Comparison of different hydromorphological assessment methods on the example of Croatian surface water bodies

Transcription

1 Comparison of different hydromorphological assessment methods on the example of Croatian surface water bodies Diplomarbeit im Fach Landschaftsplanung Studiengang Landschaftsarchitektur der Fachhochschule Weihenstephan Johannes Reh / Roland Kraus Erstprüfer: Zweitprüfer: Prof. Dr. Markus Reinke Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Marschalek Bearbeitungszeitraum: bis Freising, 01. April 2009

2 Abstract 2 Abstract

3 Table of contents 3 Table of contents Abstract...2 Table of contents...3 List of illustrations...6 List of tables...12 List of abbreviations...14 Preface Introduction Questions and purpose of the diploma thesis Structure of the diploma thesis Professional background Water Frame Work Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) in general Main issues of the WFD Implementation of the WFD Status of implementation in Croatia Hydromorphology and surface waters Definition Hydromorphological characteristics Importance of morphological structures Hydromorphology in the WFD The Croatian macrochore and Croatian surface waters Natural environment and land use Croatian surface waters Hydromorphological assessment Basics and general requirements Basics on assessment methods...44

4 Table of contents General requirements on assessment methods Criteria for method selection for further Selected methods in detail Bavarian method CEN method HR method Field assessment of selected methods Criteria for the selection of Croatian surface waters Procedure of assessment in the field Results Selected river reaches Selected river reaches in the Pannonian ecoregion Selected river reaches in the Dinaric ecoregion Presentation of field results Presentation of field results in the Pannonian ecoregion Presentation of field results in the Dinaric ecoregion Comparison of field results Comparison of field results in the Pannonian ecoregion Comparison of field results in the Dinaric ecoregion Discussion Suitability of methods by means of general requirements Comparability of methods by means of assessment results Comparison of on-site methods BAV-CEN Comparison of on-site methods with the Croatian off-site method Conclusion Perspective Annex I: Definition of types of surface waters and development of draft typology of inland surface waters (Croatian River Typologies)...188

5 Table of contents 5 Annex II: Comparability of Croatian river types and Fließgewässerlandschaften in Deutschland Annex III: Data CD List of Literature Erklärung...197

6 List of illustrations 6 List of illustrations Illustration 1: Implementation schedule of WFD (Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany)...21 Illustration 2: Implementation levels (CIS Guidance Document No. 3)...22 Illustration 3: Parameters of the morphology of river beds and the influence of river construction (Binder, Leuckel)...26 Illustration 4: Morphological structures of river sections (Patt 1998)...28 Illustration 5: Decision making matrix for the ecological status according to WFD...30 Illustration 6: Position of Croatia in Europe (Hrvatska vode)...31 Illustration 7: Altitude typology of Croatian state territory (Habdija, 2008)...32 Illustration 8: Naturalgeographical areas of Croatia (P.Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995)...33 Illustration 9: Geplogical map of Croatia (Habdija, 2008)...34 Illustration 10: Precipitation height per year (Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report)...35 Illustration 11: Landuse in Croatia (CIA 1996)...36 Illustration 12: Black Sea ( Dunavski sliv ) and Adriatic Sea ( Jadranski sliv) catchment area (Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report)...37 Illustration 13: Main river basins of Croatia...38 Illustration 14: Ecoregions of Europe according to Illies (Habdija, 2008)...39 Illustration 15: Ecoregions in Croatia...39 Illustration 16: Distribution of surface waters in Croatia (Hrvatske vode),...40 Illustration 17: Reference condition for Lowland springbrooks (Hrvatska vode)...41 Illustration 18: River Lonja at Tedrovec: Alteration for agricultural land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...41 Illustration 19: Reference condition for Foothill medium sized travertine rivers (Hrvatska vode)...42 Illustration 20: Distribution of hydroelectric plants in Croatia 2008 (Hrvatske vode)...42 Illustration 21: Parameter of the Bavarian water assessment...49 Illustration 22: Recorded rivers during the field assessment in Croatia...67 Illustration 23: Buna at Busevec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...75

7 List of illustrations 7 Illustration 24: Buna at Busevec (Reach until 0+100); Bridge with heavy impairment (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...75 Illustration 25: Buna at Busevec; Straightened planform of Buna (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...76 Illustration 26: Buna at Mala Buna/ west (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...77 Illustration 27: Buna at Mala Buna/ west (Reach until 0+500); Willow trees as riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...78 Illustration 28: Buna at Mala Buna/ west (0+400 until 0+500); Bridge with bed impairment (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...78 Illustration 29: Buna at Mala Buna/ east (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...79 Illustration 30: Buna at Mala Buna/ east (Reach until 0+300); Heavy impairments with several water fixed weirs (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...80 Illustration 31: Buna at Mala Buna/ east (Reach until 0+400); Bridge and impairment of the river (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...80 Illustration 32: Buna at Mala Buna/ forest (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...81 Illustration 33: Buna at Mala Buna/ forest; Natural conditions of special in- channel structures (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...82 Illustration 34: Buna at Mala Buna/ forest; Nearly natural planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...82 Illustration 35: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...83 Illustration 36: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Reach until 0+100); Altered planform with intensive land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...84 Illustration 37: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Reach until 0+300); Altered planform with riparian groves (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...84 Illustration 38: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Reach until 0+500); Artificial barriere (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...84 Illustration 39: Glina at Glina (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...86 Illustration 40: Glina at Glina (Reach until 0+200); Extensive land use on deepened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...86 Illustration 41: Glina at Glina (Reach until 0+400); Straightend and impaired Glina (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...87 Illustration 42: Lonja at Tedrovec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...88

8 List of illustrations 8 Illustration 43: Lonja at Tedrovec; Straightened, trench- like planform with unnatural riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...89 Illustration 44: Bednja at Ples (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...90 Illustration 45: Bednja at Ples; Intensive land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...91 Illustration 46: Bednja at Ples; Light Sinuosity of former trapezoid shaped river (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...91 Illustration 47: Bednja at Veliki Gorenec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...93 Illustration 48: Bednja at Veliki Gorenec (Reach until 0+500); Young growth of Willow trees on trapezoid riverbanks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...93 Illustration 49: Bednja at Veliki Gorenec (Reach until 0+400); Bridge with impairments (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...94 Illustration 50: Bednja at Benkovec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...95 Illustration 51: Bednja at Benkovec (Reach until 0+200); Heavy impaired river banks, light sinuosity of planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...96 Illustration 52: Bednja at Benkovec (Reach until 0+500); Heavy impaired river banks and straightened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...96 Illustration 53: Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...97 Illustration 54: Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb; Natural springbrook in v- shaped valley (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...98 Illustration 55: Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb (Reach until 1+900); Artificial barrier (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...98 Illustration 56: Zbel at Trnovec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 57: Zbel at Trnovec (Reach until 0+200); Straightened planform with natural riparian zone(field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 58: Zbel at Trnovec (Reach until 0+700); Straightened planform within settlement (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 59: Zbel at Zbelava (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 60: Zbel at Zbelava (Reach until 0+700); Straightened planform with natural riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 61: Zbel at Zbelava (Reach until 0+900); Piping under highway (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...103

9 List of illustrations 9 Illustration 62: Kravarscica potok at Lijevo Sredicko (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 63: Kravarscica potok at Lijevo Sredicko; Natural planform with high deposition (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 64: Kupa at Karlovac (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 65: Kupa at Karlovac; Total impaired river within the settlement (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 66: Sava at Zagreb (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 67: Sava at Zagreb; Straightened river within the settlement (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 68: Sava at Otok Nartski (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 69: Sava at Otok Nartski; Natural river with riparian wood (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 70: Sava at Otok Nartski; Heavy bank erosions (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 71: Globornica at Generalski stol (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 72: Globornica at Generalski stol (Reach until 0+500); Natural river with riparian wood (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 73: Globornica at Generalski stol (Reach until 0+800); Intensive agricultural land use on the right riverside (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 74: Dobra at Skukani (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 75: Dobra at Skukani (Reach until 0+900); River with altered planform and extensive land use in floodplain (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 76: Dobra at Skukani; River with altered planform and only small riparian wood (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 77: Dobra at Gorinci (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 78: Dobra at Gorinci; Straightened river with steep slopes (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 79: Dobra at Gorinci (Reach until 0+500); New hydro powerplant at Dobra under construction (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 80: Slunjcica south of Slunj (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)...122

10 List of illustrations 10 Illustration 81: Slunjcica south of Slunj (Reach until 0+500); Natural karstic river without pressures (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 82: Slunjcica south of Slunj; Natural river with steep slopes (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 83: Slunjcica at Slunj (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 84: Slunjcica at Slunj (Reach until 0+200); Fixed weir and impaired banks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 85: Slunjcica at Slunj (Reach until 0+600); Nearly natural river with riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 86: Slunjcica at Slunj (Reach until 0+700); Artificial barrier about 5m (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 87: Korana at Rastoke (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 88: Korana at Rastoke (Reach until 0+100); Impaired banks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 89: Korana at Rastoke (Reach until 0+400); Natural straightened planform in steep v- shaped valley (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 90: Korana at Rastoke (Reach until 0+500); Natural river canyon (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 91: Korana at Slunj (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 92: Korana at Slunj (Reach until 0+400); River as public bath with impaired banks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 93: Korana at Slunj (Reach until 0+600); River with light sinuosity of planform and natural riparian woods (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 94: Mirna at Kotli (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 95: Mirna at Kotli (Reach until 0+600); Natural carstic brook in upper flow (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 96: Mirna at Kotli; Extensive floodplain use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 97: Mirna at Sovinjak (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 98: Mirna at Sovinjak; High tide on river Mirna (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 99: Mirna at Sovinjak; Heavy bank impairments on river mender (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)...134

11 List of illustrations 11 Illustration 100: Mirna at Motovun (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 101: Mirna at Motovun; Heavily straightened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 102: Cetina at Cetina (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 103: Cetina at Cetina; Straightened planform with series of artificial barriers (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 104: Ribnjak at Malik (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 105: Ribnjak at Malik (Reach until 0+500); Natural riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 106: Ribnjak at Malik (Reach until 0+600); Bridge with impairments at Ribnjak (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 107: Dobra at Lipa (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) Illustration 108: Dobra at Lipa; Deepened river with intensive land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 109: Dobra at Lipa; Light straightened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 110: Frequency of assessed values in the Pannonian region Illustration 111: Comparison of field results BAV CEN in the Pannonian region Illustration 112: Deviation in detail BAV-CEN in the Pannonian region Illustration 113: Comparison of field results BAV-HR in the Pannonian region Illustration 114: Deviation in detail BAV-HR in the Pannonian region Illustration 115: Comparison of field results CEN-HR in the Pannonian region Illustration 116: Deviation in detail CEN-HR in the Pannonian region Illustration 117: Frequency of assessed values in the Dinaric region Illustration 118: Comparison of field results BAV CEN in the Dinaric region Illustration 119: Comparison of field results BAV CEN (100m sections) in the Dinaric region Illustration 120: Comparison of field results BAV HR in the Dinaric region Illustration 121: Deviation in detail BAV HR Illustration 122: Comparison of field results CEN HR in the Dinaric region Illustration 123: Deviation in detail CEN HR in the Dinaric region Illustration 124: Comparison of assessment by means of better results in the Dinaric region...159

12 List of tables 12 List of tables Table 1: Morphological river types according to Jungwirth and Muhar...27 Table 2: Areal scales of morphological structures (based on Jungwirth et al 2003)...29 Table 3: Characteristics of the Pannonian and Dinaric ecoregion...43 Table 4: Requirements for assessment methods...45 Table 5: Structure levels of flowing water dynamics (Kartier- und Bewertungsverfahren Gewässerstruktur)...50 Table 6: Categories of core and subsidiary features for determining modification...53 Table 7: Example for assessment levels by means of the planform parameter...54 Table 8: Options applications and procedures for reporting hydromorphological modification scores...56 Table 9: Five value levels within the CEN method...57 Table 10: Three value levels within the CEN method...57 Table 11: Morphological elements of Croatian Method i...59 Table 12: Impacts of hydrotechnical facilities on the change of hydromorphological elements (u)...61 Table 13: Morphological status of water bodies (according to the HR method)...62 Table 14: Calculated values of morphological elements...63 Table 15: River types with the greatest flow length in the Pannonian ecoregion...64 Table 16: River types with the greatest flow length in the Dinaric ecoregion...64 Table 17: Assessed river reaches of the Pannonian ecoregion...68 Table 18: Rivers outside the selection system within the Pannonian ecoregion...70 Table 19: Assessed river reaches of the Dinaric ecoregion...72 Table 20: Rivers outside the selection system within the Dinaric ecoregion...73 Table 21: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Busevec...76 Table 22: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Mala Buna (west)...78 Table 23: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Mala Buna (east)...80 Table 24: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Mala Buna (forest)...82 Table 25: Average results of the river reaches at Glina/ Velika Vranovina...85 Table 26: Average results of the river reaches at Glina/ Glina...87 Table 27: Average results of the river reaches at Lonja/ Tedrovec...89

13 List of tables 13 Table 28: Average results of the river reaches at Bednja/ Ples...92 Table 29: Average results of the river reaches at Bednja/ Veliki Gorenec...94 Table 30: Average results of the river reaches at Bednja/ Benkovec...96 Table 31: Average results of the river reaches at Kraljevacki potok/ Zagreb...99 Table 32: Average results of the river reaches at Zbel/ Trnovec Table 33: Average results of the river reaches at Zbel/ Zbelava Table 34: Average results of the river reaches at Kravarscica potok/ Lijevo Sredicko Table 35: Average results of the river reaches at Kupa/ Karlovac Table 36: Average results of the river reaches at Sava/ Zagreb Table 37: Average results of the river reaches at Sava/ Otok Nartski Table 38: Average results of the river reaches at Globornica/ Generalski stol Table 39: Average results of the river reaches at Dobra/ Skukani Table 40: Average results of the river reaches at Dobra/ Gorinci Table 41: Average results of the river reaches at Slujcica/ south of Slunj Table 42: Average results of the river reaches at Slunjcica/ Slunj Table 43: Average results of the river reaches at Korana/ Rastoke Table 44: Average results of the river reaches at Korana/ Slunj Table 45: Average results of the river reaches at Mirna/ Kotli Table 46: Average results of the river reaches at Mirna/ Sovinjak Table 47: Average results of the river reaches at Mirna/ Motovun Table 48: Average results of the river reaches at Cetina/ Cetina Table 49: Average results of the river reaches at Ribnjak/ Malik Table 50: Average results of the river reaches at Dobra/ Lipa Table 51: Average result of river reaches in the Pannonian eco-region Table 52: Average results of river reaches in the Dinaric ecoregion Table 53: Parallels and differences of selected hydromorphological assessment methods Table 54: Not in shape file listed pressures on Croatian flowing waters] Table 55: Important hydromorpholgical parameters of natural waters Table 56: Existing methods in the individual parameters Table 57: Results and structural method analysis...178

14 List of abbreviations 14 List of abbreviations a.s.l. BAV CEN ImPress HMWB HR RBMP WFD above sea level Bavarian method European method Impact and Pressure analysis Heavily modified water bodies Croatian method River basin management plan Water Framework Directive

15 Preface 15 Preface The purpose of writing this thesis abroad emerged from the wish to deal with water management and the existing water laws outside Germany. It was also interesting to find out how the Water Frame Work Directive (WFD), as the standard of water management within Europe, is implemented abroad. The decision to go to Croatia was initiated through the contact of the University of Applied Sciences in Weihenstephan with the Twinning Project in Croatia for the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive. After some calls and meetings with the responsible experts it was clear that the thesis could be written within the scope of the Twinning Project. Croatia offers special opportunity for working on water management based topics and for observing the implementation of the Water Frame Work Directive. The Republic of Croatia looks back on a 150-year-old tradition of hydraulic engineering. Throughout the water management has been influenced by the geographical position of the country between Eastern and Western Europe. This is the reason why the scientific approach to water management is different to the German one. With regard to the Water Frame Work Directive Croatia presently has the status of an accession country. Therefore Croatia has the duty to adjust its water management to European standard, i.e. to implement the Water Frame Work Directive as present standard. The implementation is only beginning, which allows an excellent survey of the different phases of implementation of the Water Frame Work Directive. On the one hand this thesis has provided the opportunity to get an insight into the Croatian water management and to examine its adjustment to European standards more closely. On the other hand the thesis has offered the chance to get to know Croatian waters, a lot of which are rare in Europe. As the thesis is tied into the Twinning project an intensive contacts and exchange with the Croatian water management authority, Croatian research institutes like the University of Zagreb and European experts from the water sector have been possible.

16 1 Introduction 16 1 Introduction Water bodies have been preferred human settlement areas for centuries. This fact is based on the manifold usage of waters such as for the supply of drinking water or industrial water, for the covering of food by fishing and agriculture or for trade, energy production and waste water disposal. The waters have constantly been changed and anthropogenically influenced due to the constant pressure of usage and the adjustment to human demands. This has lead to massive impairment of the natural water balance and the biocoenosis in and at waters 1. Some of the manifold problems resulting from this unregulated usage of water are the increase of exceptional flooding, the worsening of water quality, the decrease of fish stock or of the general spectrum of species. Water laws were enacted to stop the deterioration of waters and to guarantee sustainable water usage in future. Therefore each country has a multitude of water laws. In the water sector, under the aspect of a united Europe and a Europe-wide legislation, this multitude, however, inevitably leads to problems and conflicts. The Water Frame Work Directive has been established for concentrating the different water laws of the EU countries and for coming up to the latest state of the art in water management. Developed as a framework directive it is intended to form the statutory framework for a standardised view and management of European waters in future. 1.1 Questions and purpose of the diploma thesis In its role as a framework directive the WFD contains binding objectives as well as possible approaches to reaching these. The implementation of the directive is to happen country specifically, that means it has to be adjusted to the particular landscape specific and water specific conditions of the individual member states. However, the member states are free to choose their ways and means for reaching the objectives 2. This means that each European member state is able to develop strategies and methods within the specified regulation framework for meeting the requirements of the directive. 1 2 RUMM, von KEITZ, SCHMALHOLZ, p.105 Rumm, von Keitz, Schmalholz, p.13

17 1 Introduction 17 Yet despite the liberty of the countries the comparability of methods and their results have to be guaranteed. This means that different methods have to achieve similar values by European comparison concerning significance and correctness despite their country specific adaptation. This applies in particular to the collection of basic data, as all further phases of implementation are based on it. The objectives of the WFD can only be achieved durably and for all member states in the same fair way if the methods give comparable significant results. The question if different hydromorphological approaches to assessing waters are suitable and lead to comparable results is to be shown and discuss in this thesis. For this purpose three assessment methods for the hydromorphological condition within Croatia are compared to each other and discussed. The objects of comparison here are the methods Mapping and assessment methods for the structure of waters (BAYLWF; 2002) from now on referred to as Bavarian method (BAV), Water quality - Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology (CEN TC 230/WG 2/TG 5: N65), from now on referred to as CEN method (CEN) and the provisional draft Assessment of hydromorphological status and assessment of risks to achievement of a good ecological status of water as a result of hydromorphological alterations, from now on mentioned as Croatian method (HR). 1.2 Structure of the diploma thesis Based on the question if different methods are suitable similarly for the hydromorphological assessment and achieve similar results the topics WFD and hydromorphology as scientific basics are dealt with as first topics in this thesis titled Comparison of different hydromorphological assessment methods on the example of Croatian surface water bodies. The detailed explanation and description of this range of topics are used to provide general understanding and background knowledge for the following comparison of methods later on within this thesis. For background knowledge facts about the applied geography and the water system of Croatia are also given in chapter 2. This knowledge is necessary for understanding the field mapping which was carried out in the course of this thesis. The methodology forming the basis for this thesis is shown in chapter 3. First the structure and the general basic requirements for hydromorphological assessment methods are discussed. After that there is a detailed description of the tested hydromorphological assessment methods within this thesis. The methodology for choosing the waters,

18 1 Introduction 18 which were collected with those methods in the field, as well as the procedure in the field are also described in this chapter. After that the results of the field collection for the Pannonian and the Dinaric region of Croatia are presented separately and compared. Chapter 5 is the core of this thesis. In this chapter the methods based on detailed description (chapter 3) and field results (chapter 4) are compared with each other and discussed. Discussion is carried out in two steps: first theoretically, by means of the methodical and logical structure of the methods, and following that practically, by means of the results collected within the field mapping. It is to be shown whether the methods are comparably suitable for hydromorphological assessment. The end of this thesis is an outlook which explains in a few words which conclusion for Croatia can be drawn from the findings of this diploma thesis.

19 2 Professional background 19 2 Professional background 2.1 Water Frame Work Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) in general Since then the European Community has tried to regulate the European water policy by over 20 directives concerning waters (for example Drink Water Directive 80/778/EEC, Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment, Fish Directive 78/659/EEC, ). This multitude of regulations made the particular implementation of their contents difficult because those directives often overlapped or contradicted each other in parts. The European Water Frame Work Directive 2000/60/EC was passed by the European Parliament on 7 th September 2000 in order to harmonize European water conservation and to settle the legal situation at the same time. It came into force on 22 nd December and since then it has formed the legal regulation framework for water policy within the European Union and its member states. Water is not a commercial product like any other but rather a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such 3. A new chapter of water legislation in Europe was written by enacting the WFD. For the first time European water management is based on standardised ecological, economic and socially agreeable fundamental principles. Already the above quoted excerpt justifying the WFD 4 (Preamble 1) indicates that the new Directive is more ecologically oriented and stands up for an integrated and lasting water conservation Main issues of the WFD The general objectives for a sustainable and environmentally aware usage of water as a resource are given in paragraph 1 of the WFD. These objectives are specified in paragraph 4 and formulated as criterion for European water management. 3 4 Preamble to WFD, Article 1 cf. Preamble, Article 1

20 2 Professional background 20 The main demand of the WFD deriving from these objectives is the achievement of a good condition of all European waters 5. This condition is described by chemical, physical, biological and structural criteria and has to be achieved for all surface waters and groundwaters, as well as for waters created and heavily modified by humans (HMWB). This good condition is to be oriented towards the natural condition of waters with slight deviations only. All member states are obliged to achieve this good condition of all waters within their national territory until Recently the WFD has decided on a catchment area related approach to waters for achieving this high objective. According to this approach waters are to considered as a whole regardless of their administrative affiliation. This means that waters are examined from the spring to the mouth without consideration of national borders. Waters are divided into units of river basins (surface waters, groundwaters), categories of waters (river, lake, transitional waters and coastal waters) and separate water bodies. In this system water bodies are the smallest units. A water body is a self-contained subunit of categories of waters, such as a river section homogeneous in itself or a stream. Management plans (RBMP) and concepts of measures which are to guarantee the achievement of the good condition are developed on the basis of water bodies. As past experience has shown a durable and fast implementation of projects can only be carried out on a broad base. Therefore the WFD demands intensive public participation as further main contents. This participation is to be made possible by regular information on the status of implementation, measures and the possibility of active participation in planning and implementing processes Implementation of the WFD The WFD can only give the regulation framework for European water policy because of the various differences between the countries. Therefore the requirements and contents of the directive have to be incorporated into the national laws of the member states. Here WFD is determined by binding respites 5 Rumm, von Keitz, Schmalholz, p.105

21 2 Professional background 21 Illustration 1: Implementation schedule of WFD (Summary of River Basin District Analysis 2004 in Germany) The short time frame of 15 years for the implementation consequently demands a quick rethinking by the countries 6. A strategy concerning all river basins and applicable Europe-wide for the implementation of the WFD had to be developed to organise the consistent and comparable implementation of the demanding objectives and the complex contents of regulation of the WFD. For this purpose the European Commission published Guidance documents in cooperation with the administrations of waters. These documents describe basic scientific, technical and practical information on all main parts of the implementation. As informal and legally not binding documents they are to facilitate the implementation for the individual member states. Nevertheless the implementation of the WFD and the achievement of a good condition constitutes a complicated and complex process. Its implementation can be divided into different main phases: ImPress Analyses, Initial Assessments, Establishment of Monitoring, Establishment of River Basin Management Programmes and Programme of Measures. 6 Rumm, von Keitz, Schmalholz, p. 12

22 2 Professional background 22 Illustration 2: Implementation levels (CIS Guidance Document No. 3) The different phases of implementation are described in the following paragraph. ImPress Analysis /Initial assessments At first the water bodies of a member state are described in detail and divided into units of river basins, categories of waters, and individual water bodies in the context of Im- Press Analysis (Impact and pressure Analysis). This classification occurs by means of geological, geographical and hydrological characteristics 7. Each type of water body is assigned to a reference condition for assessing the degree of naturalness. The water condition is to correspond with the very good condition (natural condition) or is to come close to it. Finally significant impacts by human activity are collected and their consequences for the waters for the different types of water bodies are described. After that all waters are compared by means of chemico-physical, biological and hydromorphological quality elements 8 with the reference condition by initial assessments. Thus it can be discovered which waters miss the environmental objectives and which quality elements are responsible for this. 7 8 cf. WFD, Annex II and XI cf. Annex V, WFD

23 2 Professional background 23 Monitoring programmes The development of a monitoring network is required in the WFD. There are three different types of monitoring programmes: surveillance monitoring for observing durable changes by natural and anthropogenic influences, operational monitoring for observing water bodies missing the good condition after ImPress, investigative monitoring, which is only carried out if the reason for not achieving the environmental objectives is unknown. The different monitoring programmes are to enable a coherent and comprising view of the condition of waters as well as of their development. With their help information is to be collected if the WFD's requirements can be achieved in order to trace potential problems in a reliable way. Management plans and measure programmes The WFD determines that management plans have to be set up for all European waters. These plans are to be coordinated with each other and are to guarantee a durable environmentally aware management of the particular waters in future. The management plans are to be set up in a way that the good ecological condition is either preserved (prohibition of deterioration) or achieved (improvement of the condition). Measure programmes are to be set up for water bodies which do not reach the good condition according to the statement of the ImPress analyses and the monitoring programmes. These monitoring programmes are to remove deficiencies within a unit of river basin by precise measures and they are to improve the condition of waters. Here we must distinguish between basic and supplementary measures 9. Basic measures summarize those which are relevant for fulfilling existing directives. Supplementary measures are additional to them and relevant for achieving the demanded good condition. Each of these phases has to be implemented within the member states by a deadline. A report to the European Commission constitutes the end of a phase. 9 cf. paragraph 11 WFD

24 2 Professional background Status of implementation in Croatia Croatia has had the status of an official accession country of the European Union since The accession negotiations have been in process since However, the chapter environment 10 of the accession negotiations has not been treated yet. For the chapter which also deals with water conservation this implies that there are no official commitments or time limits of implementation for Croatia yet. Therefore at the moment Croatia is not bound by law to the WFD. The Croatian Ministry for Rural Development, Forestry and Water Management and the Croatian Waters Authority are already dealing with the WFD on order to implement the WFD quickly and to achieve as many standards as possible within the specified period 11. Beside an administrative development of water administration there are already precise attempts and results concerning the classification and assessment of Croatian waters. At the same time monitoring and the regulation of monitoring stations are developed. According to a presentation of the ministry during the TAIEX Workshop on WFD and UWWDTD Implementation from the 25 th to the 26 th of September 2008 in Zagreb the following results can already be shown: Classification of Croatian waters by means of 4 units of water bodies Classification of Croatian waters in 1754 water bodies Description of all water bodies according to paragraph 5 of the WFD Provisional typology of all Croatian water bodies 12 Assessment results of conditions of water bodies for parts of Croatia By way of trial development of a monitoring network Realization of different river basin management plans as pilot project Only the data of the Pannonian region have been completed for the assessment of water condition. The data of the Dinaric region are either still in progress or missing. 2.2 Hydromorphology and surface waters The following section deals with hydromorphology amongst different aspects for understanding the purpose of hydromorphological surveys: After a short definition, main 10 EU accession document environment 11 cf. diagram 1 period of time 12 cf. Annex I Typology of Croatian Water Bodies

25 2 Professional background 25 processes and factors which determine the appearance ( morphology ) of rivers will be highlighted. Afterwards, the significance of morphological structures for the ecosystem watercourse will be pointed out. At the end there will be an excursus about hydromorphology at an European level. Questions of this part are: How is the recent hydromorphological status of surface waters in Europe? and Which role plays hydromorphology in the WFD? Definition Hydromorphology deals with the structure and dynamics of waters. It investigates the effects of the dynamics of flow ( hydro ) to the shape of waters and floodplains ( morphology ). Hydromorphological features include all the morphological elements that characterise the geometry of a river reach such as planform, cross- and long profiles, bed and bank substrates and vegetation in and near the water 13. Hydromorphological features enable us to draw conclusions relating to the ecological functionality of running water systems Hydromorphological characteristics Hydromorphological developments and characteristics can be considered on different areal scales: The catchment area, the morphological river type and the specific structures of river sections 15. The upper level of this hierarchical system respectively affects the one(s) beneath. In the following part, the specific processes and characteristics of the different levels will be explained in detail. It will mainly be drawn on the information given in Jungwirth et al According to tectonic, geological and climatic conditions in the catchment area different river valleys develop (e.g. v-shaped, wide riverbeds). The type of valley affects the appearance of rivers to a great extent because it determines the freedom of movement of a river (e.g. limited freedom in v-shaped valleys) as well as transport processes. Rivers with steep gradients, high flow velocities and with it high erosion and transport potentials develop completely different riverbed geometries as rivers in shallow depressions with low gradients do. River construction affects the typical riverbed geometry cf. BMU, Hydromorphologischer Atlas Deutschland, 2001 cf. BMU, Hydromorphologischer Atlas Deutschland, 2001 cf. Jungwirth et al, Angewandte Fischökologie an Fließgewässern, 2003

26 2 Professional background 26 The following graphic shows the development of the channel geometry of rivers which is dependant of the interaction of natural base factors and transport processes. Illustration 3: Parameters of the morphology of river beds and the influence of river construction (Binder, Leuckel) The different appearances of rivers which form because of specific natural conditions can be allocated to morphological river types. The morphological river type describes discharge and load budget, the morphology of rivers in planform, cross section and long profile, as well as dynamics of the riverbed and the floodplain on a general basis. Main factors for the development of the morphological river type are transport processes in the riverbed which are dependant from the gradient in a particular river section. In the following table three characteristic river types for the alpine area are shown. Some characteristics of the specific river types were added which were withdrawn from Patt et al 1998.

27 2 Professional background 27 Table 1: Morphological river types according to Jungwirth and Muhar River type Planform Characteristics Channels which show little river development Stretched Channel form is caused by steep gradient and valley-narrowing Erosion and transport of substrate predominates Little river width and depth Small or no floodplain Branchings due to high bed-load discharge in connection with medium to high gradient Furcation No clearly defined banks Tractive force and grain size decreases Low gradient Meander Erosion and sedimentation of smaller grain sizes Greater river width and depth Floodplain forests Instability of the riverbed through constant erosion and sedimentation The different morphological river types which are dependant on specific biogeographical conditions determine different morphological structures of river sections. These structures serve as habitats for waters organisms 16 and can be described separately for the riverbed, the banks and the floodplain: 16 cf. chapter 2.2.3

28 2 Professional background 28 Typical structures of the riverbed are flow diversities, width- and depth diversities and specific substrate compositions which develop because of different flow patterns. Aside these abiotic structures other so called in-stream structures occur in the riverbed (e.g. woody debris). Banks show different characteristics according to the morphological river type (undercut slopes and slip-off slopes for the meander type, relocation sections for the furcation type). Here the vegetation has a special significance: Overhanging branches, washed out trees and root beards, introduction and sedimentation of wood and leaves offer conditions for the development of various structures. The structure and extent of the floodplain is dependant on the size of the river as well as the morphological river type. The stretched river type has naturally no floodplain, whereas rivers in shallow depressions flow over their banks periodically and form typical wood- (floodplain forest, swamp forest) and water structures. Typical water elements in the floodplain are bayous or backwaters. These morphological structures which are dependant from natural base factors in the catchment area and with it the morphological river type can only develop if dynamic processes of the riverbed, the banks and the floodplain are not limited through human actions (e.g. river construction). The following figure shows different morphological structures of a river reach. Illustration 4: Morphological structures of river sections (Patt 1998)

29 2 Professional background 29 As a summary the following table shows the three areal scales of morphological structures. Table 2: Areal scales of morphological structures (based on Jungwirth et al 2003) Catchment area Morphological river type Structures of river sections Natural base factors determine river valley, gradient and transport processes Different morphological river types develop. General description of Planform Channel section Long profile Substrate Floodplain Flow diversities Width- and depth variations Substrate composition In-stream structures (woody debris, leaves) Bank structures (e.g. root beards) Structure of the floodplain (vegetation, backwaters) Importance of morphological structures The most important argument for dealing with morphological structures is that it determines the occurring river biocenosis to a great extent. The structures of river sections described in the previous chapter represent different habitats for waters organisms: The preference of wood structures for example as habitat and shelter for different fish species is explained in Jungwirth et al 2003 in reference of Jungwirth et al Bayous and backwaters in the floodplain act as spawn habitats and as hideaways for fish species in the winter and at high tide. The specific composition of substrate of the riverbed affects the macrozoobenthos which mainly lives in the space between the grains ( interstitial ). Generally it can be assumed that the more diverse morphological structures of a surface water, the more habitats for waters organisms and the more diverse the occurring biocenosis 17. If morphological structures are unified (e.g. through river construction) typical habitats for plant and animal species are lost. Furthermore unchanged hydromorphological conditions affect the waters quality in a positive way. Different flow patterns (fast flowing sections in particular) ensure the introduction of oxygen in the watercourse. Oxygen is needed for the reduction of organic matter which is mainly done by bacteria and fungi Jungwirth et al, Angewandte Fischökologie an Fließgewässern, 2003 Jungwirth et al, Angewandte Fischökologie an Fließgewässern, 2003

30 2 Professional background 30 It should be noted in addition, that hydromorphological structures which are close to the natural conditions reduce flood damages: The overflow potential of rivers in their natural state is not limited through resection or dams and the course of the river is not shortened through river straightening. Thus, floodwater is kept in retention zones and does not accumulate downstream (as it does if morphological structures are reduced) where it can get dangerous for humans Hydromorphology in the WFD The ecological functionality of running water systems can be estimated with hydromorphological features as the previous section highlighted. Therefore the WFD considers hydromorphological features for the ecological classification of rivers. In Annex V WFD the following hydromorphological quality elements for rivers are laid down: Hydromorphological regime (quantity and dynamics of flow, connection to groundwaters) River continuity Morphological conditions (channel patterns, width and depth variations, flow velocity, substrate conditions, structure and condition of riparian zones) However, main criteria for the estimation of the ecological status of rivers are biological features. Hydromorphological characteristics are considered as supportive components for the assessment. That means that the good morphological status is fulfilled, if biological conditions show al least good quality. If the ecological status of a water body is very good, hydromorphological conditions must be very good as well 19. Illustration 5: Decision making matrix for the ecological status according to WFD Recently a high percentage of (middle- and west-) European rivers show a high degree of alteration concerning morphological structures, hydrology as well as longitudinal and lateral connectivity with negative effects on flora and fauna. The risk assessment of the member states revealed that hydromorphological pressures and impacts are one of the most important risks of failing to achieve WFD objectives. Main factors for morphological deteriorations are hydropower and navigation as well as river straightening for the usability of adjacent fields and meadows. 19 cf. Rumm, Von Keitz, Schmalholz, Handbuch der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, 2006

31 2 Professional background 31 After the presentation of the development of morphological structures and their importance for the biocenosis, the next chapter delivers background information about the Croatian macrochore and Croatian surface waters. 2.3 The Croatian macrochore and Croatian surface waters Natural environment and land use Location, territory and population Croatia is a state in the South Eastern part of Europe. The country has boarders with Slovenia, Hungary, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina 20. The total surface of the state territory is km² (Germany: km²), out of which the land surface is km 2, and other km 2 belongs to the coastal sea 21. The majority (69%) of the nearly 4,5 million inhabitants lives in the northern part of the country above the Dinaric mountains 22. Croatia belongs to less urbanized countries, with a share of urban population which merely exceeds one half of the total population 23. The capital and at the same time biggest city of Croatia is Zagreb in the northern part of the country. Illustration 6: Position of Croatia in Europe (Hrvatska vode) cf. illustration 6: Position of Croatia in Europe Hrvatska vode, Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report

32 2 Professional background 32 Topography and naturalgeographical areas Due to topographical and with it climatic conditions the territory of Croatia is separated into three different naturalgeographical areas: Low Pannonian area in the north( m a.s.l.), hilly - mountainous area in the central part ( Dinaric mountains, m a.s.l.) and low Adriatic Sea area in the south of the country 24. The following map shows the altitude typology of Croatia which leads to the classification in natural geographical areas 25. It gets obvious that the altitude of the northern part of Croatia is mainly lower than 200 m ( Pannonian lowlands ). The subsequent hilly to mountainous area in the south with an altitude of more than 800 m a. s. l. is called Dinaric mountains. The third naturalgeographical area south of the Dinaric mountains is the Adriatic Sea area of Croatia (altitude: m a.s.l.). Illustration 7: Altitude typology of Croatian state territory (Habdija, 2008) Hrvatska vode, Croatia national report, 2004 Hrvatska vode, Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995 cf. illustration 8: Naturalgeographical areas of Croatia

33 2 Professional background 33 Illustration 8: Naturalgeographical areas of Croatia (P.Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995) Geology and Climate Geology As far as geological characteristics are concerned, Croatia is divided into two parts: The Pannonian area where siliceous rocks are prevailing and the Dinaric and Coastal area with mainly calcareous bedrock 26. The karstic part (area of calcareous bedrock characterized by sinks, ravines and underground streams) occupies 54% of Croatia s territory (Biodiversity Assessment update for Croatia 2005). 26 cf illustration 9: Geological map of Croatia

34 2 Professional background 34 Illustration 9: Geplogical map of Croatia (Habdija, 2008) Climate Three main climatic regions can be differentiated in Croatia which correspond with the classification in naturalgeographical areas: The northern Pannonian area is characterised by a moderate continental climate with a fairly big difference in temperature at the course of one year (July more than 20 C., January between 0 and 2 C.) 27. In most parts of this region precipitation is around 800 mm per year but increases to more than 1000 mm close to the Dinaric mountains. The central part of the Dinaric mountains shows a mountain climate with comparably cool temperatures (3 C. - 5 C. at an annual avera ge) and affluent precipitation of mm per year. In the coastal area a Mediterranean climate prevails with warm temperatures in the summertime and mild temperatures in the winter. Precipitation in this part is lower than 1500 mm per year 28. In the following illustration the specific distribution of precipitation in Croatia is shown P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995 P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995

35 2 Professional background 35 Illustration 10: Precipitation height per year (Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report) Soil, Vegetation and present land use Soil and vegetation are closely related to rock- and climatic conditions. Therefore soil, vegetation and present land use can be differentiated for the three naturalgeographical regions as well: Pseudogley, brown soil and in the eastern part fertile Black earth are the dominant soils of the Pannonian region. Before man began to change the environment on a large scale, oak dominated forests grew in most places. Close to rivers large azonal floodplain forests prevailed. Now, due to the fertile soils, this region is used for agriculture intensely. This applies for the eastern part of Pannonia (region: Slavonia ) in particular, where more than 50% of the land area is cultivated for agricultural usage 29. In mountainous sites of the Dinaric mountains, forests of beech and oak, fir and spruce are preserved whereas in basins the forest was changed to pastures 30. Predominant soils of this region are rendzina soils, terra fusca or brown- respectively red plastosols P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995 Hrvatska vode, Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995

36 2 Professional background 36 Shallow limestone lithosols occur in the coastal area of Croatia. Original plant communities were forests dominated by holly-leaf oaks (Quercum ilicis) respectively the association of Carpinetum orientalis adriaticum 32. The original forest of the coast is nearly lost caused by transformation to grazed grassland. The subsequent figure demonstrates the predominant land uses in different parts of Croatia. Illustration 11: Landuse in Croatia (CIA 1996) Croatian surface waters Main catchment areas and rivers The total length of Croatian watercourses comprises over km. Rivers flow either into the Black Sea (62% catchment area) or into the Adriatic Sea (38% catchment area) and the watershed between the two basins is formed by the Dinaric mountain range. In the following graphic the two main catchment areas of Croatian surface waters are shown. 32 P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995

37 2 Professional background 37 Illustration 12: Black Sea ( Dunavski sliv ) and Adriatic Sea ( Jadranski sliv) catchment area (Kupa River sub-basin characterisation report) These two main catchment areas can be subdivided into Drava/Danube and Sava river basins in the Black Sea catchment area and into Istrian and Dalmatian river basins in the Adriatic catchment area 33. Croatian major rivers with catchment areas larger than 10,000 km 2 are Danube, Sava, Drava, Kupa, Una and Mura in the Black Sea river basin, and the Neretva River in the Adriatic river basin cf. illustration 13: Main river basins of Croatia Hrvatska vode, Croatia national report, 2004

38 2 Professional background 38 Illustration 13: Main river basins of Croatia Ecoregions and the hydrographical network Ecoregions Illies 35 divided Europe into ecoregions based on the distribution of species of water fauna. His work is the basis for the delineation of river typology in the member states (Annex II WFD). According to Illies the Croatian hydrographic network belongs to Dinaric ecoregion (5) and Pannonian ecoregion (11) 36. As the next section will show, the hydrographical network as well as morphological features of surface waters differ extremely in the two ecoregions cf. Illies, Ecoregions of Europe, 1978 cf. illustration 14: Ecoregions of Europe and illustration 15: Ecoregions in Croatia

39 2 Professional background 39 Illustration 14: Ecoregions of Europe according to Illies (Habdija, 2008) Illustration 15: Ecoregions in Croatia Hydrographical network Due to geological conditions the distribution of watercourses is very different throughout the country: The density of the hydrographical network in the Pannonian plain ranges up to 3.2 km/km 2 which is much greater than in the Dinaric region (karst area) of Croatia. Despite the fact that the karstic part is supplied with greater amounts of pre-

40 2 Professional background 40 cipitation in the course of one year 37, the number of watercourses is compareably little. Here water is not kept on the surface but is led to deeper levels through gaps. The few rivers disappear in sinkholes after a short course 38. The following image illustrates the characteristic distribution of surface waters in Croatia. Illustration 16: Distribution of surface waters in Croatia (Hrvatske vode), Main characteristics and hydromorphological pressures of surface waters Surface waters of the Pannonian region are in most cases lowland rivers which means they belong to the meandering river type 39 with originally extended floodplain forests. Bed substrates are siliceous and small grain sizes (silt, sand, gravel) are dominant. Intense agricultural landuse 40 and in some areas flood protection cause great hydromorphological degradations of surface waters in this part of Croatia. In many places rivers were straightened and floodplain forests were replaced by arable land. Flood cf. chapter P. Jordan, Österreichische Osthefte, Wien 1995 cf. chapter cf. chapter 2.3.1

41 2 Professional background 41 protection limits river-floodplain interactions with negative effects for typical species of flora and fauna 41. The following images illustrate surface waters in the Pannonian ecoregion: The first one presents a river reach in its natural state and the second one shows a stretch with great morphological alteration. Illustration 17: Reference condition for Lowland springbrooks (Hrvatska vode) Illustration 18: River Lonja at Tedrovec: Alteration for agricultural land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Karstic rivers of the Dinaric region are short with frequent rapids and waterfalls (Biodiversity Assessment update for Croatia 2005). They flow often in V-shaped valleys including sections of canyons. In those cases rivers belong to the stretched river type with fast flowing patterns and small or no floodplains. In limestone beds stone blocks and cobbles are dominant. 41 cf. chapter 2.2.2

42 2 Professional background 42 Due to karstic features (e.g. systems of undergroundwater circulation) lots of endemic species are occurring in this area (e.g 32 fish species). In the following picture a river reach of the Dinaric ecoregion with unchanged morphological features is shown. Illustration 19: Reference condition for Foothill medium sized travertine rivers (Hrvatska vode) Great hydromorphological pressures of the Dinaric region are caused by hydroelectric plants which alter natural flow conditions of rivers, prevent the transport of bed load and pose migration barriers to waters organisms. The following figure illustrates the distribution of hydroelectric plants in Croatia. Illustration 20: Distribution of hydroelectric plants in Croatia 2008 (Hrvatske vode)

43 2 Professional background 43 Summary The following table shows the mentioned characteristics of the Pannonian and Dinaric ecoregion at a glance. Table 3: Characteristics of the Pannonian and Dinaric ecoregion Characteristics Pannonian ecoregion Dinaric ecoregion Topography Mostly < 200m a.s.l., Lowland m a.s.l,hilly to mountainous Geology Siliceous rock Calcareous rock Climate Soil Continental, with an average rainfall around 800 mm per year Fertile: Pseudogley, brown soil and Black earth Mediterranean to mountainous. Rainfall in the Dinaric mountains up to 3200 mm per year Not fertile: Limestone lithosols, rendzina Land use Agriculture, mixed farming, forest Permanent crops, pastures, forest Surface waters Hydromorphological pressures Meandering lowland rivers, dense hydrographical network Agriculture, Flood protection Short rivers, often in V-shaped valleys (stretched river type), few rivers Hydropower plants As their morphological features differ extremely, surface waters of the Pannonian and Dinaric ecoregion will be considered separately in this diploma thesis. It shall be investigated whether the three models correspond to the same extent in each of the two ecoregions.

44 3 Hydromorphological assessment 44 3 Hydromorphological assessment In the following chapter different methods for hydromorphological collection and their procedure are shown in detail. Furthermore general requirements for an assessment system are described. In a next step the methods to be examined within this diploma thesis are described in detail. This description constitutes one of the bases for the method discussion in chapter 5.1. The methodology for using the methods in field is explained at the end of chapter 3. This contains the range of Croatian waters to be examined and the realisation of the mapping itself. 3.1 Basics and general requirements Basics on assessment methods Flowing waters represent value-free systems defined by chemical, biological and physical components 42. The components of flowing waters can be collected scientifically at any time. In order to carry out a reasonable assessment both an assessment scale and a target state have to be agreed upon in the first place. The potential natural condition of waters is often chosen for the hydromorphological assessment. It defines the condition which would arise if all human influence on our waters was stopped and undone. Accordingly, this means natural characteristics (dynamics) of waters, without any human disturbance. A model defined this way serves as target state for the assessment. The assessment itself happens by comparing target state and actual state of individual waters. The actual state of waters is identified and compared to the target state by means of defined assessments. Afterwards the water can be allocated to different levels of degradation depending on the degree of deviation. The level of naturalness is shown by the levels of degradation. This classification forms the basis for further water development planning. 42 Zumbroich, Müller, Friedrich; Strukturgüte von Fließgewässern, p. 25, 1999

45 3 Hydromorphological assessment General requirements on assessment methods Assessment methods have a precise intention. They are to collect and to assess an object or an situation. Preferably the analysis is to be quick, cost-efficient and not extensive. But the main aim of the collection is achieving suitable, correct and convincing results. General requirements for a method are defined to ensure this. A possible range of these requirements are described in the following table by A. Otto and W. Reh 43 for the amendment of an assessment method for collecting the water structure in Rhineland-Palatinate. Table 4: Requirements for assessment methods Requirements Repeatability Objectivity Comparability Transparency Practicability Expressiveness Definition Collection and assessment have to be repeatable for all structural parameters, i.e. different individuals have to achieve the same results when using the method. The method for collecting and assessing structural data has to result from objective criteria only. The parameters have to be assessed without any personal preference and interpretation. This implies a coherent correlation system of structural parameters, i.e. individual assessment levels have to be defined with regard to content. Collection and assessment have to take natural features of the different water types into account and they have to achieve comparable results with different water types. The structural definition of hydromorphological parameters and their assessment have to be clear and plausible in all work steps, also to outsiders. The assessment has to be derived comprehensibly and must be retraceable to the original data. Collection and assessment of waters have to be practicable measured by staff costs and expense. Appropriate practicability demands that the method is described in detail in all essential parts and that the user can keep to the method description. Water structure elements have to be collected and assessed which enable expressiveness for all natural balance functions of waters which are important and especially worthy of protection. 43 Otto and Reh, Gewässerstruktur, 1999

46 3 Hydromorphological assessment 46 These criteria are to guarantee that the assessment system is structured logically and significantly and that the results following from the method are comprehensible, traceable and correct. By checking the hydromorphological assessment method with this basic requirement a first estimation can be made to see if the assessment system is aim-oriented and provides comparable field results. In terms of a comparison of methods 44 these general requirements are consulted as an assessment scale which the chosen methods are checked against. The range of methods and their individual description is shown in the following chapters. 3.2 Criteria for method selection for further There is a multitude of assessment methods and professional attempts world wide for the hydromorphological description of waters. They deviate more or less from each other regarding, among others, complexity and methodical attempt. However, as an objective all of them have to describe the hydromorphological condition of waters comprehensibly, transparently and truthfully and they have to realize a description and assessment of waters. For making the comparison of methods transparent only three methods will be considered. The first procedure to compare methods is the Croatian method Assessment of hydromorphological status and assessment of risks to achievement of a good ecological status of water as a result of hydromorphological alterations. With it Croatian waters were hydromorphologically examined and assessed in a provisional version. The Croatian method is the basis of the comparison of hydromorphological assessment methods referring to Croatian waters because it was developed in particular for the implementation of the WFD. The Bavarian mapping method Mapping and assessment methods for the structure of waters (BAYLWF; 2002) is the second method which is examined. This method was chosen because it represents a mapping method recognized and well established in Germany. Above that we have already gained experience with this mapping method and its usage in the field during our studies. 44 cf. chapter 5.1

47 3 Hydromorphological assessment 47 The third procedure within this comparison of methods is the provisional draft of the European standard Water quality Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology (CEN TC 230/WG 2/TG 5 N65). This approach was developed for the country unspecific collection of hydromorphological data. This means that this mapping method allows it to collect water structures of different European waters in an equivalent and comparable way. However, there is only little experience of using this method. 3.3 Selected methods in detail Bavarian method General information: The Bavarian mapping method Mapping and assessment methods for the structure of waters (BAYLWF; 2002) was developed by the Bavarian State Office of Water management for collecting and assessing water structures. It is a further development of the Mapping and assessment methods for the structure of waters 45. It was drafted as information basis for the evaluation of water status and for the determination of precise re-naturation and water development planning on the level of measures. Furthermore it is to supply basic data enabling the development of management and measure plans according to the WFD for particular waters. The water structure map Bavaria was developed under usage of this method and is therefore a recognized method, checked and verified several times. Target system and reference status: The Bavarian method is a model-oriented assessment method. It is described by the potential natural status. This defines the status which would appear if any human influence on our waters was stopped and undone. This is how the potential natural status describes the dynamics of streams flowing waters 46. The measurable definition of development of this natural condition occurs with Stream Flowing water landscapes in Bavaria [BAYLFW 2002b]. There the particular hydromorphological development of the natural status of different types of waters are individually described in a fact file cf. BAYLWF, Wagner; 1995 cf. Chapter 2.2.2

48 3 Hydromorphological assessment 48 Regarding flowing water landscapes, water type specific reference conditions are defined for the field mapping in the form of a short fact file. This fact file is the basic decision for some of the parameters. The Bavarian method subdivides flowing waters into different hierarchic units. The flowing waters are divided into the functional units of stream bed and floodplain. In turn these consist of hydromorphological function complexes and their individual parameters. Each of these units is assessed individually by means of the assessment regulation. Therefore the water structure results from the outcome of the subsystems water dynamics and floodplain dynamics. Components of assessment: The Bavarian method is an on-site mapping method. Based on preliminary office work (collection of basic data, water categorisation, first estimation of a type specific model) the individual structure parameters are collected during field mapping with the help of mapping sheets. The length of a mapping section is 100 metres, regardless of the water size. However, depending on the size of the water it is necessary for some parameters to look at several 100-metre sections for making a statement about its natural functionality. Therefore the method designates a combination of several 100-metre sections to section blocs. 26 individual hydromorphological parameters are collected and assessed by the Bavarian method 47. Thereby we distinguish between parameters directly included in the appraisal (shown in blue colour) and optional parameters collected by reporting (shown in red colour). Thus a statement, for example about further measure based objectives, can be made by the optional parameters. The method contains value structure parameters as well as damage structure parameters. The individual parameters are related to seven hydromorphological function complexes as shown in the following diagram. In turn these function complexes form subunits of the subsystems stream bed and floodplain. Finally these two subsystems together form the total complex flowing water dynamics. This classification is the decisive factor in the aggregation within the assessment. 47 cf. illustration 21: Parameter of the Bavarian water assessment

49 3 Hydromorphological assessment 49 Illustration 21: Parameter of the Bavarian water assessment

50 3 Hydromorphological assessment 50 Assessment: Two principles underlie the assessment: the hierarchy of criteria and the principle of minimum. The hierarchy of criteria assumes that the assessment criteria are evaluated variably regarding their significance for the efficiency of a water. This applies to individual assessment parameters as well as to the two subsystems stream bed and floodplain. On the other hand the principle of minimum describes that a badly assessed parameter cannot be balanced by a good parameter. This means that the worst parameter defines the result within one water section drastically. The collection and assessment of individual parameter result from the following: There are different characteristic levels defined for each individual parameter in a detailed assessment regulation 48. They describe degradation levels of natural development of a parameter compared to the model. The degradation levels are shown by numeric values from 1 (unchanged) to 7 (totally changed). The classification of a parameter is due to the comparison of the condition on site with the predefined description. Here the implementation is to be chosen which matches the situation on site in the majority of cases. The results of the individual parameters are combined for the final assessment according to both principles mentioned above and to an assessment regulation for several levels: individual parameters, functional units, subsystems, total system 49. The final demonstration of water structure for a water section occurs in seven levels showing the deviation from its natural condition Table 5: Structure levels of flowing water dynamics (Kartier- und Bewertungsverfahren Gewässerstruktur) Level of structure Flowing unchanged slightly moderately consid- pro- very pro- com- water changed changed erably foundly foundly pletely dynamics changed changed changed changed BAYLWF; 2002, Chapter 2 cf. illustration 21: Parameter of the Bavarian water assessment

51 3 Hydromorphological assessment CEN method General information: The method Water quality - Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology (CEN TC 230/WG 2/TG 5: N65) is the preliminary version of a European norm. It was developed for standardising and at first published for checking by a small group of European water experts at the suggestion of the European Commission. The norm was developed for standardising the scientific approach to European waters. The method describes an attempt for collecting and assessing all European flowing waters by means of country unspecific hydromorphological characteristics. The method can also be used, beside the standardised assessment of different European waters, for the basic evaluation for further water management plans such as flood protection planning and renaturation of flowing waters. The method has still been submitted to testing since its publishing in A statement about its general use cannot be given yet because of small experience with the method. Target system and reference conditions: The CEN method is model oriented. This model is represented by the natural condition of waters. However, this natural condition is not defined by means of measurable features. The definition of natural reference conditions is carried out by means of basic data before the mapping. Flowing waters are examined and assessed within this method by means of the functional units river bed, river bank, riparian zone and flood area. Components of assessment: The collecting of the hydromorphological status is done by on-site mapping. During the inspection impairment of waters by humans is collected by means of hydromorphological structural parameters with the aid of mapping sheets. The basic unit for the mapping are again 100-metre sections. This method, however, plans that the description of structurally similar sections is summarised. This summarising occurs during field mapping by means of obvious changes of structural parameters.

52 3 Hydromorphological assessment 52 For example two kilometres of stream reach were combined in two water sections at the river Lonja 50. This combination was made because the water was very uniform in its variety of hydromorphological structures and differed only in the adjacent land use. All other parameters have only changed imperceptibly during the whole fetch. The method examines 16 hydromorphological structural parameters, which are divided into core parameters and subsidiary parameters 51. Hydromorphological changes of flowing waters resulting directly or indirectly from human use are collected by core parameters. These parameters can be collected without knowing the flowing water type. Changes in the waters which have consequences for the living space flowing water are collected by subsidiary parameters. These parameters are strongly ecologically determined and can only be collected by identifying the type of flowing water. Structural parameters of damage are collected as well as structural parameters of value cf. chapter 4.2.1, warrant of apprehension 7 Lonja at Tedrovec Table 6: Categories of core and subsidiary features for determining modification

53 3 Hydromorphological assessment 53 Table 6: Categories of core and subsidiary features for determining modification Category Core Subsidiary 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

54 3 Hydromorphological assessment 54 Assessment: The basis for the assessment is the deviation of the collected on-site condition of a parameter compared to the model within the consistent water section. For each individual parameter different levels of degradation from the model are defined according to the assessment rules 52. Here the method shows two different types of categorisation as shown in the table below: a quantitative one (Score Band A) and a qualitative one (Score Band B). Table 7: Example for assessment levels by means of the planform parameter Score band A - Quantitative Score band B - Qualitative 1 = 0-5% of reach length with changed planform. 2 = >5-15% of reach length with changed planform. 3 = >15-35% of reach length with changed planform. 1 = Near-natural planform. 3 = Planform changes throughout part of the reach. 5 = Planform changed in majority of reach, or reach completely, or almost completely, straightened. 4 = >35-75% of reach length with changed planform. 5 = >75% of reach length with changed planform. Score band A distinguishes between five levels of degradation (1-5) by means of quantitative percentage. In contrast to that score band B only distinguishes between three levels of degradation (1,3,5). These levels are defined by qualitative statements. In the assessment value 1 shows no or little deviation, value 5 shows massive or total deviation from the model. Some parameters are defined either qualitatively or just quantitatively. Others, however, are defined under score band A as well as under score band B. In this case the mapping person can choose under which system the parameter is collected. 52 cf. Water quality - Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology, Annex III

55 3 Hydromorphological assessment 55 The categorization of parameters results from the comparison of on-site conditions with the particular pre-defined characterization. This method offers the option of showing the results of a single assessment in four different ways, due to the importance of information. Thus each way of showing the results leads to a different profoundness of statement as it shown in the following table.

56 3 Hydromorphological assessment 56 Table 8: Options applications and procedures for reporting hydromorphological modification scores Reporting option 1: Tabulate 16 scores separately 2: Create a 3- digit code 3: Group features according to zone 4: Produce a single score for the reach assessed Examples of applications Providing maximum amount of information for river management Reporting river modification within the three main hydromorphological quality elements given in the WFD (morphology, flow regime, and longitudinal continuity) but with no attempt to link hydromorphology with biology Reporting on the three main river zones: channel, banks/riparian zone and floodplain, as recommended in EN Reporting overall hydromorphological modification of a river reach without the detail Procedure Score as in Annex A for all features (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10a, 10b); do not combine. Combine the scores for categories 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 7, 8, 9, 10a, 10b to create a single score for morphology (the first of the three digits). Scores should be rounded up or down to the nearest integer (rounding up any that end in.5) Report the score for category 5 for flow (the second of the three digits) using 5a, 5b or 5c, whichever has the higher score (i.e. represents the greater impact). Report the score for category 6 for longitudinal continuity (the third of the three digits). [For example, a code of 111 would indicate a river with the lowest degree of morphological modification, near-natural flow, and with no structures inhibiting upstream and downstream movement of sediment and biota.] Feature categories should be grouped as follows and mean scores calculated for the three zones: Channel: 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6 Banks/riparian zone: 7, 8 Floodplain: 9, 10a, 10b Take the mean of the 16 scores (see no. 1 in table). Round up or down to the nearest integer. Scores ending in.5 should be rounded up.

57 3 Hydromorphological assessment 57 As an example under notation 1 all 16 individual parameters are related separately to hydromorphological changing levels after water sections. This display format allows detailed basic data for water development plans, because individual deficiencies are pointed out clearly. Notation 4, however, 4 allows a general demonstration of the hydromorphological status of waters by average determination of all parameters within a water section. Final assessment of flowing water section takes place either in five hydromorphological value levels 53 or in three hydromorphological value levels 54 depending on the chosen notation. Table 9: Five value levels within the CEN method Score Class Description Map colour 1-<1.5 1 Near-natural Blue 1.5-<2.5 2 Slightly modified Green 2.5-<3.5 3 Moderately modified Yellow 3.5-<4.5 4 Extensively modified Orange Severely modified Red Table 10: Three value levels within the CEN method Score Class Description Map colour 1-<2.5 1 Near-natural Blue 2.5<3.5 3 Slightly to moderately modified Yellow Extensively to severely modified Red cf. Table 9: 5 value levels within the CEN method cf. Table 10: 3 value levels within the CEN method

58 3 Hydromorphological assessment HR method General information: The Croatian method Assessment of hydromorphological status and assessment of risks to achievement of a good ecological status of water as a result of hydromorphological alterations is available as a draft version at the moment. This methodic attempt was developed by the Croatian water management 55 authority for the implementation of the WFD in The hydromorphological Pressure and Impact Analysis is to be carried out for Croatian flowing waters by applying this method. The method consists of the assessment of the hydromorphological status of waters and the risk assessment based thereupon. There is only little experience with this method as it was only developed recently and has not been applied to all Croatian waters yet. Target system and reference conditions The HR method is aiming at carrying out the Pressure and Impact Analysis (Collection of basic data) and the following risk assessment (estimation which waters do not achieve the good condition) according to the WFD 56. The method defines the good condition of waters also as value scale. Yet at the same time the final system of good condition is not defined by means of natural reference conditions (measurable hydromorphological parameters) but by the presence and intensity of human influence and use of waters. In short if there is no human influence on waters it is in accordance with its natural condition and hence the natural reference conditions. This method does not deal with water specific differences within the collection of basic data. This consideration is incorporated later in the risk assessment by a factor. The model is shown by eight hydromorphological elements within this method. These elements are identical to the quality components for the hydromorphological description of rivers Developed from Hrvatska vode, Institute of Water Management (Darko Barbalic, Tina Miholic, Marin Mijalic) and Hravtaska vode, Department of Protection from Adverse Effects of Waters cf. chapter 2.1 cf. hydromorphological quality standards for rivers, ANNEX V, WFD

59 3 Hydromorphological assessment 59 Table 11: Morphological elements of Croatian Method i Morphological elements 3 quantity and dynamics of water flow (QUDY 4 connection to ground water bodies (COGW) 5 river continuity longitudinal (RCLO) 6 river continuity lateral (RCLA) 7 channel pattern (CHPT) 8 river depth and width variation (DWVA) 9 structure and substrate of the river bed (RBST) 10 structure of the riparian zone (RZST) Components of assessment: The Croatian method is a model based off-site method. This means that the hydromorphological estimation of parameters and components does not happen by field mapping. Instead the hydromorphological categorisation and assessment is calculated by a formula by means of existing basic data from different sources. Here the basic unit for assessing the condition is the water body defined according to the WFD. This means that with this method a water body as a whole is assessed uniformly. The method does not assess actual hydromorphological structure parameters such as planform, substratum etc. Instead the method tries to make a statement about the hydromorphological condition of waters via anthropogenic influences on waters. For this 35 hydrotechnical facilities are assessed by means of their influence on the natural condition (hydromorphological units). Assessment: The assessment of the hydromorphological condition of a water is calculated for water bodies by the following formula: S i = lu l

60 3 Hydromorphological assessment 60 where: u = impact of hydrotechnical facilities and activities on the changes in hydromorphological elements (table in annex 1) l = section length S i = scale of the morphological change for the morphological element i The particular parameters are described in the following text. Value u : The basis of the assessment is the value u. This value describes the impact of particular hydrotechnical facilities on the changing of hydromorphological elements 58. Such hydrotechnical units are 35 forms of impact on waters by hydro-engineering. They were defined as significant impacts on Croatian waters as the results of a nation wide research 59. Through these units a value is allocated to each morphological element i. This value provides information about the deviation of a particular hydromorphological element from the model. Value 0 means no deviation from the model, value 10 means the highest deviation. The method also shows the deviation as percentage. 100% means complete deviation, 0% means no deviation at all, thus equivalent to the model cf. Table 12: Impacts of hydrotechnical facilities on the change of hydromorphological elements conducted by WMD Sava, WMD Drava and Department of Protection from Adverse Effects of Water

61 3 Hydromorphological assessment 61 Table 12: Impacts of hydrotechnical facilities on the change of hydromorphological elements (u) This table of basic assessment was developed by expert opinion in the absence of basic hydromorphological data and experience within Croatia. Value l : The parameter l appears twice in the formula. It indicates each with the total length of the section respectively the water body. In the denominator the length l consists of added segments (l 1 + l ,+ l x ). The sum of factor u and its impact length [(u 1 * l 1 ) + (u 2 * l 2 ) + (u 2 * l 2 ) (u x * l x )] is formed in the nominator. The length of impact of the particular hydrotechnical parameter is not given in the Croatian description of method. This length of impact was defined by expert opinion, according to the expert interview 60. The value S i : The value S i shows the result for one respective hydromorphological element within the assessment section. This value is between 0 and 1, if shown in percentage respectively, it is between 0% and 100%. The following applies: the smaller the value the 60 Expert interview with Darko Barbalic (Hrvatska vode) on the 12th of December in 2008

62 3 Hydromorphological assessment 62 smaller is the deviation from the natural condition of the assessed element i. The result is allocated to a scale with five levels by means of the assessment rules 61. Table 13: Morphological status of water bodies (according to the HR method) Morphological status S Very good < Good Moderate Poor Bad >0.6 The development of limit values for these assessment factors is also based on expert opinion. Then the final hydromorphological condition of a water is formed by the highest value of the morphological individual parameter S i. S = max( S i ) The following example is a demonstration of the formula and the values it contains, because the Croatian description of methods has no sample calculation for the valuation. In this example all data and information correspond with the Croatian description of method and the expert interviews. Example: A water body (total length 973 m) is to be examined hydromorphologically. The water body is influenced by the hydrotechnical facilities ditch and groins. The ditch has a length of impact of 250 metres and the groins have a length of impact of 500 metres (the length of impact is fictitious, because there is no table of impact in the Croatian description of method). Now the individual impact of hydrotechnical facilities on the morphological elements S i is calculated. 61 cf. table 13: morphological status of water bodies (according to the HR method)

63 3 Hydromorphological assessment 63 After entering the values u and i the formula for the morphological element quantity and dynamics of water flow would be: S i = (250m x 10) + (500m x 5) 973m Therefore the value for the morphological element quantity and dynamics of water flow is 5,14. In percentage this means that the morphological element deviates from the model by 51,4%. There are the following results after calculating the other S i values: Table 14: Calculated values of morphological elements Morphological Element Result in percentage Connection to ground water bodies (COGW) 30,8% River continuity longitudinal (RCLO) 41,1% River continuity lateral (RCLA) 61,6% Channel pattern (CHPT) 46,2% River depth and width variation (DWVA) 71,9% Structure and substrate of the river bed (RBST) 41,1% Structure of the riparian zone (RZST) 30,8% Showing the greatest deviation of 71,9% the value DWVA has become the decisive factor for the hydromorphological condition within this water body according to the assessment rule. So this water body would be allocated to the hydromorphological status 5 (bad). 3.4 Field assessment of selected methods Criteria for the selection of Croatian surface waters As not all of the surface waters in Croatia can be assessed with the described on-site methods within this diploma thesis, a strategy for the selection of river reaches is needed. The selection is based on four main criteria which are explained below.

64 3 Hydromorphological assessment 64 Black Sea catchment area Currently there is only very limited data for the Adriatic catchment area available. Delineation of river typologies and the assessment of the hydromorphological status of surface waters is in process for this part of Croatia at the moment. Consequently there will be a focus on the Black Sea catchment area of Croatia where data is available. Selection according to Croatian river typology The idea behind river typology is to merge rivers with common characteristics like catchment size, annual discharge or substrate mix of the riverbed. Rivers with the same typology are in the same macrochore and their ecological features are similar (e.g. predominant plant and animal species). For the Black Sea catchment area 25 river types have been determined in total, 16 for the Pannonian ecoregion, and 9 for the Dinaric ecoregion. For the diploma thesis the three most frequent river types in the Pannonian and in the Dinaric ecoregion will be assessed. Frequency in this respect means the total length (km) of the particular river type in Croatia. The reason for chosing the most frequent types is that reliable statements can be made for most of the country. For the Black Sea catchment area the three most frequent river types in the Pannonian ecoregion represent 73 % of the flow length of all rivers and in the Dinaric part of the Black Sea catchment area, 66 % of the total flow length is covered by three river types. In the following tables the river types with the greatest flow length in the Pannonian and in the Dinaric ecoregion are shown. Table 15: River types with the greatest flow length in the Pannonian ecoregion HR-type Name Length (km) 3a Lowland springbrooks b Lowland medium sized rivers a Foothill springbrooks 601 Table 16: River types with the greatest flow length in the Dinaric ecoregion HR-type Name Length (km) 12a Foothill travertine springbrooks a Foothill medium sized travertine rivers a Foothill large travertine rivers 144

65 3 Hydromorphological assessment 65 Additionally two characteristic rivers will be valuated in the Adriatic catchment area one in the Istrian river basin and one in the Dalmatian river basin. Selection according to Croatian assessment Those rivers shall be considered, where a Croatian hydromorphological assessment was done. Thus the results of the on-site methods can be compared with the Croatian model. According to the WFD requirements, rivers with more than 10 km 2 catchment area have been assessed in Croatia. Selection according to stage of human alteration Different degrees of hydromorphological alterations on rivers shall be assessed in field (little-, moderate-, heavy alteration). Thereby it will get clear to which extent the different methods reflect different levels of hydromorphological alteration. For the determination of different grades of river degradation an aerial photo analysis with Google earth served as a first estimation. For the assessment the following features which are linked to the hydromorphological state of watercourses were considered: River sinuosity (extent of river straightening) Bank side strips (present or not) Landuse in the riparian zone and floodplain (forest or agriculture) Pressures (e.g. dams, dikes) Most important feature of the analysis was the planform of a river. The sinuosity can be used as an indicator for the morphology, as straightened waters show little morphological features and rivers with a natural sinuosity usually achieve good morphological assessments. There was the attempt to cover the three degrees of alteration at one single river. However not all the grades could be identified at one river through the aerial photo analysis. Therefore other rivers with the same typology were chosen Procedure of assessment in the field Length of the assessment For the comparison of different hydromorphological assessment methods it is not necessary to record the total length of surface waters. In the diploma thesis it shall be shown how different degrees of hydromorphological alteration are reflected through the different assessment methods.

66 3 Hydromorphological assessment 66 The aim is to valuate a representative part of a degradation stage. For this reason, a minimum length of 500 meters was chosen for one degradation stage. If in field it turns out that the chosen section from the aerial photo analysis varies a lot as far as hydromorphological characteristics are concerned (e.g. changes in land use, erosion or gravel islands which cannot be identified through the aerial photo), the 500 meter stretch was extended. The particular river reach is assessed with the BAV- and the CEN Method. As described in the manual of the Bavarian method, hydromorphological features of rivers were recorded in 100 m stretches. When applying the CEN Method, identical 100 m sections were united to greater river reaches. The measurement of the distance in field happened through foot-pacing. Reference condition For both methods the knowledge of the reference condition of the considered river stretch is necessary to record the deviation from naturalness and with it to classify the hydromorphological status. However no detailed descriptions of reference conditions of Croatian river types are available at the moment. Therefore passports of the German river stream typology 62 were assigned to Croatian river types where possible (similar characteristics like catchment area, bedrock, substrate). 62 Pottgiesser M. and Sommerhäuser M. Profiles of German streams, 2004

67 4 Results 67 4 Results This chapter deals with the results of the three assessment methods at different river reaches in Croatia. There will be a separate consideration of the Pannonian and Dinaric ecoregion as the morphology of surface waters differ to a great extent in the two regions. The question shall be answered whether the results of the methods differ according to ecoregions. First selected river reaches will be presented. Afterwards the results at the assessment spots will be listed. To be able to answer the question if different methods deliver comparable output, the results of the different methods will be compared at the end of this chapter. 4.1 Selected river reaches In total, 30 river stretches were assessed with the BAV and the CEN method, 17 in the Pannonian ecoregion and 13 in the Dinaric ecoregion. The selection of these river reaches happened according to the criteria described in Chapter The following illustration shows the rivers which had been assessed in Croatia. Illustration 22: Recorded rivers during the field assessment in Croatia

68 4 Results Selected river reaches in the Pannonian ecoregion The following table shows recorded river reaches of the Pannonian ecoregion. The selection was based on aerial photo analysis. There are following criteria within this analysis: planform (1) bank side strips (2) landuse in riparian zone (3) pressures (4) Table 17: Assessed river reaches of the Pannonian ecoregion Typology Nr. River Closest Settlement Aerial photo analysis Estimation of hydromorphological status 1 Buna Busevec 1) straightened bad 2) not present 3a Lowland springbrooks 2 Buna Mala Buna 3) agriculture 1) altered moderate - bad (west) 2) not present 3) agriculture 3 Buna Mala Buna 1) straightened moderate - bad (east) 2) not present 3) agriculture 4 Buna Mala Buna 3) forest good - moderate (forest)

69 4 Results 69 Sequel to table 17: Assessed river reaches of the Pannonian ecoregion Typology Nr. River Closest Settlement Aerial photo analysis Estimation of hydromorphological status 5 Glina Velika Vranovina 1) straightened moderate 4b Lowland medium sized rivers 2a Foothill springbrooks 2) groves 3) agriculture 6 Glina Glina 1) straightened 2) groves 3) agriculture 4) dikes 7 Lonja Tedrovec 1) straightened 2) not present 3) agriculture (east) forest (west) 8 Bednja Ples 1) straightened 2) groves 3) agriculture 9 Bednja Veliki Gorenec 1) straightened 2) not present 3) agriculture 10 Bednja Benkovec 1) straightened 2) not present 3) agriculture bad bad moderate - bad bad bad

70 4 Results 70 Table 18: Rivers outside the selection system within the Pannonian ecoregion Typology Nr. River Closest Settlement Aerial photo analysis Estimation of hydromorphological status 2b Foothill springbrooks 11 Kraljevacki potok Zagreb 2) forest good 12 Zbel Trnovec 1) straightened Moderate - bad 3a Lowland springbrooks 2) groves 3) agriculture 13 Zbel Zbelava 1) straightened 2) not present 3) village (east) agriculture (west) bad 3c Lowland smaller rivers 14 Kravarscica potok Lijevo Sredicko 2) forest good 6 Lowland large rivers 7b Lowland very large rivers 15 Kupa Karlovac 1) straightened 2) not present 3) settlement 4) dikes 16 Sava Zagreb 1) straightened 2) not present 3) settlement 4) dikes bad bad 7b Lowland very large rivers 17 Sava Otok Nartski 2) forest good As the table shows, 7 rivers were considered outside the selection system. They were assessed at the beginning of the recording process to get first experiences with the onsite methods. It was decided to analyse them as well, as they contribute to the amount of data for the comparison of the CEN and BAV method. Although River Zbel is delineated as type 3a Lowland springbrooks, it is listed as a river outside the selection system because no assessment with the HR-model was conducted. River Zbel is not WFD relevant because its catchment area is smaller than 10 km 2. Consequently no Croatian assessment was conducted.

71 4 Results Selected river reaches in the Dinaric ecoregion In the Dinaric part it was not possible to stick to the selection system completely because the small rivers of typology 12a Foothill travertine springbrooks were often hard to recognise through the aerial photo, and the few big rivers of typology 14a Foothill large travertine rivers were at high tide the time the assessment was done (November/December 2008). Consequently more rivers of typology 13a Foothill medium sized travertine rivers were selected. In addition one similar river to typology 12a, and one similar river to typology 14a was assessed outside the selection system. In the Adriatic catchment area river Mirna was chosen for the Istrian river basin and river Cetina for the Dalmatian river basin. The selection of these two rivers happened on the recommendation of experts of the University of Zagreb. At river Cetina it was only possible to assess one river reach close to its spring due to flooding in downstream areas. In the following table recorded rivers of the Dinaric ecoregion are listed.

72 4 Results 72 Table 19: Assessed river reaches of the Dinaric ecoregion Typology Nr River Closest Settlement Aerial photo analysis Estimation of hydromorphological status 12a Foothill travertine springbrooks 18 Globornica Generalski Stol 2) groves No estimation possible 19 Dobra Skukani 1) altered good - moderate 13a Foothill medium sized travertine rivers 2) groves 3)agriculture 20 Dobra Gorinci 3) forest 4) dam 21 Slunjcica south of Slunj 1) not altered 3) forest 22 Slunjcica At Slunj 1) not altered 3) forest 4) weirs good - bad good good - moderate 23 Korana Rastoke 2) groves good - moderate 24 Korana Slunj 1) altered Moderate - bad 2) not present 25 Mirna Kotli 3) forest good Adriatic catchment area 26 Mirna Sovinjak 1) altered 2) not present 3) agriculture 27 Mirna Motovun 1) straightened 2) not present 3) agriculture moderate - bad bad 28 Cetina Cetina not possible

73 4 Results 73 Table 20: Rivers outside the selection system within the Dinaric ecoregion Typology Nr River Closest Settlement Aerial photo analysis Estimation of hydromorphological status 12d Lowland smaller nontravertine rivers 29 Ribnjak Malik 3) forest good 14b large rivers Lowland 30 Dobra Lipa 1) altered 2) groves 3) agriculture 4) weirs good- moderate 4.2 Presentation of field results In the following chapter the field results of the three methods will be presented. As described in chapter 3.4 own assessments were conducted with the CEN and BAV method. In total, 22,5 km with each method were assessed, 14,5 km in the Pannonian region and 8 km in the Dinaric region. The results for the HR method were provided by Croatian waters 62. Each recorded river reach will be described in the following way: First information about the location, the starting point and the length of the recorded river reach will be delivered. An aerial photo drawn from Google earth serves as an image presentation of the assessment spot. In this picture the 100 m distances of the mapped reach are marked. It was important to achieve an overview about the selected reach regardless of the particular scale. Therefore the scale is not mentioned explicitly and varies according to the reach length. Afterwards the river reaches will be characterised according to main morphological features and pressures. These characteristics are underlined with pictures taken onsite. In the next point the results of the three methods will be shown. Here the BAV- and the CEN method are presented with the results of single 100 m sections. These 100 m reaches are illustrated in the 7 point scale for the BAV method and in the 5 point scale for the CEN method. 62 cf. GIS data, data CD Annex III

74 4 Results 74 The presentation of the 100 m results for the BAV method is made through three numbers, where the first marked number represents the end-result of the 100 m stretch, the first number in brackets shows the provisional result for dynamic of the riverbed and the second number in brackets illustrates the provisional result for dynamic of the floodplain. The demonstration of the results for the CEN-method happened according to option 4 Produce a single score for the reach assessed described in the standard 63. The value in brackets after the single score of the CEN-method represents the mean value of all the assessed features of the particular reach. To achieve a comparability with the HR-method which does not assess 100 m parts but whole water bodies, a mean value of the mapped reach was calculated for the two on-site methods afterwards. In addition, the mean result for the BAV method was aggregated from 7 to 5 scales as the CEN and the HR method operate in a 5 point scale. This aggregation happened in the following way: The first two classes were united to one single value (class 1 and 2 = class 1) and the last two classes were united to one class (class 6 and 7 = class 5). The subsumption of scores was made on the basis of an expert who participated in the development of the BAV method. The last point of the presentation of each particular reach deals with remarkabilities of the methods on-site. For the BAV and CEN method parameters are listed which had not been assessed due to specific circumstances (e.g. high tide). On the basis of the shapefile 64 provided by Croatian waters, the recorded pressures which affect the morphology of the considered river reach according to the HR-method are mentioned Presentation of field results in the Pannonian ecoregion Buna at Busevec a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at Buna river. Starting point of the assessment was the bridge over Buna between the settlements Busevec and Ogulinec cf. Chapter cf. GIS data, data CD Annex III

75 4 Results 75 Illustration 23: Buna at Busevec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapeze profile, bridge, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain. Reach : see above, no bridge Illustration 24: Buna at Busevec (Reach until 0+100); Bridge with heavy impairment (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

76 4 Results 76 Illustration 25: Buna at Busevec; Straightened planform of Buna (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 21: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Busevec Reach BAV CEN HR (6/5) 4 (4,1) (6/5) 4 (3,5) (6/5) 4 (3,5) (6/5) 4 (3,5) (6/5) 4 (3,5) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach.

77 4 Results 77 Buna at Mala Buna (west) a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at Buna river. Starting point of the assessment was 100 m west of the bridge across Buna south of Mala Buna. Illustration 26: Buna at Mala Buna/ west (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, trapeze profile, shrubs on banks (willows), intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : see above, impairments of the bank, bridge

78 4 Results 78 Illustration 27: Buna at Mala Buna/ west (Reach until 0+500); Willow trees as riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 28: Buna at Mala Buna/ west (0+400 until 0+500); Bridge with bed impairment (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 22: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Mala Buna (west) Reach BAV CEN HR (4/3) 3 (2,5) (4/4) 3 (2,5) (4/5) 3 (2,5) (4/5) 3 (2,5) (4/4) 4 (3,8) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 5 4 2

79 4 Results 79 d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. Buna at Mala Buna (east) a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at Buna river. The assessment started 500 meter west of the settlement Mala Buna. Illustration 29: Buna at Mala Buna/ east (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapeze profile, swells (50 cm), intensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : see above, banks impaired, bridge

80 4 Results 80 Illustration 30: Buna at Mala Buna/ east (Reach until 0+300); Heavy impairments with several water fixed weirs (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 31: Buna at Mala Buna/ east (Reach until 0+400); Bridge and impairment of the river (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 23: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Mala Buna (east) Reach BAV CEN HR (6/3) 4 (4,1) (6/5) 4 (4,1) (6/5) 4 (4,1) (6/4) 5 (4,6) (7/4) 5 (4,6) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 5 4 2

81 4 Results 81 d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. Buna at Mala Buna (forest) a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at the river Buna. Starting point of the assessment was 1 km south east of the setlement Mala Buna. Illustration 32: Buna at Mala Buna/ forest (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform slightly altered, groves on banks, extensive land use in riparian zone and flodplain Reach : see above, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain (right side of the river)

82 4 Results 82 Reach : see above, vegetation on banks and adjacent land close to nature (groves) Illustration 33: Buna at Mala Buna/ forest; Natural conditions of special in- channel structures (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 34: Buna at Mala Buna/ forest; Nearly natural planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 24: Average results of the river reaches at Buna/ Mala Buna (forest) Reach BAV CEN HR (3/2) 2 (1,6) (3/3) 2 (1,8) (3/4) 2 (1,8) (3/3) 2 (1,6) (3/3) 2 (1,6) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 2 2 2

83 4 Results 83 d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. Glina at Velika Vranovina a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at the river Glina. Starting point of the assessment was 700 m north of the bridge across Glina at Velikika Vranovina. Illustration 35: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, groves on banks, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Planform altered, groves on banks, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain (right side of the river), no floodplain (left side of the river)

84 4 Results 84 Reach : see above, swell (100 cm) Illustration 36: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Reach until 0+100); Altered planform with intensive land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 37: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Reach until 0+300); Altered planform with riparian groves (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 38: Glina at Velika Vranovina (Reach until 0+500); Artificial barriere (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

85 4 Results 85 c.) Results Table 25: Average results of the river reaches at Glina/ Velika Vranovina Reach BAV CEN HR (4/5) 2 (2,1) (4/5) 2 (2,1) (4/5) 2 (2,0) (4/5) 2 (2,0) (5/5) 3 (2,6) 1 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. Glina at Glina a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment at river Glina was 900 m north of the bridge across Glina west of the settlement Glina. A 900 m stretch was mapped.

86 4 Results 86 Illustration 39: Glina at Glina (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, banks altered, groves on banks, extensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain, dams on both sides of the river Reach : see above, banks impaired, trapeze profile, no groves on banks Reach : see reach Reach : groves on banks, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Illustration 40: Glina at Glina (Reach until 0+200); Extensive land use on deepened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

87 4 Results 87 Illustration 41: Glina at Glina (Reach until 0+400); Straightend and impaired Glina (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 26: Average results of the river reaches at Glina/ Glina Reach BAV CEN HR (5/6) 3 (2,9) (4/6) 3 (2,9) (6/6) 4 (3,6) (6/6) 4 (3,6) (5/6) 3 (3,2) (5/6) 3 (3,2) (5/6) 3 (3,3) (5/6) 3 (3,3) (5/6) 3 (3,3) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. Pressures listed for the HRmethod in the assessed reach are dams on both sides of the river and a public bath

88 4 Results 88 Lonja at Tedrovec a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 2000 m stretch was recorded at river Lonja. Starting point of the assessment was the bridge across Lonja 400 m north of the settlement Tedrovec. Illustration 42: Lonja at Tedrovec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapeze profile, resectioning of the river, intense land use in riparian zone, forest (left of the river) respectively arable land (right of the river) in the floodplain, swell 10 cm Reach : see above, no swell

89 4 Results 89 Illustration 43: Lonja at Tedrovec; Straightened, trench- like planform with unnatural riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 27: Average results of the river reaches at Lonja/ Tedrovec Reach BAV CEN HR (6/5) 4 (3,8) (6/5) 4 (3,8) (6/5) 4 (3,8) (6/5) 4 (3,8) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/3) 4 (3,7) (6/3) 4 (3,7) (6/3) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (4/3) 4 (3,7) 3

90 4 Results (6/3) 4 (3,7) (6/3) 4 (3,7) 3 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. Bednja at Ples a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at river Bednja. Starting point of the assessment was west of the settlement Ples. Illustration 44: Bednja at Ples (Google earth. 12 th February 2009)

91 4 Results 91 b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, ancient trapeze profile, resectioning of the riverbed (2 m), groves on banks, intensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain Illustration 45: Bednja at Ples; Intensive land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 46: Bednja at Ples; Light Sinuosity of former trapezoid shaped river (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

92 4 Results 92 c.) Results Table 28: Average results of the river reaches at Bednja/ Ples Reach BAV CEN HR (3/3) 3 (2,5) (3/3) 3 (2,5) (3/4) 3 (2,5) (3/4) 3 (2,5) (3/4) 3 (2,5) 1 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. A dam north of the considered reach affects it negatively. Bednja at Veliki Gorenec a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at Bednja. Starting point of the assessment was the bridge across the river 400 m north east of Veliki Gorenec.

93 4 Results 93 Illustration 47: Bednja at Veliki Gorenec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapeze profile, shrubs on banks (willows), intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain (arable land, road on right side of the river) Reach : see above, bridge Illustration 48: Bednja at Veliki Gorenec (Reach until 0+500); Young growth of Willow trees on trapezoid riverbanks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

94 4 Results 94 Illustration 49: Bednja at Veliki Gorenec (Reach until 0+400); Bridge with impairments (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 29: Average results of the river reaches at Bednja/ Veliki Gorenec Reach BAV CEN HR (4/5) 3 (3,4) (4/5) 3 (3,4) (4/5) 3 (3,4) (4/5) 3 (3,4) (4/5) 4 (3,7) 1 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach.

95 4 Results 95 Bednja at Benkovec a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 600 m stretch was assessed at river Bednja. Starting point of the assessment was 1 km south east of the settlement Benkovec. Illustration 50: Bednja at Benkovec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapeze profile, resectioning of the river, banks impaired, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain (grassland) Reach : see above, bridge Reach : see first reach, no bank impairments, scattered willows on banks

96 4 Results 96 Illustration 51: Bednja at Benkovec (Reach until 0+200); Heavy impaired river banks, light sinuosity of planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 52: Bednja at Benkovec (Reach until 0+500); Heavy impaired river banks and straightened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 30: Average results of the river reaches at Bednja/ Benkovec Reach BAV CEN HR (5/4) 4 (3,8) (5/4) 4 (3,8) (5/4) 4 (3,8) (4/5) 4 (3,9) (4/5) 3 (3,1) (4/2) 3 (3,1) 1 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 4 4 1

97 4 Results 97 d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HRmethod had been recorded in the assessed reach. Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 2000 m stretch was assessed at Kraljevacki potok. Starting point of the assessment was the bridge over the creek 1 km south east of the castle Medvedgrad. Illustration 53: Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, Planform and channel section not altered, natural substrate composition, no riparian zone and floodplain (stretched river type) Reach : see above, swell (concrete, hight:1 m)

98 4 Results 98 Reach : see first reach Reach : swell (concrete, lenth: 10 m, hight: 2 m Reach : Planform and channel section altered, banks impaired on left side of the river Illustration 54: Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb; Natural springbrook in v- shaped valley (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 55: Kraljevacki potok at Zagreb (Reach until 1+900); Artificial barrier (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

99 4 Results 99 c.) Results Table 31: Average results of the river reaches at Kraljevacki potok/ Zagreb Reach BAV CEN HR (2/1) 1 (1,1) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (3/1) 2 (1,7) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (2/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (2/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (2/1) 1 (1,1) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (3/1) 2 (2,2) (2/1) 2 (1,8) --- Mean value Result (5 level scale)

100 4 Results 100 d.) Remarkabilities Each parameter was assessed for BAV and CEN method on-site. No assessment was conducted with the HR method because river Kraljevacki potok is not WFD-relevant (catchment area smaller 10 km 2 ). Zbel at Trnovec a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 700 m stretch was assessed at the river Zbel. Starting point of the assessment was south of Trnovec just before river Zbel flows through forest. Illustration 56: Zbel at Trnovec (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : planform straightened, resectioning of the riverbed groves on banks, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : see above, piping of the river (length: 10 m) Reach : see reach 1, no vegetation on banks Reach : trapeze profile, banks impaired

101 4 Results 101 Illustration 57: Zbel at Trnovec (Reach until 0+200); Straightened planform with natural riparian zone(field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 58: Zbel at Trnovec (Reach until 0+700); Straightened planform within settlement (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 32: Average results of the river reaches at Zbel/ Trnovec Reach BAV CEN HR (4/3) 3 (2,5) (5/4) 3 (2,9) (6/5) 3 (2,9) (6/5) 3 (2,9) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) (6/5) 4 (3,7) --- Mean value Result (5 level scale)

102 4 Results 102 d.) Remarkabilities Each parameter was assessed for BAV and CEN method on-site. No assessment was conducted with the HR method because river Zbel is not WFD-relevant (catchment area smaller 10 km 2 ). Zbel at Zbelava a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 1300 m stretch was assessed at river Zbel. Starting point of the assessment was 700 m east of the point where the highway crosses river Zbel close to the settlement Zbelava. Illustration 59: Zbel at Zbelava (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, resectioning of the riverbed, extensive land use in riparian zone (shrubs and groves), intensive land use in floodplain (arable land) Reach : see above, bridge, intense land use in riparian zone Reach : highway

103 4 Results 103 Reach : see reach 1, groves on banks, intense land use in riparian zone Illustration 60: Zbel at Zbelava (Reach until 0+700); Straightened planform with natural riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 61: Zbel at Zbelava (Reach until 0+900); Piping under highway (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

104 4 Results 104 c.) Results Table 33: Average results of the river reaches at Zbel/ Zbelava Reach BAV CEN HR (3/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 2 (1,8) (4/4) 3 (2,7) (4/6) 4 (3,7) (4/4) 2 (2,1) (4/5) 2 (2,0) (4/5) 2 (2,0) (4/5) 2 (1,8) --- Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Each parameter was assessed for BAV and CEN method on-site. No assessment was conducted with the HR method because river Zbel is not WFD-relevant (catchment area smaller 10 km 2 ). Kravarscica potok at Lijevo Sredicko a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 2000 m stretch was assessed at Kravarscica potok. Starting point of the assessment was the bridge over the river 2 km east of the settlement Lijevo Sredicko.

105 4 Results 105 Illustration 62: Kravarscica potok at Lijevo Sredicko (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, Vegetation in riparian zone close to nature (groves), Extensive land use in floodplain, bridge, swell (continuous) extensive land use in riparian zone Reach : Planform slighty altered, vegetation in riparian zone and floodplain close to nature (groves), no human pressures Reach : see above, extensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : see reach

106 4 Results 106 Illustration 63: Kravarscica potok at Lijevo Sredicko; Natural planform with high deposition (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

107 4 Results 107 c.) Results Table 34: Average results of the river reaches at Kravarscica potok/ Lijevo Sredicko Reach BAV CEN HR (4/2) 2 (2,1) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/2) 1 (1,3) (3/4) 2 (1,5) (3/5) 2 (1,5) (3/4) 2 (1,5) (3/2) 2 (1,5) (3/2) 1 (1,4) (3/2) 1 (1,4) (3/2) 1 (1,4) (3/2) 1 (1,4) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which had not been assessed for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity because it was not possible to recognize the fea-

108 4 Results 108 tures through the surface of the water. For the CEN-method each parameter was recorded. A swell is listed as a pressure for the HR-model. Kupa at Karlovac a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at Kupa river. Starting point of the assessment was 100 m west of the bridge in the western part of Karlovac. Illustration 64: Kupa at Karlovac (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, trapezoid profile, settlement in riparian zone and floodplain, dams without floodplain Reach : see above, banks impaired, bridge Reach : see stretch

109 4 Results 109 Illustration 65: Kupa at Karlovac; Total impaired river within the settlement (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 35: Average results of the river reaches at Kupa/ Karlovac Reach BAV CEN HR (6/7) 4 (3,9) (7/7) 4 (4,4) (6/7) 4 (3,9) (6/7) 4 (3,9) (6/7) 4 (3,9) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which were not recorded for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity. It was not possible to recognise these features through the surface of the water. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. Dams and bank impairments are pressures which influence the result of the HR-model.

110 4 Results 110 Sava at Zagreb a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at Sava river. Starting point of the assessment was 100 m west of the bridge close to lake Bundek in Zagreb. Illustration 66: Sava at Zagreb (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, trapeze profile, settlement in riparian zone and floodplain, dams with floodplain Reach : see above, banks impaired, bridge Reach : see stretch

111 4 Results 111 Illustration 67: Sava at Zagreb; Straightened river within the settlement (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 36: Average results of the river reaches at Sava/ Zagreb Reach BAV CEN HR (5/6) 4 (3,5) (5/6) 4 (3,5) (5/6) 4 (3,5) (5/6) 4 (3,5) (5/6) 4 (3,5) 4 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Parameters which had not been assessed for the BAV-method are 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity because it was not possible to recognize the features through the surface of the water. For the CEN-method each parameter was recorded. A watergate and dams are listed as pressures for the HR-model.

112 4 Results 112 Sava at Otok Nartski a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 500 m stretch was assessed at the Sava. Starting point of the assessment was 3,5 km south east of the settlement Otok Nartski. Illustration 68: Sava at Otok Nartski (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform not altered, vegetation in riparian zone and floodplain close to nature (groves), natural substrate mix, dams with floodplain Illustration 69: Sava at Otok Nartski; Natural river with riparian wood (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

113 4 Results 113 Illustration 70: Sava at Otok Nartski; Heavy bank erosions (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 37: Average results of the river reaches at Sava/ Otok Nartski Reach BAV CEN HR (1/3) 1 (1,1) (1/3) 1 (1,1) (1/3) 1 (1,1) (1/3) 1 (1,1) (1/3) 1 (1,1) 4 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 2 (1/3) 1 (1,1) 4 d.) Remarkabilities Each parameter was assessed for the BAV and CEN-method. For the HR-model dams were listed as pressures which influence the hydromorphological status in the recorded reach.

114 4 Results Presentation of field results in the Dinaric ecoregion Globornica at Generalski Stol a.) Location and starting point of the assessment A 800 m stretch was assessed at the river Globornica. Starting point of the assessment was the bridge over the river north of Generalski Stol. Illustration 71: Globornica at Generalski stol (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Bridge, extensive land use in riparian zone Reach : Planform not altered, no impairments, bank side strips: groves, extensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Resectioning of the riverbed, extensive land use in riparian zone (right), agricultural land use in the floodplain (right)

115 4 Results 115 Illustration 72: Globornica at Generalski stol (Reach until 0+500); Natural river with riparian wood (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 73: Globornica at Generalski stol (Reach until 0+800); Intensive agricultural land use on the right riverside (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

116 4 Results 116 c.) Results Table 38: Average results of the river reaches at Globornica/ Generalski stol Reach BAV CEN HR (3/2) 2 (2,3) (2/2) 1 (1,4) (2/2) 1 (1,4) (3/2) 1 (1,4) (3/2) 1 (1,4) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) 1 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities A paramater which was not assessed for the CEN-method was 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered. The bed substrate could not be identified through the surface of the water. No pressures for the HR-method had been recorded in the assessed reach. Dobra at Skukani a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was the bridge across Dobra south of Skukani. The 1000 m stretch was assessed at high tide of the river.

117 4 Results 117 Illustration 74: Dobra at Skukani (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : bride, planform altered, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Planform altered, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Planform altered, less intense land use in riparian zone at right hand side of the bank Reach : V-shaped valley, extensive land use in riparian zone (left bank), forest (right bank)

118 4 Results 118 Illustration 75: Dobra at Skukani (Reach until 0+900); River with altered planform and extensive land use in floodplain (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 76: Dobra at Skukani; River with altered planform and only small riparian wood (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

119 4 Results 119 c.) Results Table 39: Average results of the river reaches at Dobra/ Skukani Reach BAV CEN HR (3/4) 3 (2,5) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/5) 2 (2,3) (3/3) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (3/4) 2 (2,3) (2/2) 1 (1,4) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 3 (3/4) 3 (2,5) 2 d.) Remarkabilities Because the assessment took place at high tide the following parameters had not been assessed for the BAV-method: 1.7 Profile depth, 1.10 Depth variability, 1.11 Width variability, 1.17 Substrate diversity. For the CEN-method parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered had not been assessed because of high tide. No pressures for the HR-method are listed within the considered reach. However three swells and a mill north of the recorded reach affect it negatively. Dobra at Gorinci a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 500 meter west of the hydro powerplant near Gorinci. A 500 m reach was assessed.

120 4 Results 120 Illustration 77: Dobra at Gorinci (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, flow character altered, vegetation in riparian zone: groves Reach : hydro powerplant, great alteration of all hydromorphological parameters Illustration 78: Dobra at Gorinci; Straightened river with steep slopes (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

121 4 Results 121 Illustration 79: Dobra at Gorinci (Reach until 0+500); New hydro powerplant at Dobra under construction (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 40: Average results of the river reaches at Dobra/ Gorinci Reach BAV CEN HR (2/1) 1 (1,2) (2/1) 1 (1,2) (2/1) 1 (1,2) (2/1) 1 (1,2) (7/3) 5 (5,0) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Due to the size of river Dobra, it was not possible to assess the parameters 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity for the BAV-method. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix or character altered was not assessed for the CEN-method. No pressures for the HR-method are listed within the considered reach. However two swells and two mills south of the recorded reach affect it negatively.

122 4 Results 122 Slunjcica south of Slunj a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 1,5 km south of Rastoke. A 500 m reach was assessed. Illustration 80: Slunjcica south of Slunj (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, vegetation in riparian zone: groves, no pressures within the selected reach Illustration 81: Slunjcica south of Slunj (Reach until 0+500); Natural karstic river without pressures (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

123 4 Results 123 Illustration 82: Slunjcica south of Slunj; Natural river with steep slopes (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 41: Average results of the river reaches at Slujcica/ south of Slunj Reach BAV CEN HR (3/1) 1 (1,0) (3/1) 1 (1,0) (3/1) 1 (1,0) (3/1) 1 (1,0) (3/2) 1 (1,0) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Due to the size of river Slunjcica, it was not possible to assess the parameters 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity for the BAV-method. No pressures for the HR-method are listed within the considered reach. However one water abstraction and three mills south of the recorded reach affect it negatively.

124 4 Results 124 Slunjcica at Slunj a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 1,5 km south of Rastoke. A 500 m reach was assessed. Illustration 83: Slunjcica at Slunj (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, right side of bank and riparian zone impaired, bridge, two swells 30 cm and 1 m Reach : No impairments, Vegetation on banks close to nature (left) rather extensive land use (right) Reach : Bank impairments, swell more than 1 m, extensive land use in riparian zone, scattereted trees on banks

125 4 Results 125 Illustration 84: Slunjcica at Slunj (Reach until 0+200); Fixed weir and impaired banks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 85: Slunjcica at Slunj (Reach until 0+600); Nearly natural river with riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 86: Slunjcica at Slunj (Reach until 0+700); Artificial barrier about 5m (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

126 4 Results 126 c.) Results Table 42: Average results of the river reaches at Slunjcica/ Slunj Reach BAV CEN HR (3/3) 3 (2,5) (3/3) 3 (2,5) (3/2) 1 (1,1) (3/2) 1 (1,1) (3/2) 1 (1,1) (3/2) 1 (1,1) (4/2) 2 (2,4) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Due to the size of river Slunjcica, it was not possible to assess the parameters 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity for the BAV-method. For the HR-method two mills were recorded in the selected reach. Additionally one mill was mapped north of the assessed stretch which affect it negatively. Korana at Rastoke a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 500 meters west of Rastoke. A 500 m reach was assessed.

127 4 Results 127 Illustration 87: Korana at Rastoke (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, impairments on right side of the bank, vegetation in riparian zone close to nature (groves) Reach : No impairments, vegetation on banks close to nature Reach : Canyon, no alterations Illustration 88: Korana at Rastoke (Reach until 0+100); Impaired banks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

128 4 Results 128 Illustration 89: Korana at Rastoke (Reach until 0+400); Natural straightened planform in steep v- shaped valley (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 90: Korana at Rastoke (Reach until 0+500); Natural river canyon (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 43: Average results of the river reaches at Korana/ Rastoke Reach BAV CEN HR (3/2) 2 (1,8) (1/2) 1 (1,1) (1/2) 1 (1,1) (1/2) 1 (1,1) (1/1) 1 (1,0) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 1 1 2

129 4 Results 129 d.) Remarkabilities Due to the size of river Korana, it was not possible to assess the parameters 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity for the BAV-method. No hydromorphological pressures for the HR-method were listed within the selected reach. Two mills and one swell east of the considered stretch affect it negatively. Korana at Slunj a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was the bridge at Slun. A 600 m reach was assessed. Illustration 91: Korana at Slunj (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, reach is used as a public bath, planform altered, banks impaired, intensive use in riparian zone, bridge Reach : No impairments, vegetation in riparian zone close to nature (groves)

130 4 Results 130 Illustration 92: Korana at Slunj (Reach until 0+400); River as public bath with impaired banks (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 93: Korana at Slunj (Reach until 0+600); River with light sinuosity of planform and natural riparian woods (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 44: Average results of the river reaches at Korana/ Slunj Reach BAV CEN HR (5/2) 4 (3,5) (5/2) 4 (3,5) (5/2) 4 (3,5) (4/2) 4 (3,5) (3/2) 1 (1,2) (3/2) 1 (1,2) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) 3 3 2

131 4 Results 131 d.) Remarkabilities Due to the size of river Korana, it was not possible to assess the parameters 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity for the BAV-method. For the HRmethod one public bath (kupaliste) was recorded in the selected stretch. Mirna at Kotli a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was at Kotli. A 500 m reach was assessed. At the time of the assessment (Dez 08) Mirna had high tide. Illustration 94: Mirna at Kotli (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : No alteration of planform, resectioning, groves in riparian zone, extensive land use in floodplain Reach : No alteration of the riverbed, extensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : No alteration of the riverbed, extensive land use in riparian zone, intense land use in the floodplain (arable land)

132 4 Results 132 Illustration 95: Mirna at Kotli (Reach until 0+600); Natural carstic brook in upper flow (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 96: Mirna at Kotli; Extensive floodplain use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 45: Average results of the river reaches at Mirna/ Kotli Reach BAV CEN HR (2/2) 1 (1,3) (2/2) 1 (1,3) (2/4) 2 (1,7) (2/5) 2 (1,9) (2/5) 2 (1,9) ---- Mean value Result (5 level scale)

133 4 Results 133 d.) Remarkabilities The assessment was done at high tide at river Mirna. Therefore the parameters 1.10 Depth variability, 1.13 Sedimentations and 1.17 Substrate diversity had not been recorded for the BAV-method. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix had not been assessed for the CEN-method. For the HR method were no assessment results provided (at the moment in progress) Mirna at Sovinjak a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 1 km north of Sovinjak. A 500 m reach was assessed. At the time of the assessment (Dez 08) Mirna had high tide. Illustration 97: Mirna at Sovinjak (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, impairment on left bank, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Planform altered, no impairments, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain

134 4 Results 134 Reach : Planform altered, impairments on left bank, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Planform altered, groves in the floodplain Illustration 98: Mirna at Sovinjak; High tide on river Mirna (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 99: Mirna at Sovinjak; Heavy bank impairments on river mender (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

135 4 Results 135 c.) Results Table 46: Average results of the river reaches at Mirna/ Sovinjak Reach BAV CEN HR (4/7) 4 (3,5) (4/5) 3 (2,8) (4/5) 3 (2,8) (4/5) 4 (3,8) (4/3) 3 (2,7) ---- Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities The assessment was done at high tide at river Mirna. Therefore the parameters 1.10 Depth variability, 1.13 Sedimentations, 1.16 Flow diversity and 1.17 Substrate diversity had not been recorded for the BAV-method. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix had not been assessed for the CEN-method. For the HR method were no assessment results provided (at the moment in progress) Mirna at Motovun a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 1 km north of Motovun. A 500 m reach was assessed. At the time of the assessment (Dez 08) Mirna had high tide.

136 4 Results 136 Illustration 100: Mirna at Motovun (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapeze profile, resectioning of the riverbed, banks impaired, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Illustration 101: Mirna at Motovun; Heavily straightened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

137 4 Results 137 c.) Results Table 47: Average results of the river reaches at Mirna/ Motovun Reach BAV CEN HR (6/4) 4 (3,8) (6/4) 4 (3,8) (6/4) 4 (3,8) (6/4) 4 (3,8) (6/4) 4 (3,8) ---- Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities The assessment was conducted at high tide at river Mirna. Therefore the parameters 1.5 Flow pattern, 1.10 Depth variability, 1.12 Erosion, 1.13 Sedimentations and 1.17 Substrate diversity had not been recorded for the BAV-method. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix had not been assessed for the CEN-method. For the HR method were no assessment results provided (at the moment in progress) 28. Cetina at Cetina a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was at Cetina. A 300 m reach was assessed.

138 4 Results 138 Illustration 102: Cetina at Cetina (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform straightened, trapezoid profile, swells of 50 cm height, extensive land use in riparian zone and floodplain (shrubs and grassland) Illustration 103: Cetina at Cetina; Straightened planform with series of artificial barriers (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

139 4 Results 139 c.) Results Table 48: Average results of the river reaches at Cetina/ Cetina Reach BAV CEN HR (5/2) 4 (3,6) (5/2) 4 (3,6) (5/2) 4 (3,6) ---- Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities Each parameter was assessed for both on-site methods. For the HR method were no assessment results provided (at the moment in progress) Ribnjak at Malik a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was the estuary of river Ribnjak at Dobra river. A 600 m reach was assessed at river Ribnjak.

140 4 Results 140 Illustration 104: Ribnjak at Malik (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : V-shaped valley, planform not altered, no impairments or swells, vegetation in riparian zone close to nature (groves) Reach : bridge, scattered bank impairments Illustration 105: Ribnjak at Malik (Reach until 0+500); Natural riparian vegetation (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)

141 4 Results 141 Illustration 106: Ribnjak at Malik (Reach until 0+600); Bridge with impairments at Ribnjak (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) c.) Results Table 49: Average results of the river reaches at Ribnjak/ Malik Reach BAV CEN HR (3/1) 1 (1,0) (3/1) 1 (1,0) (1/2) 1 (1,0) (1/1) 1 (1,0) (1/2) 1 (1,0) (2/2) 2 (1,5) 2 Mean value Result (5 level scale) d.) Remarkabilities The parameters 1.10 Depth variability and 1.17 Substrate diversity were not recorded for the BAV-method because it was not possible to recognise the features through the surface of river Ribnjak. For the same reason parameter 2b Natural substrate mix had not been assessed for the CEN-method. For the HR-method no pressures are listed within the assessed reach. According to the Croatian assessment 2 mills affect the hydromorphological state of river Ribnjak on its total length which leads to the assessment 2.

142 4 Results 142 Dobra at Lipa a.) Location and starting point of the assessment Starting point of the assessment was 1 km north east of the settlement Lipa. The 1000 m stretch was assessed at high tide of river Dobra. Illustration 107: Dobra at Lipa (Google earth. 12 th February 2009) b.) Characterisation of the recorded river stretches Reach : Planform altered, groves on banks, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain Reach : Planform altered, intense land use in riparian zone settlement in floodplain, groves on banks, bridge Reach : Planform altered, intense land use in riparian zone and floodplain, swell (50 cm)

143 4 Results 143 Illustration 108: Dobra at Lipa; Deepened river with intensive land use (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus) Illustration 109: Dobra at Lipa; Light straightened planform (Field assessment 2008 J. Reh/ R. Kraus)