substrate

7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

None None None None None None None None None

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

Hydromorphological state 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural 1 – near natural

P a g e 20 |

August 2013

The average hydromorphological state of this parameter is 1.0 – near natural. In none of the reaches altered substrate mix was found. The final average hydromorphological state for the substrates feature is therefore; 1.0 – near natural.

6.3 Channel vegetation and organic debris The ecological development of the channel is assessed with aquatic vegetation, the presence of roots and woody debris. The channel vegetation and organic debris is part of the channel zone.

6.3.1 Aquatic vegetation management For this parameter the vegetation type and the number of aquatic species were determined, this is done by visual inspection. For this parameter forest cover is very important; when the channel is covered by forests the expected channel vegetation should be lower and the percentage of roots higher. Thus the hydromorphological state depends mainly on the existence of roots, the presence of a forest cover and the number of aquatic species. The number of aquatic species and the type of aquatic vegetation (emergent / submerged / floating) evaluates the biodiversity in the channel. Two examples of reach 9 and 5 are given in below figures.

Figure 13. Emergent and submerged vegetation in reach 9 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Figure 14. Submerged and floating vegetation in reach 5. (photograph made by author, 2013)

Channel vegetation in reach 5 is very rare, only one specie is present, while the channel vegetation in reach 9 is extensive, this can also be seen in the final score of this parameter in this reach (table 13).

Table 13. Results aquatic vegetation management.

Reach 7 2 1 5

Hydromorphological state 1.6 – slightly modified 1.8 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 21 |

August 2013

Reach 9 4 6 3 8

Hydromorphological state 1.2 – near natural 2.8 – moderately modified 2.6 – moderately modified 2.4 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural

The final average hydromorphological state of this parameter is 1.91 – slightly modified.

6.3.2 Extent of woody debris if expected The extent of woody debris will give a score when the subreach is covered by forests. When there is no forest cover, woody debris is not expected and the final score will be zero. In the selected reaches woody debris was sporadically present in low percentages due to the absence of forest cover. In the picture below an example is shown.

Figure 15. Woody debris in reach 8 (photograph made by author, 2013).

The results per reach are given in the table below, the hydromorphological state for this parameter is 2.03 – slightly modified.

Table 14. Percentages woody debris per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3

Percentage woody debris (%) 2% 4% 5.6 % 4.2 % 6.8 % 1.8 % 4% 0%

Hydromorphological monitoring

Hydromorphological state 5.0 – severely modified 0.0 – no forest cover 0.0 – no forest cover 2.6 – moderately modified 2.0 – slightly modified 0.0 – no forest cover 5.0 – severely modified 0.0 – no forest cover

Final

P a g e 22 |

August 2013

Reach 8

Percentage woody debris (%) 1.6 %

Hydromorphological state 3.7 – extensively modified

The average hydromorphological state of the Merkske for this feature is 1.97 – slightly modified.

6.4 Erosion and deposition character The erosion and deposition character of the Merkske is determined during a visual inspection in the field. The hydromorphological state per reach are given in the table below, the final hydromorphological state is 1.4 – near natural. The erosion and deposition character is part of the channel zone.

Table 15. Erosion and sedimentary structures scorings per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Hydromorphological state per reach 1.8 – slightly modified 3.0 – moderately modified 1.4 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.4 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.4 – near natural

In figure 16 a small point-bar is visible on the left side of the channel, on the right site the banks are very steep due to erosion.

Figure 16. Erosion (blue arrow) and sedimentation (red arrow) in reach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 23 |

August 2013

6.5 Flow The flow feature monitors the water behaviour with three parameters: flow modification at a specific point, the effects of catchment modifications on water discharge and the effects of daily discharge alteration. The flow feature belongs to the channel zone.

6.5.1 Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach Artificial in-channel structures such as bridge pillars, multiple or very thick pillars were surveyed within the reaches. The results for all reaches are given in table 16. The final average hydromorphological state for this parameter is 1.02 – near natural.

Table 16. Artificial in-channel structures.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Kind of artificial in-channel structures None None None Small wooden piles None None None None None

Hydromorphological state 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.2 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

The bank protection located in the stream is included. An example of this parameter is given for reach 5 in figure 17.

Figure 17. Small wooden piles in reach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 24 |

August 2013

6.5.2 Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character The effects of catchment-wide modifications such as drainage ditches and dikes surveyed and were quantified with a percentage over the reach area. An example for reach seven is shown in the figure below. The area drained by drainage ditches is measured in ArcGIS.

Figure 18. Measurement surface surrounded by drainage ditches in reach 7.

The surface area of reach 7 is 17,326.33 m2 while the area surrounded by drainage ditches is 3,946.64 m2. The total area surrounded by drainage ditches is thus 22.78%, this percentage is an indicator for a slightly modified system. In the table below all the results of the reaches are given.

The final hydromorphological state of this parameter is 1.33 – near natural.

Table 17. Effects of catchment – wide modifications.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Total area surrounded by drainage ditches (%) 22.78 % 22.47 % 10.11 % 25.26 % 2.78 % 4.83 % 16.95 % 10.37 % 0%

Hydromorphological state 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 2.0 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

6.5.3 Effects of daily flow alternation For this parameter the discharge management at weirs or dams is further described for the main stream and the tributary streams. In the Merkske no weirs or dams are located in the main stream.

There are several weirs in the six tributary streams (figure 19).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 25 |

August 2013

Figure 19. Weirs in the tributaries of the Merkske.

For the survey these weirs are half as relevant (barriers / 2 tributaries) as any barrier present in the Merkske. The total amount of weirs in the Merkske is seven, all located in the tributaries. The weirs are all manually managed. A summary of the results is given in the table below, the average hydromorphological state is 1.0 – near natural.

Table 18. Number of weir and dams in the Merkske and tributaries.

Manually managed Number of weirs / dams in 0 the mean stream Number of weirs / dams in 7 the tributaries

Automatically managed 0

Hydromorphological state 1.0 – near natural

0

The final average hydromorphological state of the total feature ‘flow’ is thus 1.12 – near natural.

6.6 Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures The effect of artificial structures on fish passages and sediments is described for this feature of the channel zone. The assessment of both parameters is based on the classification of the artificial barriers such as culverts, and their impact on fish and sediments. First the number of barriers was determined per reach, then the type of barrier and the transport effects on fish migration were described. When a barrier is obstructing the fish and sediment transport, due to wood or garbage for example, this is recorded. The Merkske consists in total 11 artificial structures; six bridges, four culverts and one fish ladder. The fish ladder is no obstruction for fish or sediments so this artificial structure is not taken into account. In three reaches an artificial structure is located, all the other artificial structures outside the reaches were also visited in the field. The locations of the barriers are given in figure 20.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 26 |

August 2013

Figure 20. Artificial structures in, and around the Merkske. Red dots indicate the culverts, blue dots indicate fish ladders while purple bridge symbols indicate bridges.

The assessment of the artificial structures within the reaches was performed with the data given in table 19. The other artificial structures were inspected as well; these structures do not have any obstructions. The average hydromorphological state for this parameter is 1.0 – near natural.

Table 19. Fish and sediment continuity assessment.

Barrier Type structure 7 Bridge 5 Culvert 3 Culvert

of Fish migration Possible Possible Possible

Obstruction of passing structure None None None

the Hydromorphological state 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

In the pictures below some of the artificial structures are shown.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 27 |

August 2013

Figure 21.Left: fish ladder downstream of the ‘Stenen Brug’, Castelrè. Top right: bridge in reach 7 is in decay. Lower right: culvert in reach 5.

6.7 Bank structure and modifications Bank structure and modifications are the first feature of the riparian zone. For this parameter the channel banks are inspected for bank substrate and artificial influences, the bank height is determined in the field. The scorings of these two parameters are given in table 20. Below the table also an example is given of the found bank protection.

Table 20. Scores bank structure and modifications.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Score bank averaged slope 1.8 – slightly modified 1.2 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 2.6 – moderately modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.2 – slightly modified 2.2 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 1.4 – near natural

Score bank modifications 2.6 – moderately modified 1.8 – slightly modified 1.8 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

Hydromorphological state 2.2 – slightly modified 1.5 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural 2.0 – near natural 1.5 – slightly modified 1.6 – slightly modified 1.6 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 1.2 – slightly modified

The final hydromorphological state of this feature is 1.56 – slightly modified. On a few locations along the Merkske, plastic bank protection was found (figure 22), because this is not an ecological bank protection, the lowest score (5) is assigned to this sub reach.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 28 |

August 2013

Figure 22. Plastic bank protection in reach 2, subreach 5 (photograph made by author, 2013).

6.8 Vegetation type and structure on banks and adjacent land The vegetation type and structure on the river banks and the adjacent land is determined for this feature of the riparian zone. First the type of vegetation was determined: none, herbs, herbs and bushes or herbs, bushes and trees. Then an estimation of the total number of species on the location of the sub-reach was made during the visual inspection (vegetation type). This resulted in the first score off this feature, then the vegetation was inspected on overhanging and tunneling, and the number of cuttings per year was determined (vegetation structure).

Table 21. Hydromorphological state vegetation type, bank structure and total state.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Hydromorphological state vegetation type 1.2 – near natural 1.8 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.2 – slightly modified 1.4 – near natural 1.8 – slightly modified 1.8 – slightly modified 2.8 – moderately modified 2.0 – slightly modified

Hydromorphological state score structure banks 3.2 – moderately modified 3.6 – extensively modified 3.2 – moderately modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 1.2 – near natural 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.4 – slightly modified

Hydromorphological state 2.2 – slightly modified 2.7 – moderately modified 2.6 – moderately modified 2.1 – slightly modified 1.7 – slightly modified 1.5 – slightly modified 1.9 – slightly modified 2.4 – slightly modified 2.2 – slightly modified

The final hydromorphological of this feature is 2.14 – slightly modified. An example of a very natural bank (reach 9) is given in figure 23 while an example of a moderately modified channel bank is given in figure 24 (reach 2).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 29 |

August 2013

Figure 23. Bank structure and vegetation reach 9.

Figure 24. Bank structure and vegetation reach 2.

In the figure below an overview of the cutting locations along the Merkske is given. As can be seen there is one cutting per year in the reaches 7, 2, 1 and 5, no cutting occurs in the other reaches.

Figure 25. Determining the number of cuttings per year (http://brabantsedelta.webgispublisher.nl/?map=maaibestekken%202013#).

6.9 Channel-floodplain interactions The last river zone is the floodplain zone, the land use, lateral connectivity and the lateral movement of the stream is determined for this zone. The floodplain is defined as the flooding area with a flood return period of 10 years (T=10). The different sides of the floodplain were distinguished during the collection of all feature data.

6.9.1 Adjacent land-use and associated features The naturalness of the floodplain is part of the floodplain zone. The naturalness of the floodplain is determined by the current land use measured from the 50 meter of the middle of the stream. First the adjacent land use is determined with ArcGIS, figure 26.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 30 |

August 2013

Figure 26. Land use in reach 8.

The floodplain in reach 8 is subdivided in a left (south) and right (north) side. Left of the Merkske, the floodplain consist for 100 % out of open dry natural terrain (hay fields). The right floodplain is covered for 50 % by forests the other 50 % is dominated by open dry natural terrain (hay fields).

However, during the field visit the land use of the left part of the floodplain changed to wet open land (figure 27). Due to land consolidation this parcel is now managed by ANB (Agentschap voor Natuur en Bos, BelgiĂŤ).

Figure 27. Land use left side (south) of the Merkske, reach 8 (photograph made by author, 2013).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 31 |

August 2013

In table 22 the scores for the left (south) and right (north) section of the reaches are given together with the final hydromorphological state per reach. The final hydromorphological state of this parameter is 1.48 – slightly modified.

Table 22. Land use scores per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Hydromorphological state land use left 1.8 – slightly modified 2.1 – slightly modified 2.7 – moderately modified 1.4 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.1 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

Hydromorphological state Hydromorphological state score land use right 2.2 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 2.1 – slightly modified 2.1 – slightly modified 2.4 – slightly modified 2.0 – slightly modified 1.7 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.1 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

6.9.2 Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain The maximum natural inundation is determined in ArcGIS with the digital elevation model. The degree of lateral connectivity is part of the floodplain zone. In the figure below, reach 7 is shown. The white areas along the Merkske represent the areas that are flooded every 10 year the Merkske.

Figure 28. The T=10 inundation areas along the Merkske, inundation areas is the white area along the Merkske.

The maximum inundation width (T=10) is measured for both channel sides, the results are given in the table below together with the total hydromorphological state per reach. Along the Merkske no dikes are present.

Table 23. Maximum widths and average score per reach.

Reach

Max inundated width left (m)

7 2

Hydromorphological monitoring

Max inundated width right (m) 150.3 156.7 137.7 59.5

Final

Hydromorphological state 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

P a g e 32 |

August 2013

Reach

Max inundated width left (m)

1 5 9 4 6 3 8

147.0 15.6 30.4 187.1 30.9 103.9 141.5

Max inundated width right (m) 28.0 137.3 95.2 49.5 207.2 138.6 136.5

Hydromorphological state 1.5 – slightly modified 1.5 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural

The average hydromorphological state of this parameter is 1.11 – near natural.

6.9.3 Degree of lateral movement of river channel The maximum perpendicular separation between the meanders and the middle valley line (MVL) is determined in ArcGIS, in the table below the results are given. The degree of lateral movement of the river channel belongs to the floodplain zone.

Table 24. Maximum separation meanders from the MVL and average score per reach.

Reach 7 2 1 5 9 4 6 3 8

Max separation meanders Max separation meanders from the MVL left (m) from the MVL right (m) 41.0 22.0 5.0 33.9 1.0 46.8 5.0 14.2 17.4 1.8 21.5 20.0 26.8 26.5 20.9 7.1 12.3 36.3

Hydromorphological state 1.0 – near natural 3.0 – moderately modified 3.0 – moderately modified 3.0 – moderately modified 3.0 – moderately modified 1.0 – near natural 1.0 – near natural 2.0 – slightly modified 1.0 – near natural

The maximum separation length is measured for both channel sides in a reach, this is shown in the figure below. The average hydromorphological state of this parameter is 2.00 – slightly modified. The final hydromorphological score of the feature channel-floodplain interactions is 1.56 – slightly modified.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 33 |

August 2013

Figure 29. Determining the maximum separation between meanders and the MVL in reach 6.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 34 |

August 2013

7.

Results hydromorphological monitoring

The final hydromorphological state of the Merkske is calculated by averaging the hydromorphological state scores of the reaches per feature. The results are shown in table 25 in which the hydromorphological state per feature, per zone and the hydromorphological state of the Merkske in total is given. In the table below the average results of each parameter are given per zone, the hydromorphological state of the Merkske in total is given in the lowest row.

Table 25. Hydromorphological state Merkske. Blue is near natural, green is slightly modified, yellow is moderately modified and red is extensively modified.

Core and subsidiary features Channel 1. Channel geometry 1a. Planform 1b. Channel section (long-section and cross-section) 2. Substrates 2a. Extent of artificial material 2b. "Natural" substrate mix or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3a. Aquatic vegetation management 3b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10.Channel-floodplain interactions 10a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel Average hydromorphological state per zone Hydromorphological state Merkske total

Zone Riparian

Floodplain

2.50 1.91 1.00 1.00 1.91 2.03 1.40 1.02 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.56 2.14 1.48 1.11

1.44

1.85 1.61

2.00 1.53

The end result of the hydromorphological state of the Merkske is 1.61 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; slightly modified. To restore the near natural conditions of the Merkske channel features such as channel geometry and aquatic vegetation and organic debris should be improved. The bank structure and modifications and vegetation type and structure on the river banks and adjacent land of the riparian zone should also be improved. The floodplain features, such as land use and the degree of lateral movement of the river channel are not that natural. Methods to improve the slightly modified to extensively modified features are given in paragraph 8.2.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 35 |

August 2013

8.

Synthesis

In this chapter an analysis of the results is given. In this chapter, first possible adjustments in the current hydromorphological monitoring method are given. This is followed by different methods to improve the current hydromorphological state of the Merkske.

8.1 Hydromorphological monitoring strategy Merkske After applying the hydromorphological monitoring strategy of Ruiz (2012), some shortcomings in the spreadsheet and the monitoring method were discovered. In the table below the found shortcomings for each feature are given in the associated zone. Suggestions to the used hydromorphological monitoring strategy are also given in this paragraph.

Table 26. Shortcomings of the hydromorphological monitoring strategy.

Core and subsidiary features 1. Channel geometry 1a. Planform

Shortcomings * Sinuosity per reach is not representative for the whole Merkske. * The naturalness of the Merkske planform is not calculated / determined. * Difficult to determine: not always measurable. * Spreadsheet given score for the parameter features is not correct.

Channel zone

1b. Channel section (long-section and cross-section)

2. Substrates 2a. Extent of artificial material 2b. "Natural" substrate mix or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3a. Aquatic vegetation management 3b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach

* Difficult to determine: not always visible. * Difficult to determine: not always visible.

* Woody debris is only taken into account when there is a forest cover.

* This features collects also bank protections while this is also collected for feature 7 bank structure and modifications. * This feature determines the effect of drainage ditches on the discharge, a very inaccurate method.

5b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character

Riparian zone

8. Vegetation type / structure on banks and adjacent land

Floodplai n zone

5c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications

9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10.Channel-floodplain interactions 10a. Degree of lateral connectivity of

Hydromorphological monitoring

* Number vegetation species otiose.

* Inundation of T=10 is quite high, the

Final

P a g e 36 |

August 2013

Core and subsidiary features river and floodplain 10b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

8.1.1

Shortcomings inundation of T=1 will give more information about the inundation along the Merkske. * This method is depends largely on the reach locations. * This method does not calculate / determine the most natural state of the Merkske.

Channel geometry

The shortcomings of the feature channel geometry are summarized in table 26. This feature is subdivided in the parameters planform, width-, depth variation and features. The shortcomings of the monitoring method and possible solutions are given below.

Planform For the planform feature the sinuosity was calculated per reach, because the meandering of the Merkske seemed to be quite natural, the sinuosity of the whole Merkske was also calculated. This resulted in a slightly better hydromorphological state. Because the whole Merkske is taken into account this method is more representative.

The naturalness of the Merkske planform should be calculated for comparison with the current status. The hydrodynamics and a natural drainage pattern will influence the biota, flow, channel depth and substrate. This feature will give more information of the naturalness of the stream depth.

For the Merkske this is very important because this stream rapidly incised.

The equilibrium pattern of the Merkske is determined according to Kleinhans & van den Berg (2011).

To determine the equilibrium pattern, first the potential specific stream power is calculated.

The median grain size D50 (m) of the Merkske is 0.108 m. In figure 30 A these two values shows a laterally immobile with no bars (almost meandering with scrolls) equilibrium for the Merkske, figure 30 B indicates an equilibrium value sinuosity between >1.5 and â&#x2030;¤1.8.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 37 |

August 2013

Figure 30. Equilibrium river pattern plotted with the potential specific stream power and the median grain size D50: the results for the Merkske (Kleinhans & van den Berg, 2011).

The width/depth and entrenchment ratio, sinuosity and slope was also calculated per reach to determine the most natural river pattern for the stream. The results of these calculations and the stream type according to Rosgen (1994) are shown in the table below.

Table 27. Calculated characteristics Merkske.

Reach

Width/depth ratio

7 2 1 5

Hydromorphological monitoring

4,62 3,50 3,59 2,96

Entrenchment ratio 0,4331 0,5714 0,5565 0,6757

Final

Sinuosity 1.59 1.26 1.39 1.06

Slope 0,0004 0,0010 0,0004 0,0002

Channel material Stream type sand sand sand sand

G5c G5c G5c A5

P a g e 38 |

August 2013

Reach

Width/depth ratio

9 4 6 3 8

2,90 2,66 2,60 3,34 5,25

Entrenchment ratio 0,6905 0,7515 0,7700 0,5981 0,3809

Sinuosity 1.04 1.32 1.41 1.48 2.13

Slope 0,0045 0,0016 0,0006 0,0002 0,0007

Channel material Stream type sand sand sand sand sand

A5 G5c G5c G5c G5c

The stream type G is an entrenched â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;gullyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; step / pool with a low width/depth ratio on moderate gradients. Valleys are narrow or the stream deeply incised. This stream type is unstable due to grade control problems and high bank erosion rates. Stream type A has a lower sinuosity and is characterized by a higher relief (Rosgen, 1994). When these results are compared with the management interpretations, G5c types are extremely sensitive to disturbance, have a very poor recovery potential, very high sediment supply, very high stream bank erosion potential and a high vegetation controlling influence. The management interpretations for A5 stream types are the same, only the vegetation controlling influence is negligible.

Above results show that the Merkske is quite immobile due to incision and is not able to migrate laterally. The result of the Rosgen calculation shows that this type of stream has a very poor recovery potential. The above performed calculations need to be inserted in the current monitoring strategy, this will improve the results and gives further insight in hydromorphological status of the planform.

This more Channel width variation In larger streams the width of the channel cannot be measured with a metric rod, an quantitative monitoring method is proposed. The width can be measured with ArcGIS, this is a less accurate method but gives a good idea about the width variation so it is a good alternative. In ArcGIS is the width of the summer water level is determined using aerial photographs (if available), the bank full width is estimated using the digital elevation model (figure 31 and 32).

Figure 31. Measuring channel width using an aerial photograph (winter).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

Figure 32. Measuring channel width using a DTM.

P a g e 39 |

August 2013

Channel depth variation In larger streams the depth of the channel cannot be measured with a metric rod, an alternative monitoring method is then necessary. Another measuring method for the depth of the channel is a visual estimation in the field with the following score system (table 28).

Table 28. Scoring depth variation method II.

Depth variation Well developed

Score 1 – near natural to slightly modified

Explanation

(well developed bank erosion, undercutting and sedimentation zones) Moderately developed

3 – slightly to moderately modified

(moderately developed bank erosion and sedimentation zones) Uniform or slight deviations

5 – extensively to severely modified

(straight banks and channel floor) In the next figure an example of this method is given for reach 5, subreach 3. In this photograph the channel bottom is clearly visible, this makes the estimation of the channel depth possible. On the left side of the channel, the water is quite deep and the water shows some undercutting of the banks.

More towards the right the channel becomes more shallow. The score of this subreach is 1 – near natural to slightly modified because the depth variation is well developed.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 40 |

August 2013

Figure 33. The channel bottom is clearly visible in reach 5, stream goes right (photograph made by author, 2013).

When the bottom of the channel is not visible, this parameter is disabled. This method is adopted from the pilot study â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;morfologische monitoringâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of Royal Haskoning B.V. which is based on the Gewasserstrukturgutekartierung (GSK) (Kloet, 2005; Bayeriscche Landesamt fĂźr Wasserwirtschaft, 2002).

Features: bars, riffles, pools and canalizations The scores that were given by the spreadsheet did not correspond with the scores in the monitoring strategy manual. All near natural situations were assigned as a moderately modified situation. This is manually corrected per reach. However, this should be changed in the spreadsheet formula as well.

8.1.2 Substrates The extent of artificial material and the naturalness of the substrate mix or character altered is difficult to determine when the channel is to deep or the channel bottom is not visible. An not determined score should be added with a score of zero to overcome this problem.

8.1.3 Channel vegetation and organic debris Shortcomings in the channel vegetation and organic debris feature can be found in the woody debris parameter, this is further explained in the paragraph below.

Woody debris The percentage of woody debris per reach is integrated in the spreadsheet and can only be used when there is a forest cover (example table 29).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 41 |

August 2013 Table 29. Woody debris in reach 2, there is no forest cover so this parameter is not taken into account.

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 5 0 5 5 5

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

However, one tree is not yet a forest but may cause woody debris as well. Wood that is deposited during a high water stage and afterwards floats towards an area with no forest is also a possibility.

The presence of forest will not always influence the woody debris percentage in the channel, it is therefore advisable to monitor the woody debris percentage along the whole channel forest cover or not.

Figure 34. Reach 2 woody debris (willow) but no forest cover (photograph made by author, 2013).

8.1.4 Flow In the feature flow two shortcomings were discovered in the parameters ‘impacts of artificial inchannel structures within the reach’ and ‘effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character’. Both parameters are individual explained below.

Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach For this feature the percentage of flow modification due to artificial structures is determined. Bank protection is also included. This is not correct because bank protection is already part of feature 7:

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 42 |

August 2013

bank structure and modifications. The artificial structure bank protection should thus be removed from this feature.

Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character The effect of drainage ditches on the discharge is determined by the measurement of the surface surrounded by drainage ditches. This is a very inaccurate method which needs to be changed.

The proposed approach compares the high peak discharges with the average discharge. When the peak discharge is very high compared with the average discharge the parcel is intensively drained.

When the peak discharge is lower than two times the average discharge, the drainage is estimated as a near natural situation.

Table 30. Peak discharge scoring hydromorphological state.

Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character Peak discharge is < 2 times higher than the average discharge Peak discharge is between 2 – 5 times higher than the average discharge Peak discharge is > 5 times higher than the average discharge

Hydromorphological state 1 – near natural to slightly modified 3 – slightly to moderately modified 5 – extensively to severely modified

8.1.5 Vegetation type / structure on banks and adjacent land For the feature ‘vegetation type / structure on banks and adjacent land the number of riparian vegetation species is counted to give an idea about the biodiversity. However, the number of riparian species does not tell that much about biodiversity due to the very normal and mostly weedy or grass species. The riparian vegetation species should therefore be excluded from this feature.

8.1.6 Channel-floodplain interactions In the channel-floodplain interaction feature, two shortcomings were discovered in the parameters ‘degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain’ and ‘Degree of lateral movement of river channel’. Both parameters are individual explained below.

Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain For the feature degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain the maximum natural inundation is determined. In the monitoring strategy an inundation map of T=10 (large inundation once in the 10 years) is used. However, a natural stream will inundate every year, a T=1 inundation map is thus recommended because this will give more insight in the ecological impact of the inundations.

Degree of lateral movement of river channel * This method is depends largely on the reach locations. * This method does not calculate / determine the most natural state of the Merkske.

The degree of lateral movement of the river channel is in the current used method measured per reach. Thus the degree of lateral movement will largely depend on the chosen reach locations. This feature can be tested more accurately with the calculation as given in subparagraph 8.1.1. This calculation shows that the Merske does not move laterally.

8.1.7

Additional hydromorphological parameters

The hydromorphological parameters that were not used during the monitoring, but that probably give an even better idea about the current hydromorphological status and the relations between the different features, are given below.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 43 |

August 2013

Groundwater levels The soil structure will influence the location, direction, flow velocity, residence time and the chemical composition of the groundwater. The annual average groundwater level will in turn influence the water quality which will indirectly effect the riparian vegetation. This is especially important for a stream valley such as the Merkske because here the amount of seepage is affected by the lowering of the water levels in the Merkske (Melisie, 2007).

The knowledge of the variation in groundwater level will give information about the effects of drainage (high and low discharges) and possible removal (Hendriks and van Ek, 2009; Verdonschot, 1995).

For the parameter groundwater level the seepage should be monitored. For seepage the present day percentages are compared with the seepage percentages 50 years ago. When seepage percentages increased this is assigned as a more natural hydromorphological state.

Table 31. Seepage scoring hydromorphological state.

Groundwater levels - Seepage

Hydromorphological state

Higher percentages of seepage compared with 50 1 – near natural to slightly modified years ago Similar percentages of seepage compared with 50 3 – slightly to moderately modified years ago Lower percentages of seepage compared with 50 5 – extensively to severely modified years ago Surface hydrology and hydraulics Channel form and water flow are relevant components of river health. Flow speed, discharge and water levels will give important information about the relation with erosion and sedimentation processes and the water brightness. In turn these hydrological features give information about the vegetation, organisms, substrate composition and the (micro) habitat diversity (Van Dam et al., 2007; Verdonschot, 1995; Verdonschot and van den Hoorn, 2004). River discharge will give an idea about the continuity of the water flow and possible drying out of the stream. Water levels can be related with depletion and subsidence (van Splunder et al., 2006).

In the present day situation the discharge measurement point is located in the fish ladder. This will influence the data, so another measurement location is necessary upstream of the fish ladder. The yearly measured flow velocity and discharge can be in the calculation of the most natural planform and the inundation of the floodplain. The data is only used in the spreadsheet for the calculation of the features 1a ‘planform’ and 10a ‘degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain’.

EEE3 ecological parameters More detailed control variables for ecological research are used to establish connections between the EEE3 method and the hydromorphological monitoring. The EEE3 method predicts the ecological status as Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) using control variables: meandering, shading and damming (table 32) (Evers, 2013). The EEE3 method can be used in slow moving streams. In the table below the EEE3 control variables are given with the EEE3 score.

Table 32. Score system and control variables EEE3 (EEE3).

Score EEE3 1

Control variables EEE3 Meandering Straight + standard profile

Hydromorphological monitoring

Shading No shading without rough banks

Final

Damming Strongly dammed without fish ladders

P a g e 44 |

August 2013

2 3 4 5

Stretched + natural cross Partially shaded or rough banks Dammed with section ladders Weak meandering Largely or completely shaded No damming (rising vegetation / forest) Curling Free meandering

fish

Control variables such as meandering and damming are already assessed during the hydromorphological monitoring strategy. The control variable shading could be added to the hydromorphological monitoring strategy as a subsidiary feature. The shading control variable should be determined on every reach and will give an idea about the ecological status of the Merkske.

However, the EEE3 method uses an opposite scoring system as the hydromorphological monitoring, this will result in the following WFD scoring system (table 33) (Evers, 2013).

Table 33. Scoring EEE3 and WFD.

Score EEE3 1 2 3

Control variables EEE3 Shading No shading without rough banks Partially shaded or rough banks Largely or completely shaded vegetation / forest)

Score WFD 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; extensively to severely modified 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; slightly to moderately modified (rising 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; near natural to slightly modified

8.1.8 Presentation hydromorphological monitoring results After selecting the survey reaches, these are inserted in ArcGIS were the buffer zones are added. For each reach the necessary data is collected at the office and in the field. When photographs are made they are coupled with GPS coordinates, so these are also visible in ArcGIS. When all the data is collected, the spreadsheet is filled in per reach. The monitoring reaches in the ArcGIS file are then coupled with the excel file of the individual reach. When a coupling of the reaches within a WFD waterbody is made, the final score per waterbody can be calculated. The results and possible shortcomings per reach but also per WFD waterbody are in this way easy assessable.

When the proposed database is in use and the hydromorphological monitoring is carried out every six years, the changes in hydromorphology are visible. This gives more insight in the hydromorphological character of the WFD waterbodies.

8.2 Hydromorphological improvement Merkske To restore the near natural conditions of the Merkske channel features such as the channel geometry and aquatic vegetation and organic debris should be improved. The bank structure and modifications and vegetation type and structure on the river banks and adjacent land of the riparian zone should also be improved. The floodplain feature degree of lateral movement of the river channel needs also to be improved.

8.2.1 Channel zone Methods to improve the channel features channel geometry and aquatic vegetation and organic debris are given below.

Channel geometry The Merkske planform is not real meandering; to increase this hydromorphological state the channel planform could be improved. This is probably caused by the incision of the Merkske, this caused a laterally immobile situation. The current situation of the Merkske is very difficult to change due to

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 45 |

August 2013

the extreme sensitiveness to disturbance and has a very poor recovery potential. To change the system first the width / depth ratio has to be changed in a more natural, shallow situation.

The parameter channel geometry also includes the channel width, depth and the presence of channel features. This feature has an average score of 1.91 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; slightly modified. This feature can be improved by the input of woody debris in the channel or direct sand supplementation; this is further explained in below subparagraph.

Aquatic vegetation and organic debris Aquatic vegetation is present on a relatively small scale in the Merkske, once every year the vegetation in the channel is cut and the channel is cleaned out. The cleaning of the channel results in an off balance of substrate (organic debris 5% with 95% sand), channel organisms and vegetation.

Another reason for the small percentage of aquatic vegetation is the relatively cold spring this year (2013) which resulted in a delay of vegetation growth.

The present day woody debris percentages are unacceptable low according to the Water Framework Directive. The yearly cutting and cleaning of the channel is probably the reason for the few percentages of woody debris in the Merkske. On a few spots (figure 35) high percentages woody debris can be found along the Merkske.

Figure 35. Woody debris nearby reach 9 (photograph made by author, 2013).

The addition of woody debris in streams is a good solution for these low percentages. Higher woody debris percentages will increase the hydromorphological and ecological status of the Merske. The substrate heterogeneity of the stream will increase and important shifts in the macro invertebrate

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 46 |

August 2013

community are expected (Didderen et al., 2008). Woody debris influences sedimentation transport and deposition, erosion processes and supports the formation of river beds. This results in more variation in the river depth, width and the river planform due to the development of chute offs. Due to the sand trapping upstream and in the woody debris, the channel starts to fill in (Didderen et al., 2008). Physical and chemical processes in the woody debris give a variation in light and temperatures, decomposition, nitrification and oxygen enrichment. The biodiversity of the habitats and the number of habitats will increase as well (Verdonschot and Besse-Lototskaya, 2013; Elosegi and Sabater, 2013). The addition of woody debris is a low-budget alternative to complex restoration projects (Didderen et al., 2008).

Woody debris causes peak flow attenuation, water retention, hydraulic resistance and variation in flow. These factors contribute to a higher flood risk, in the current situation this will give no problems. Land consolidation and excavation will decrease the nutrient percentage and flooding events will contribute to a larger biodiversity (Verdonschot, 1995).

8.2.2 Riparian zone Methods to improve the bank structure and the vegetation type on the river banks and the adjacent land are given below.

Bank structure and modifications Along the Merkske plastic bank protection was found in agricultural regions, the removal of this plastic will probably result in a near natural situation (figure 36).

Figure 36. Plastic bank protection reach 2 (photograph made by author, 2013).

The banks of the Merkske are very high due to intensive monitoring of the Merkske. The Merkske started to incise and the adjacent grasslands dried out (Melisie, 2007). Seepage in the adjacent lands decreased, which was a large drawback for seepage dependent vegetation types and, vegetation and habitat biodiversity (Van der Molen and Pot, 2007). Because rainwater is now dominant on the adjacent lands, acidification can take place, which in turn also influences the vegetation and ecological status of these lands.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 47 |

August 2013

One of the possibilities to overcome this problem is raising the channel bottom, this will result in a lower flow rate and higher water levels which will increase the flood risks. Raising the channel bottom will not have a good influence on the ecology when this is done with direct sand supplementation. Another possibility is the depositing of high percentages of woody debris, this is supported by Verdonschot (2009). The high percentages of woody debris will increase the water resistance as well. Another possibility is the elimination of the yearly vegetation cutting and removal in the channel. Further research is necessary to investigate the effects of these methods on the desiccation and acidification, and to give the final advice (Hendriks and van Ek, 2009).

Vegetation type and structure on the river banks and adjacent land of the riparian zone The vegetation of the river banks and the adjacent land of the riparian zone is managed by Staatsbosbeheer and ANB (Agentschap voor Natuur en Bos) and some local farmers. Most of the adjacent land consist out of hayfields, pastures, forest and a small percentage is covered by intensive agriculture. Overhanging and tunnelling percentages are very low due to the small percentages of forest near the channel. Cutting is performed once per year, at the ecological hayfields of Staatsbosbeheer this is performed in stages. The cut vegetation is removed to prevent nitrification (Everts et al., 2002).

Because of the advisable shaded areas, an equilibrium between hayfields and small forest should be found (Lenane, 2012). More forest and bushes along the stream are advisable.

8.2.3 Floodplain zone The degree of lateral movement of the river channel of the floodplain zone needs to be to improved.

Degree of lateral movement of river channel The lateral movement of the Merkske does not always meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. In reach 2, 1, 5, 9 and 3 this is the case. These reaches are all located in agricultural areas. At these locations the meanders are very compact; the banks are usually equipped with barbwire. With land consolidation, performed by Staatsbosbeheer, the lateral movement of the Merkske will get more space.

The lateral movement of the river channel is in the current situation almost negligible, for the improvement of the lateral movement a decrease of the channel bottom is necessary together with higher percentages of woody debris (Didderen et al., 2008).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 48 |

August 2013

9.

Conclusion and advice

In the conclusion the two major research questions are answered.

“Is the hydromorphological status of the Merkske sufficient adapted to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive and how can possible shortcomings be solved?”

The hydromorphological status of the Merkske should be improved. This is confirmed by the ecological quality ratio (EKR). In the EKR the Merkske is rated as moderate.

The main shortcomings can be solved by applying woody debris or direct sand supplementation in the channel. The increase of forests and bushes along the channel will have a good effect on the hydromorphological status. A top five of advised measures: 1. Increasing woody debris percentages; 2. Removal bank protection; 3. Extensive channel vegetation management 4. Increase forests and bushes cover along the Merkske; 5. Direct sand supplementation in the channel.

“To what extent is the hydromorphological monitoring method suitable for (WFD) water bodies in western Brabant, and what are possible improvements?”

The used hydromorphological monitoring method is suitable for WFD waterbodies in western Brabant. The addition of the used features; groundwater level (seepage) and the integration of the EEE3 parameters will further improve the monitoring method. The calculation of surface hydrology and hydraulics will give more insight of the current hydromorphological state of the water body.

The suggested additional features need to be only added to the hydromorphological monitoring when these have a large influence in the research area, and they will have a significant effect on the final results.

The major research questions have been answered by a number of objectives: 1. The requirements of the Water Framework Directive; 2. Hydromorphological monitoring requirements; 3. Review and analysis of the current monitoring method and the current spreadsheet; 4. Development of monitoring strategy; 5. Apply monitoring strategy; 6. Analysis, reporting and advice.

What are the requirements of the Water Framework Directive?

The ‘good status’ of the ground and surface waters in the European Union is defined in terms of a health ecosystem based upon classification of biological, hydromorphological, physical-chemical, chemical and the groundwater quality. The ‘good’ ecological and chemical status is achieved (or maintained) by the development of a management system per river basin, trans boundary cooperation, maintenance and improvement of the environmental interests and reduction of pollutants. The protection of further degradation of an aquatic ecosystem is mandatory and enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment is intended. Sustainable water use should be promoted and a progressive reduction of groundwater pollution is required. The developed hydromorphological monitoring method meets the requirements of the Water Framework Directive since the European guidance standard EN15843 is used (CEN 15843, 2010).

What are the hydromorphological issues?

According to the European Standard EN15843 the hydromorphological assessment of a water body should be based on 16 features (table 1) which are subdivided in core- and subsidiary features (CEN 15843, 2010). The ecological status is assessed per water body and defined by a status classification scheme which includes five different classes:

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 49 |

August 2013

    

High: no to very low human pressure (reference condition); Good: slightly altered from the reference condition; Moderate: one or more of the biological elements may be moderately altered; Poor: one or more biological quality elements are major; Bad: severe alternations such that a large proportion of the reference biological community is absent.

What is the hydromorphological status of the Merkske?

The end result of the hydromorphological monitoring of the Merkske is 1.61 – slightly modified.

Because the Merkske is the most natural stream in the management area of the regional water authority Brabantse Delta, a score of < 1.5 was expected. The higher score is caused by channel geometry, bank structure, channel and riparian vegetation, and the degree of lateral movement of the river channel. The Merkske is too deep compared with the width of the channel, channel vegetation is rare, no overhanging or tunneling by riparian vegetation, some of the channel banks are protected and the channel is laterally immobile.

Which improvements of the spreadsheet and the current monitoring method are suggested?

Some difficulties were found during the data collection in the field. For these parameters additional survey methods were developed. The addition of some missing hydromorphological parameters such as groundwater levels, surface hydrology and hydraulics, and the EEE3 ecological parameters was suggested. The knowledge of the variation in groundwater level will give information about the effects of drainage (high and low discharges), while extra data about the surface hydrology and hydraulics can be used for the calculation of the features 1a ‘planform’ and 10a ‘degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain’. The integration of the EEE3 method will give more detailed control variables for ecological research.

When the monitoring is completed the final results can be added in an ArcGIS database. This database will contain all the hydromorphological scorings of the WFD water bodies in western Brabant.

For further improvement of the used hydromorphological monitoring, the monitoring strategy has to be used for more streams; the ecological good and bad ones. This will give more insight in the correctness of the scoring method.

Which improvements are necessary in the water management of the regional water authority Brabantse Delta?

The hydromorphological quality of the Merkske can be improved by the addition of woody debris in the channel. This will affect almost all the parameters that need to improve; channel geometry, bank structure, channel and riparian vegetation, and the degree of lateral movement of the river channel.

Suggestions to improve the hydromorphological state of the Merkske: 6. The increase of woody debris will decrease channel bottom and increase the hydromorphological and ecological status of the Merkske; 7. The removal of bank protection will improve the hydromorphological state of the bank structure; 8. A more extensive channel vegetation management will increase channel organisms and vegetation; 9. The development of more forests and trees along the Merkske will also have a positive effect on the hydromorphological quality, the shading area increase, which will in turn support the development of aquatic vegetation.

10. Direct sand supplementation is a more aggressive way to raise the channel bottom, this method will increase the hydromorphological status of the Merkske on a longer timescale.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 50 |

August 2013

References Bayeriscche Landesamt für Wasserwirtschaft (2002). Kartier- und Bewertungs-verfahren Gewässerstruktur: erläuterungsbericht, Kartier- und Bewertungsanleitung. Bayeriscche Landesamt für Wasserwirtschaft.

Boon, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Raven, P.J. (2010). Developing standard approaches for recording and assessing river hydromorphology: the role of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN).

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater ecosystems 20, pp. S55-S61.

Buskens, R. and de Wilde, A. (2002). Streefbeelden voor beken en kreken in Noord-Brabant.

Provincie en Waterschappen Noord-Brabant en Royal Haskoning DHV. ISBN 90-9015859-6.

CEN 14614 (2002). A guidance standard for assessing the hydromorphological features of rivers. CEN TC 230/WG 2/TG 5: N32.

CEN 15843 (2010). Water quality – guidance standard on determing the degree of modification of river hydromorphology. CEN TC 230.

Didderen, K., Verdonschot, R.C.M., Verdonschot P.F.M. (2008). Herstel Jufferbeek door houtinbreng. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-rapport 1737.

Elosegi, A. and Sabater, S. (2013). Effects of hydromorphological impacts on river ecosystem functioning: a review and suggestions for assessing ecological impacts. Hydrobiologia 712, pp. 129143.

Evers, C.H.M. (2013). Resultaten toepassing EEE3 op de waterlichamen van Waterschap Brabantse Delta. Royal Haskoning DHV, waterschap Brabantse Delta. Projectnummer 9X5709/R00002/901530/BW/DenB. Everts, H., N de Vries, P. de Louw, R. Stuurman & G. Stooker (2002). ... van Moesdistel tot Boomkikker. Visie van SBB op het behoud en herstel van natuur- en landschapswaarden in het beekdallandschap van het Merkske. Rapport EGG consult everts & de vries, TNONITG & SBB, Groningen, Delft, Middelburg.

Hendriks, D.M.D. and van Ek, R. (2009). Naar een (KRW-)methodiek voor het bepalen van de kwantitative interactie tussen grondwater en oppervlaktewater. Case-studie ’t Merkske. Deltares, 0906-0107.

Hrvatske Vode (Croatian Waters) (2013). Guideline for Hydromorphological Monitoring and Assessment of Rivers in Croatia. Croatian Waters, State Institute for Nature Protection, Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management and Regional Water Authority Brabantse Delta.

Kleinhans, M.G. (2010). Sorting out river channel patterns. Progress in Physical Geography 34(3), pp 287-326.

Kleinhans, M.G. and van den Berg, J.H. (2011). River channel and bar patterns explained and predicted by an empirical and a physics-based method. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36, pp. 721-738.

Kloet, (2005). Pilot study morfologische monitoring. Royal Haskoning DHV .

Langhans, S.D., Lienert, J., Schuwirth, N., Reichert, P. (2013). How to make river assessments comparable: a demonstration for hydromorphology. Ecological Indicators 32, pp. 264275.

Lenane, R. (2012). Keep rivers cool: getting ready for climate change by creating riparian shade. Environment Agency.

Lehotský, M. and Grešková, A. (2004). Slovensko-anglický hydromorfologický slovník (výkladový slovník hydromorfologických terminov). SHMÚ, Bratislava.

Melisie, E.J., Wendt, T.A., van Schijndel, R., de la Haye, M.A.A. (2007). Integrale gebiedsanalyse Het Merkske. Grontmij, waterschap Brabantse Delta. Projectnummer 206254.

Rosgen, D.L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22, pp. 169-199.

Ruiz, D.M. (2012). Development of a Monitoring System for the Hydromorphological Features of Water Bodies included in the Waterschap Brabantse Delta.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 51 |

August 2013

Scheifhacken, N., Haase, U., Gram-Radu, L., Kozovyi, R., Berendonk, T.U. (2012). How to assess hydromorphology? A comparison of Ukrainian and German approaches. Environmental Earth Science 65, pp. 1483-1499. Šípek, V., Matoušková, M., Dvořák, M. (2010). Comparative analysis of selected hydromorphological assessment methods. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 169, pp. 309319.

Slovak Rupublic (2004). Establishment of the Protocol on Monitoring and Assessment of the Hydromorphological Elements. Twinning light Project No. TLP 01 – 29 SR 0110 01 01 0009 Solheim, A.L., Austnes, K., Kristensen, P., Peterlin, M., Kodeš, V., Collins, R., Semerádová, S., Künitzer, A., Filippi, R., Prchalová, H., Spiteri, C. and Prins, T. (2012). Ecological and chemical status and pressures in European waters. ETC/ICM Technical Report 1/2012.

Van Dam, O., Osté, A.J., de Groot, B., van Dorst, M.A.M. (2007). Handboek hydromorfologie, Monitoring en afleiding hydromorfologische parameters Kaderrichtlijn Water.

Drukkerij Artoos Nederland B.V. Rijswijk. ISBN-97890-36-91-4512.

Van der Molen, D.T. and Pot, R. (2007). Referenties en maatlatten voor natuurlijke watertypen voor de kaderrichtlijn water. STOWA 2007.

Van Splunder, I., Pelsma, T.A.H.M., Bak, A. (2006). Richtlijnen monitoring oppervlaktewater Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water en bijlagen Richtlijnen monitoring oppervlaktewater Europese Kaderrichtlijn Water. Richtlijnen voor waterbeheerders. ISBN 9036957168.

Verdonschot, P.F.M. (1995). Verdonschot; leidraad voor ecologisch beekherstel. STOWA, Utrecht. Instituut voor Bos en Natuuronderzoek.

Verdonschot, P.F.M. (2009). Het brede beekdal als klimaatbestendige buffer in de veranderende leefomgeving: flexibele toepassing van het 5B-concept in Peel en Maasvallei. Alterra, Wageningen UR, Waterschap Peel en Maasvallei. ISBN 978-90-327-0379-0.

Verdonschot, P.F.M. and Besse-Lototskaya, A.A. (2013). De ecologische meerwaarde van dood hout. Powerpoint STOWA, Utrecht.

Verdonschot, P.F.M. and van den Hoorn, M.W. (2004). Hydromorfologische kwaliteitselementen; achtergronddocument bij de natuurlijke KRW-typen. Alterra, Wageningen.

Waterschap Peel en Maasvalley (2005). Pilot morfologische monitoring beken; Groote Molenbeek, Tungelroysche beek (incl. deel Leukerbeek). Royal Haskoning DHV. 9P9521/R004/PATK/Maas.

Weiβ, A., Matouskova, M., Matschullat, J. (2008). Hydromorphological assessment within the EU-Water Framework Directive – trans-boundary cooperation and application to different water basins. Hydrobiologia 603, pp. 53-72.

Websites Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (2013). Hydromorphology: Meetstrategie en Methodiek. www.vmm.be/water/kwaliteit-oppervlaktewater/toestand-oppervlaktewater/hydromorfologie. Last visit: 15-08-2013.

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 52 |

August 2013

Appendix I. Hydromorphological monitoring system In this appendix a detailed approach of every feature (table 1) and the associated parameters is given, written by Daniel Montejo Ruiz (2012). In this section, the features are divided in the three zones previously mentioned: channel, riparian zones and floodplains. The paragraphs starts with a short description and continues with a table of details. It is necessary to emphasize that in case the river considered is a creek, 1 point will be added to hydromorphological score of all features, this will in turn influence the final average hydromorphological state (Ruiz, 2012).

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 53 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 54 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 55 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 56 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 57 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 58 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 59 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 60 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 61 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 62 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 63 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 64 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 65 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 66 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 67 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 68 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 69 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 70 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 71 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 72 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 73 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 74 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 75 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 76 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 77 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 78 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 79 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 80 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 81 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 82 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 83 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 84 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 85 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 86 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 87 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 88 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 89 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 90 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 91 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 92 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 93 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 94 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 95 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 96 |

August 2013

Appendix II. Location Merkske and selected reaches

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 97 |

August 2013

Appendix III. Spreadsheet input per reach Per reach the final spreadsheet is shown.

Appendix III.1 Reach 7 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

Notes

1 1

2,50 2,00

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

1,60 5,00 1,80

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 2,20 2,20 1,99

V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

1 1

1,00 1,00

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,69 2,20 1,33 1,74 3

Creek

ONWAAR

V

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 4,5 5 4,4 3 4,5 5

Width: Bankfull state 10 10 11,5 9 5 7

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,1 0,25 0,25 0,15 0,1

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,4

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,35 0,15

4 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,18 0,1

5 0,11 0,18 0,2 0,18 0,11

0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,15

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

2,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,4

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,2

Score 2,7 1,7 2,0 1,7 2,0 2,0

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 1 2 4 3 2

Number of species (picture estimation) 0 2 3 2 2

Roots in the channel WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

Score 4,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,6

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 1 0 1 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 5,0 0,0 5,0 5,0 5,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 3 4 2 4 4

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 3,0 1,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,8

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

17362,33 3946,64

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 2,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

WAAR 1 Type of structure

Fish migration 3 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 1 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 1,50 1,80 2,30 1,50 1,80

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 5,0 1,8

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 5 0 0 5

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 3 1 1 3

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 5,0 1,0 1,0 5,0 2,6

Score 1,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 5,0 2,2

8. Bank top vegetation: species 4 4 2 4 4

Number of species (estimation) 10 15 10 10 17

1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,2

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Max width (Left) 150,3 Max width (Right) 156,7 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 41 Right side 22

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right) Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road Airport Housing land

Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill

75,0 24,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (extensive) WAAR Forest

WAAR

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuaryONWAAR Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways

WAAR

Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR Noordzee

How much is left to reach 100%

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 30,0 60,0 10,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 4,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 2,0 3,2

Score 2,5 1,5 3,0 2,5 1,5 2,2

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,8 Score (Right) 2,2

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 1 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 1 1 1 1 1

WAAR

Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR

Other agricultural land (intensive) WAAR

How much is left to reach 100% 10.a. Natural inundation

Tunnelling ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 98 |

August 2013

Appendix III.2 Reach 2 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 1,93

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

1,80 0,00 3,00

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,50 2,70 2,02

1 1

1,00 1,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,57 2,10 1,34 1,67 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 3 3,8 4 3 4 4,5

Width: Bankfull state 6 8 8 7 8 8,5

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,35 0,45 0,4 0,3 0,2

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 1,0 5,0 3,0 2,0 4,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,15 0,35 0,5 0,5 0,5

4 0,2 0,45 0,65 0,8 0,55

5 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,35 0,25

0,2 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,35

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 2,0 1,4

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 5 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR

ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR

ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,4

Score 1,0 2,3 2,0 2,0 2,3 1,9

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 4 4 4 4 4

Number of species (picture estimation) 5 2 2 4 6

Roots in the channel ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Score 2,0 1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 1,8

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 5 0 5 5 5

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 3 4 4 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 3,0 1,0 1,0 5,0 5,0 3,0

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

19308,44 4338,4

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 2,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

ONWAAR 0 Type of structure

Fish migration 1 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 0 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 1,90 1,90 1,70 1,60 1,60

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,2

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 5 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 3 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 5,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,8

Score 1,5 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,5

8. Bank top vegetation: species 2 4 4 4 2

Number of species (estimation) 7 8 6 7 10

2,0 1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 1,8

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

10.a. Natural inundation Max width (Left) 137,7 Max width (Right) 59,5 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 5 Right side 33,9

Tunnelling ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 95,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 5,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right)

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 0,0 Housing land 0,0 Land for retail and catering 0,0 Land for public facilities 0,0 Land for socio-cultural institutions 0,0 Business 0,0 Landfill ONWAAR 0,0 Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR 0,0 Cementery 0,0 Mineral extraction site 0,0 Construction site 0,0 Other semi-paved areas 0,0 Parks and gardens 0,0 Sport area 0,0 Allotment 0,0 Day recreational area?

0,0 Residential recreational area ONWAAR 0,0 Land for horticulture 0,0 Other agricultural land (intensive) 0,0 Other agricultural land (extensive) WAAR 98,0 Forest ONWAAR 0,0 Open dry natural terrain 0,0 Wet open land 0,0 Ijsselmeer/Markemeer 0,0 Enclosed estuaryONWAAR 0,0 Rijn and Maas 0,0 Reservoir 0,0 Recreational waterway 0,0 Inland waters forONWAAR mining 0,0 Liquid and/or sludge field 0,0 Other waterways WAAR 2,0 Oosterschelde 0,0 Westerschelde 0,0 Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR 0,0 Noordzee 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road

Airport

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 4,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 4,0 3,6

Score 3,0 1,5 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,7

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 2,1 Score (Right) 2,0

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 5 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 1 1 1 1 1

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 99 |

August 2013

Appendix III.3 Reach 1 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 2,00

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

2,00 0,00 1,40

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,40 2,60 2,05

1 1

2,00 1,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,38 2,00 1,68 1,69 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 2,4 2,6 3,05 3,25 2,5 2,6

Width: Bankfull state 8 6,5 8,1 7 6,7 6,5

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,6 0,5

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 3,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,2

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,2 0,35 0,45 0,45 0,4

4 0,5 0,7 0,6 0,7 0,5

5 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,35 0,25

0,1 0,15 0,2 0,3 0,2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,4

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,4

Score 2,3 1,3 1,7 1,7 3,0 2,0

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 4 4 4 4 4

Number of species (picture estimation) 3 3 2 2 5

Roots in the channel ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Score 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 5 10 1 10 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 4 3

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 1,4

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern SubReach

Description 1 1 1 1 1

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

17905,7 1811,1

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 1,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

ONWAAR 0 Type of structure

Fish migration 3 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 0 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 1,60 1,70 1,50 1,40 1,70

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 0 5 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 1 3 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 5,0 1,0 1,0 1,8

Score 1,0 1,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,4

8. Bank top vegetation: species 2 2 2 2 2

Number of species (estimation) 5 7 9 9 6

2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

10.a. Natural inundation Max width (Left) 147 Max width (Right) 28 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 1 Right side 46,8

Tunnelling ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 69,0 30,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right)

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 0,0 Housing land 0,0 Land for retail and catering 0,0 Land for public facilities 0,0 Land for socio-cultural institutions 0,0 Business 0,0 Landfill ONWAAR 0,0 Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR 0,0 Cementery 0,0 Mineral extraction site 0,0 Construction site 0,0 Other semi-paved areas 0,0 Parks and gardens 0,0 Sport area 0,0 Allotment 0,0 Day recreational area?

0,0 Residential recreational area ONWAAR 0,0 Land for horticulture 0,0 Other agricultural land (intensive) WAAR 5,0 Other agricultural land (extensive) WAAR 95,0 Forest ONWAAR 0,0 Open dry natural terrain 0,0 Wet open land 0,0 Ijsselmeer/Markemeer 0,0 Enclosed estuaryONWAAR 0,0 Rijn and Maas 0,0 Reservoir 0,0 Recreational waterway 0,0 Inland waters forONWAAR mining 0,0 Liquid and/or sludge field 0,0 Other waterwaysONWAAR 0,0 Oosterschelde 0,0 Westerschelde 0,0 Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR 0,0 Noordzee 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road

Airport

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 4,0 4,0 2,0 2,0 4,0 3,2

Score 3,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,6

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 2,7 Score (Right) 2,1

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 2

Score (Left) 5 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 1 1 1 1 1

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 100 |

August 2013

Appendix III.4 Reach 5 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 2,20

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

1,40 2,60 1,00

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,20 2,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,10 2,02

1 1

1,00 1,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,54 2,05 1,34 1,64 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 3,1 2,8 3,1 3,9 4,3 4,5

Width: Bankfull state 4,4 4,5 4,3 5,4 5,7 6,1

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,1 0,05 0,2 0,3 0,25

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 4,0 4,0 2,0 4,0 4,0 3,6

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,08 0,1 0,2 0,15 0,1

4 0,15 0,5 0,18 0,15 0,08

5 0,1 0,22 0,18 0,2 0,18

0,15 0,25 0,2 0,18 0,05

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 3,0 1,0 3,0 2,0 2,0

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 2 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 2,0 2,7 1,3 2,7 2,3 2,2

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 2 4 4 2 2

Number of species (picture estimation) 1 2 5 2 2

Roots in the channel ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Score 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,4

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 2 2 10 5 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 3,0 3,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 2,6

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 4 4

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

1 1 1 2 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,2

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

19848,1 5013,8

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 2,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries 6

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

WAAR 1 Type of structure

Fish migration 2 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 1 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 1,65 1,20 1,40 1,50 1,60

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 3,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 2,6

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 5 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 2 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,4

Score 2,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 2,0 2,0

8. Bank top vegetation: species 4 4 4 4 4

Number of species (estimation) 7 6 4 5 9

2,0 2,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 2,2

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

10.a. Natural inundation Max width (Left) 15,6 Max width (Right) 137,3 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 5,04 Right side 14,16

Tunnelling WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 20,0 0,0 78,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right)

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 Airport 0,0 Housing land 0,0 Land for retail and catering 0,0 Land for public facilities 0,0 Land for socio-cultural institutions 0,0 Business 0,0 Landfill ONWAAR 0,0 Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR 0,0 Cementery 0,0 Mineral extraction site 0,0 Construction site 0,0 Other semi-paved areas 0,0 Parks and gardens 0,0 Sport area 0,0 Allotment 0,0 Day recreational area?

0,0 Residential recreational area ONWAAR 0,0 Land for horticulture 0,0 Other agricultural land (intensive) 0,0 Other agricultural land (extensive) WAAR 98,0 Forest ONWAAR 0,0 Open dry natural terrain 0,0 Wet open land 0,0 Ijsselmeer/Markemeer 0,0 Enclosed estuaryONWAAR 0,0 Rijn and Maas 0,0 Reservoir 0,0 Recreational waterway 0,0 Inland waters forONWAAR mining 0,0 Liquid and/or sludge field 0,0 Other waterways WAAR 2,0 Oosterschelde 0,0 Westerschelde 0,0 Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR 0,0 Noordzee 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0

Score 2,0 2,0 2,5 2,5 1,5 2,1

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,4 Score (Right) 2,0

Limits

Score (Left) 2 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 4 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 1 1 1 1 1

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 101 |

August 2013

Appendix III.5 Reach 9 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 2,60

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

1,20 2,00 1,40

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,50 1,70 1,00

1 1

1,00 5,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,43 1,60 2,33 1,79 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 3,2 2,6 2,5 2,45 2,7 3,1

Width: Bankfull state 5 4,8 4,7 4,8 5,9 5,5

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,1 0,2 0,35 0,3 0,1

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 3,0 5,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 3,8

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,2 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2

4 0,4 0,5 0,55 0,4 0,35

5 0,3 0,5 0,5 0,45 0,4

0,35 0,4 0,4 0,35 0,3

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,0

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR

WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR

WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

1,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 0,0 1,4

Score 1,7 3,0 3,0 2,3 3,0 2,6

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 3 3 3 3 3

Number of species (picture estimation) 2 2 2 2 1

Roots in the channel WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Score 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,2

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 2 2 10 5 15

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 3,0 0,0 1,0 3,0 1,0 2,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 3 4

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 1,0 1,4

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

19814,7 550,1

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 1,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries 6

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

ONWAAR 0 Type of structure

Fish migration 3 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 0 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 1,90 1,20 1,30 1,40 1,20

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 2,0

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 2,0 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,0 1,5

8. Bank top vegetation: species 4 2 4 4 4

Number of species (estimation) 9 8 12 7 8

1,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,4

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Max width (Left) 30,4 Max width (Right) 95,2 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 17,4 Right side 1,8

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR

Land Use (Right) Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road Airport Housing land

Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill

0,0 25,0 74,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agriculturalONWAAR land (extensive) Forest

WAAR

Open dry natural terrain WAAR Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuaryONWAAR Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterwaysONWAAR Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR Noordzee

How much is left to reach 100%

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 80,0 20,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 2,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 2,0

Score 1,5 2,5 1,5 2,0 1,0 1,7

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,0 Score (Right) 1,0

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 1 Score (Right) 5

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 0 0 0 0 0

WAAR

Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR

Other agriculturalONWAAR land (intensive)

How much is left to reach 100% 10.a. Natural inundation

Tunnelling WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 102 |

August 2013

Appendix III.6 Reach 4 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 1,80

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

2,80 0,00 1,00

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,60 1,50 1,04

1 1

1,00 1,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,38 1,55 1,01 1,31 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 2,7 2,9 2,6 3,1 3,1 2,95

Width: Bankfull state 6,8 4,3 6,9 4 5 5,4

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,2 0,25 0,15 0,1 0,05

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 2,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 4,0 2,2

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,45 0,4

4 0,15 0,1 0,08 0,05 0,025

0,3 0,6 0,8 0,75 0,5

5 0,02 0,05 0,1 0,1 0,15

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

2,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 2,0

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,2

Score 1,7 1,0 1,3 2,3 2,7 1,8

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 3 1 3 3 4

Number of species (picture estimation) 1 0 2 1 4

Roots in the channel WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Score 3,0 4,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 2,8

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 4 5 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 4 4

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

18163,9 877,7

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 1,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries 6

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

ONWAAR 0 Type of structure

Fish migration 3 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 0 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 2,10 1,85 2,10 1,80 1,10

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 2,0 3,0 1,0 3,0 2,0 2,2

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 1,5 2,0 1,0 2,0 1,5 1,6

8. Bank top vegetation: species 4 4 2 4 4

Number of species (estimation) 11 9 4 7 5

1,0 1,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 1,8

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

10.a. Natural inundation Max width (Left) 187,1 Max width (Right) 49,5 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 21,5 Right side 20

Tunnelling WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 3,0 0,0 75,0 20,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

Land Use (Right) Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road Airport Housing land

Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

WAAR

Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agriculturalONWAAR land (intensive) Other agriculturalONWAAR land (extensive) Forest

WAAR

Open dry natural terrain WAAR Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuaryONWAAR Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways

WAAR

Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR Noordzee

How much is left to reach 100%

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 73,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,2

Score 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,5 2,0 1,5

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,1 Score (Right) 1,0

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 1 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 0 0 0 0 0

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 103 |

August 2013

Appendix III.7 Reach 6 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 1,73

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

2,60 5,00 1,00

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,60 1,90 1,04

1 1

1,00 1,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,56 1,75 1,01 1,44 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 2,5 2,2 2 2,6 2,1 2,8

Width: Bankfull state 4,2 5,8 4,9 7,1 3,9 6,2

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,15 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 2,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,6

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,15 0,17 0,13 0,1 0,08

4 0,1 0,08 0,03 0,05 0,08

5 0,05 0,1 0,12 0,15 0,2

0,08 0,03 0,08 0,1 0,08

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

2,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 3,0 2,6

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 1,7 2,3 1,7 1,3 1,7 1,7

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 3 4 4 4 4

Number of species (picture estimation) 1 2 3 4 3

Roots in the channel ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR

Score 3,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 3,0 2,6

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 15 0 0 5 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 5,0 5,0 0,0 5,0 5,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 4 4

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

18116,2 3070,5

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 1,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries 6

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

ONWAAR 0 Type of structure

Fish migration 3 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 0 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 2,10 1,85 1,85 1,70 1,95

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 3,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 3,0 2,2

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 2,0 1,5 1,5 1,0 2,0 1,6

8. Bank top vegetation: species 4 2 2 4 2

Number of species (estimation) 6 4 6 9 9

2,0 2,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 1,8

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Max width (Left) 30,9 Max width (Right) 207,2 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 26,75 Right side 26,5

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right) Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road Airport Housing land

Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill

0,0 75,0 23,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agriculturalONWAAR land (extensive) Forest

WAAR

Open dry natural terrain WAAR Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuaryONWAAR Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways

WAAR

Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR Noordzee

How much is left to reach 100%

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 25,0 73,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0

Score 2,0 2,0 2,0 1,5 2,0 1,9

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,0 Score (Right) 1,0

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 1 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 0 0 0 0 0

WAAR

Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR

Other agriculturalONWAAR land (intensive)

How much is left to reach 100% 10.a. Natural inundation

Tunnelling WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 104 |

August 2013

Appendix III.8 Reach 3 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 2,13

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

2,40 0,00 1,00

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,40 1,00

1 1

1,00 5,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,39 1,70 2,33 1,81 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 2,2 1,8 1,6 1,8 2,1 2,1

Width: Bankfull state 8,9 7,4 5,5 7 6,9 10

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,1 0,2 0,35 0,38 0,15

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 3,0 3,0 3,0 4,0 2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,15 0,2 0,1 0,13 0,1

4 0,5 0,45 0,4 0,3 0,15

5 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,22 0,35

0,15 0,2 0,3 0,25 0,15

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,6

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

0,0 0,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 0,8

Score 2,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 1,7 2,1

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 3 4 4 4 3

Number of species (picture estimation) 1 2 3 2 1

Roots in the channel ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Score 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,4

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 4 4

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

16308 1690,4

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 1,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries 6

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

WAAR 1 Type of structure

Fish migration 2 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 1 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 2,10 2,20 1,55 1,90 1,75

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

8. Bank top vegetation: species 2 2 2 2 4

Number of species (estimation) 3 4 5 2 5

3,0 2,0 2,0 4,0 3,0 2,8

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

10.a. Natural inundation Max width (Left) 103,9 Max width (Right) 138,6 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 20,92 Right side 7,07

Tunnelling WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 10,0 0,0 89,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right)

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 Airport 0,0 Housing land 0,0 Land for retail and catering 0,0 Land for public facilities 0,0 Land for socio-cultural institutions 0,0 Business 0,0 Landfill ONWAAR 0,0 Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR 0,0 Cementery 0,0 Mineral extraction site 0,0 Construction site 0,0 Other semi-paved areas 0,0 Parks and gardens 0,0 Sport area 0,0 Allotment 0,0 Day recreational area?

0,0 Residential recreational area 0,0 Land for horticulture 0,0 Other agriculturalONWAAR land (intensive) 0,0 Other agriculturalONWAAR land (extensive) 0,0 Forest WAAR 25,0 Open dry natural terrain 0,0 Wet open land WAAR 75,0 Ijsselmeer/Markemeer 0,0 Enclosed estuaryONWAAR 0,0 Rijn and Maas 0,0 Reservoir 0,0 Recreational waterway 0,0 Inland waters for mining 0,0 Liquid and/or sludge field 0,0 Other waterwaysONWAAR 0,0 Oosterschelde 0,0 Westerschelde 0,0 Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR 0,0 Noordzee 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 Railway

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Road

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0 2,0

Score 2,5 2,0 2,0 3,0 2,5 2,4

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,0 Score (Right) 1,0

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 1 Score (Right) 5

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 0 0 0 0 0

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 105 |

August 2013

Appendix III.9 Reach 8 Feature 1. Channel geometry 1.a. Planform 1.b. Channel section 2. Substrates 2.a. Extent of artificial material 2.b. “Natural” substrate mix. or character altered 3. Channel vegetation and organic debris 3.a. Aquatic vegetation management 3.b. Extent of woody debris if expected 4. Erosion/deposition character 5. Flow 5.a. Impacts of artificial in-channel structures within the reach 5.b. Effects of catchment-wide modifications to natural flow character 5.c. Effects of daily flow alteration (e.g. hydropeaking) 6. Longitudinal continuity as affected by artificial structures 7. Bank structure and modifications 8. Vegetation type/structure on banks and adjacent land 9. Adjacent land-use and associated features 10. Channel floodplain interactions 10.a. Degree of lateral connectivity of river and floodplain 10.b. Degree of lateral movement of river channel

Type (core / subsidiary)

Score

1 1

2,50 1,67

1 2

1,00 1,00

2 2 2

1,40 3,67 1,40

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,20 2,20 1,00

1 1

1,00 1,00

Notes

Zone

Score

Channel Riparian zone Flood plains TOTAL

Notes

1,43 1,70 1,00 1,38 1

Creek

ONWAAR

Notes

1.a. Meandering L (real length) Lf (MVL length, straight length) Description (qualitative)

10935 7167

Sub-value Objective (Ratio) Subjective

5

Score 2,5

2,0 3,0

1.b. Variation in width SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 1 (next reach)

Width: Low water 2,6 4,5 3,4 3,4 2,1 3,4

Width: Bankfull state 6,4 8,2 5,5 5,8 3,9 5,6

Depth data / SubReach 0,2m 25% 50% 75% 0,2m

Measured 1 0,02 0,05 0,08 0,1 0,08

WAAR 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 1,0 2,0 5,0 1,0 1,0 2,0

1.b. Variation in depth 3 0,18 0,42 0,35 0,25 0,2

4 0,1 0,12 0,15 0,18 0,15

5 0 0,02 0,08 0,1 0,15

0,15 0,3 0,2 0,15 0,05

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

3,0 1,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 2,0

1.b. Features (list) SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Visible bottom

Sand Ripples

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Bars

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Pools or water ripples WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Canalizations ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 1,7 1,3 3,0 1,3 1,0 1,7

2.a. Presence of artificial river bed

2.b. Degree of naturalness of bed's substrate 1 1 1 1 1

3.a. Emergent/submerged vegetation and roots in the channel SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( emergent / submerged) 4 4 4 4 4

Number of species (picture estimation) 2 4 5 4 3

Roots in the channel WAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR WAAR

Forest cover

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR

Score 1,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,4

3.b. Woody debris SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Percentage over the area 2 0 2 2 2

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Structures

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description

Forest cover (expected woody debris) ONWAAR WAAR WAAR ONWAAR WAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 0,0 5,0 3,0 0,0 3,0 3,7

4. Erosion / Sedimentation structures 4 4 4 4 3

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 1,4

1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Score 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

5.a. Flow pattern

5.b. Drainage ditches and artificial structures within the flooding area Total area (catchment) Area surrounded by draining channels

13342,2 0

Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR

Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

Score 1,0

5.c. Discharge management at weirs or dams Manually managed 0 7

Number of dams at the river itself Number of dams at tributaries

Automatically managed 0 0

Number of tributaries 6

6

Score 1,0

6. Continuity for sediments and fish Are there barriers within the reach?

Number of barriers Barrier 1 2 3 4 5

ONWAAR 0 Type of structure

Fish migration 3 2 4 2 3

2 2 2 2 4

Obstruction of the passing structure ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Sub-value (fish)

Sub-value Max (fish) 0 1,0 0 Sub-value (sediments) 0 1,0 0 0

Score (Max) 1,0

7. Bank averaged slope SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Bank heigh (water surface to bank top) 0,85 0,75 1,25 0,80 1,30

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value 1,0 1,0 2,0 1,0 2,0 1,4

7. Substrate material and modifications SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Extent of artificial material (percentage) 0 0 0 0 0

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Description ( type of vegetation )

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5

Overhanging

Modifications (bank protection) 1 1 1 1 1

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Sub-value

1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Score 1,0 1,0 1,5 1,0 1,5 1,2

8. Bank top vegetation: species 4 4 4 4 4

Number of species (estimation) 7 8 7 5 6

2,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 2,0 2,0

8. Bank top vegetation: structure

9. Land use Land Use (Left) Railway Road Airport Housing land Land for retail and catering Land for public facilities Land for socio-cultural institutions Business Landfill Wrecks warehouse Cementery Mineral extraction site Construction site Other semi-paved areas Parks and gardens Sport area

Allotment Day recreational area?

Residential recreational area Land for horticulture Other agricultural land (intensive) Other agricultural land (extensive) Forest

Open dry natural terrain Wet open land Ijsselmeer/Markemeer Enclosed estuary Rijn and Maas Reservoir Recreational waterway

Inland waters for mining Liquid and/or sludge field Other waterways Oosterschelde Westerschelde Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard Noordzee

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

10.a. Natural inundation Max width (Left) 141,5 Max width (Right) 136,5 10.b. Maximum separation of meanders from the MVL Left side 12,31 Right side 36,33

Tunnelling WAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR WAAR WAAR

Flooding area T=10 (what is inside as well) Percentage (Left) 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 100,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 with T=10 Dikes or levees (Left) ONWAAR Dikes or levees (Right) ONWAAR

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

Land Use (Right)

Percentage (Right) 0,0 0,0 Airport 0,0 Housing land 0,0 Land for retail and catering 0,0 Land for public facilities 0,0 Land for socio-cultural institutions 0,0 Business 0,0 Landfill ONWAAR 0,0 Wrecks warehouse ONWAAR 0,0 Cementery 0,0 Mineral extraction site 0,0 Construction site 0,0 Other semi-paved areas 0,0 Parks and gardens 0,0 Sport area 0,0 Allotment 0,0 Day recreational area?

0,0 Residential recreational area 0,0 Land for horticulture 0,0 Other agriculturalONWAAR land (intensive) 0,0 Other agriculturalONWAAR land (extensive) 0,0 Forest WAAR 50,0 Open dry natural terrain WAAR 50,0 Wet open land 0,0 Ijsselmeer/Markemeer 0,0 Enclosed estuaryONWAAR 0,0 Rijn and Maas 0,0 Reservoir 0,0 Recreational waterway 0,0 Inland waters for mining 0,0 Liquid and/or sludge field 0,0 Other waterwaysONWAAR 0,0 Oosterschelde 0,0 Westerschelde 0,0 Waddenzee, Eems, Dollard ONWAAR 0,0 Noordzee 0,0 How much is left to reach 100% 0,0 Railway Road

ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR ONWAAR

SubReach 1 2 3 4 5 Average Score (per type) 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 4,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 3,0 3,0 5,0 3,0 3,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

Sub-value 2,0 3,0 3,0 2,0 2,0 2,4

Score 2,0 2,0 2,5 2,5 2,0 2,2

Check percentage (Left) The areas are correct.

Check percentage (Right) The areas are correct.

Score (Left) 1,0 Score (Right) 1,0

Limits

Score (Left) 1 Score(Right) 1

Score (Left) 1 Score (Right) 1

Core features

1

Limits

Near natural Slightly modified Moderately modified Extensively modified Severely modified Not evaluable

1 2 3 4 5 0

1 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5

Hydromorphological monitoring

Cutting (times/year) 0 0 0 0 0

Final

1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5

Subsidiary features

2

Near natural to slightly modified

1

1

2,5

Slightly to moderately modified

3

2,5

3,5

Extensively to severely modified Not evaluable

5 0

3,5

5

P a g e 106 |

August 2013

Hydromorphological monitoring

Final

P a g e 1|