Supporting decision-making for improving longitudinal ... - Atkb

Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 206–218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Supporting decision-making for improving longitudinal connectivity for diadromous and potamodromous fishes in complex catchments Niels W.P. Brevé a,⁎, Anthonie D. Buijse b, Martin J. Kroes c, Herman Wanningen d, Frederik T. Vriese e a

Sportvisserij Nederland, Leijenseweg 115, 3721 BC Bilthoven, The Netherlands Deltares, Princetonlaan 6, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands Tauw bv, Australiëlaan 5, 3526 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands d Wanningen Water Consult, Oosterweg 127, 9751 PE Haren, The Netherlands e ATKB, Poppenbouwing 34, 4191 NZ Geldermalsen, The Netherlands b c

H I G H L I G H T S

G R A P H I C A L

A B S T R A C T

• A prioritization method to help restore longitudinal connectivity is developed. • 18 fish species are grouped into five guilds (diadromous and potamodromous). • The essential water types for all native migratory fish species are identified. • A national prioritization of 2924 barriers in all WFD water bodies is achieved. • Application beyond regional or national borders is recommended.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 21 April 2014 Received in revised form 10 July 2014 Accepted 11 July 2014 Available online xxxx Editor: C.E.W. Steinberg Keywords: Artificial barrier Migratory fish guild Longitudinal connectivity EU Water Framework Directive

a b s t r a c t Preservation and restoration of Europe's endangered migratory fish species and habitats are high on the international river basin policy agenda. Improvement through restoration of longitudinal connectivity is seen as an important measure, but although prioritization of in-stream barriers has been addressed at local and regional levels the process still lacks adequate priority on the international level. This paper introduces a well-tested method, designed to help decision makers achieve the rehabilitation of targeted ichthyofauna more successfully. This method assesses artificial barriers within waters designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Europe's main legislative driver for ecological improvement of river basins. The method aggregates migratory fish communities (both diadromous and potamodromous) into functional biological units (ecological fish guilds) and defines their most pressing habitat requirements. Using GIS mapping and spatial analysis of the potential ranges (fish zonation) we pin-point the most important barriers, per guild. This method was developed and deployed over a 12 year period as a practical case study, fitting data derived from the 36 regional water management organisations in the Netherlands. We delivered national advice on the prioritization of a total of 2924 barriers located within WFD water bodies, facilitating migration for all 18 indigenous migratory fish species.

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 6058437. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.W.P. Brevé).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.043 0048-9697/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

N.W.P. Brevé et al. / Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 206–218

207

Scaling up to larger geographical areas can be achieved using datasets from other countries to link water body typologies to distribution ranges of migratory fish species. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Restoration of Europe's ichthyofauna and longitudinal connectivity In many European rivers rheophilous populations have declined and diadromous fish have become scarce or extinct during industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, 1998). Today however, there is much greater appreciation for their societal value and the need to restore fish faunas and habitats is acknowledged. This is being implemented e.g. under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as required by the EU Habitats Directive (Directive No 92/43/ EC) within the Natura 2000 sites, the Benelux Order on Fish Migration (M(2009)1), the Eel Regulation (Council Regulation No 1100/2007/ EC), and the EU Water Framework Directive, WFD (Directive No 2000/ 60/EC). The WFD notably puts the restoration of fish faunas high on the international agenda of river basin policy, seeking to achieve “good ecological status” for all freshwater and coastal waters by set deadlines (2015 and 2027). All EU Member States share the need to establish goals and assessments of surface waters in a comparable manner within combined water management plans based on river basins. Fish are an important biological quality element within the WFD, and in the Netherlands, fish community composition has been specified for each water body type (natural water bodies: van der Molen, 2012; artificial water bodies: Evers et al., 2013). The restoration of Europe's ichthyofauna is a major challenge as many factors have to be addressed. There is usually no single factor responsible for deterioration, but a combination of multiple stressors (Parrish et al., 1998). These include commercial exploitation (intensive fisheries), habitat degradation (water quality, water temperature, and riverbed deterioration), habitat losses (extraction of gravels and sands) and fragmentation of habitats due to infrastructural works (impounding, damming, embanking, etc.) in rivers, deltas and coastal areas for flood risk reduction, transport, energy production and freshwater supply. In particular the disruption of longitudinal connectivity is known to severely impact migratory fish (Aarts et al., 2004; Baras and Lucas, 2001; Fagan, 2002; Kroes et al., 2006; Roni et al., 2002, 2008; Vannote et al., 1980). Restoring fish migration can have a substantial positive effect on fish distribution, productivity and abundance (Fullerton et al., 2010; Roni et al., 2002, 2008; Slawski et al., 2008). This is recognized within the scope of the WFD: barriers that significantly hamper migration must be mitigated or removed before the end of 2027. Clearly, removal of all barriers would be the preferred solution seen through the eye of a fish. However, to keep the artefact functioning, many technical and semi-natural bypass systems are available. Fishways have to be customized since the solution depends on several variables: the target fish species, the type and dimensions of the water body, the type of barrier and the trade-off with the demands of socioeconomic function the barrier supports. Multiple reference books to choose and design proper fishways are available. For the lowland conditions such as in the Netherlands Kroes and Monden (2005) and Kroes et al. (2006) are particularly relevant. The challenge, however, is immense since it is not only the type of fishway to choose, but the modern landscape in Europe is fragmented and characterised by hundreds of thousands of barriers hampering fish migration (e.g. European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, 1998). Currently it is neither feasible nor affordable nor does it seem necessary to resolve (removal or bypass) all barriers. Instead there is an urgent need to develop a procedure to prioritize which barriers are most critical.

Until recently tackling barriers has mostly been addressed at the regional level, but this approach lacks strategy and consistency at the national and international levels (Kemp and O'Hanley, 2010). For example in 2007 we screened the policy, criteria, level of detail and existing documentation of all 36 individual water management entities in the Netherlands (Kroes et al., 2008). At that time only one-third of the water authorities had a policy document for fish migration. There was no common understanding and relevant criteria and strategies to prioritize barriers varied considerably and were insular with jurisdictional boundaries, insufficiently tuned to neighbouring water authorities, and failing to address national borders. Furthermore, the actual migration requirements of fish species were too often not taken into account. This clarified the need for a higher level of integration, and a broader prioritization strategy. Much progress has been made in recent years as the river basin approach, as initiated by the WFD, has increasingly been implemented. The sustainable management of man-made river infrastructure today requires planning of maintenance, replacement and renewal with ecological requirements firmly in mind. Existing migration barriers are therefore increasingly being opportunistically resolved during renovation or maintenance, and when any new constructions are planned (e.g. Kemp and O'Hanley, 2010). There is however a need to address the connectivity problem more strategically (Williams et al., 2012) and the following two examples demonstrate how cost-effective improvements can be delivered to address the rehabilitation of multiple species (fish guilds). 1.2. Migratory fish guilds 1.2.1. Example 1, from sea to source, long-distance migration of diadromous species Many EU LIFE funded projects aim to rehabilitate populations of endangered anadromous species, e.g. the German “Rhine Salmon 2020” (Salmo salar) project (Bölscher et al., 2013; Molls and Nemitz, 2008) and the Allis shad (Alosa alosa) project (LIFE06 NAT/D/00005, LIFE09 NAT/DE/000008); in Denmark the houting (Coregonus oxyrinchus) project (LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153); in France the Loire salmon project (LIFE00 NAT/F/007252) and the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) projects in the Rivers Gironde–Garonne–Dordogne (B-3200/98/460 for 1998–2002 and B4-3200/94/754 for 1994–1997). These projects all include habitat restoration and focus on ex-situ aquaculture projects in fish farms for development of brood stocks. Despite substantial investment, the results in terms of rehabilitation and natural recruitment of populations remain fragile with only low level populations established (e.g. De Groot, 2002; MacCrimmon and Gots, 2011; Rochard and Lambert, 2011). This suggests the necessity of developing adaptive action on several levels other than re-stocking, focussing on ecosystem solutions that serve multiple migratory species, but also stocks of other non-migratory fish species. Long-distance anadromous species share a life-style that makes them particularly sensitive as a group to specific degradations of longitudinal connectivity (De Groot, 2002). Rehabilitation solutions need to focus upon optimization of migration routes (Raat, 2001) and for anadromous species the concept ‘from sea to source’ is the right order in which to prioritize barriers. For the Rhine such an overview has been prepared for Atlantic salmon and eel by the International Commission for Protection of the Rhine (ICPR, 2009; www.iksr.org). This is a good strategic overview focussing on the long-distance migratory fish species travelling through various Rhine-bordering countries. It, however, addresses solely the Rhine and its major tributaries and as such covers

208


only part of the overall disruption of connectivity in the entire Rhine basin.

1.2.2. Example 2, potamodromous species, migration within middle reaches The life histories of rheophilic, stream resident (potamodromous) species such as barbel (Barbus barbus), chub (Squalius cephalus), burbot (Lota lota) and nase (Chondrostoma nasus), encompass mid-range dispersal patterns (see references for fish migration type 4 below), close to the mid-point of river networks. These species are generally considered less susceptible to in-stream barriers than diadromous species as they are less susceptible to habitat fragmentation, although when excessive this can limit population sizes creating genetic isolation and a higher risk of extinction (Wofford et al., 2005). Migration of potamodromous species is particularly important when habitats are too small to sustain viable populations and when key-life cycle events are obstructed, such as seasonal reproduction migrations (Baras et al., 1994). Understanding habitat requirements for all life stages is important to define the minimum limit of distribution necessary for a viable population. Both examples show the need for a pragmatic, well-informed approach to prioritization of in-stream barriers, as recognized by Cote et al. (2009). Prioritization can be achieved using one of many scoringand-ranking, GIS mapping and optimisation methodologies (e.g. Aarts and Nienhuis, 2003; Kemp and O'Hanley, 2010). The methodology presented here is based on linking water body types and their spatial configuration within catchments to habitat requirements and migration routes of diadromous and potamodromous fish species. The individual species are aggregated into larger functional units (guilds) being recognized as useful ecological denominators (Noble et al., 2007a,b). GIS map ranges of these migratory fish guilds enable visualization of migration routes and critical barrier locations. This method recognizes the overlap in habitat requirements (fish zonation) and characteristics of multiple species

that share life history strategies. It allows assessing the needs of fish communities and their response to changes in the connectivity of the whole river basins. The ecological guild approach in relation to the WFD has previously been addressed under the EU FAME project (http://fame.boku.ac.at/) and documented in a special issue of Fisheries Management and Ecology (see Schmutz et al., 2007 and references therein). There, European fish species were classified into ecological guilds in order to identify suitable metrics as basic tools for the development of a new standardised ecological assessment method. However, this approach did not elaborate the prioritization of barriers for migratory fish species. 1.3. Aim The overall objective is a method that can be adopted and applied rather easily by other countries or by river basin authorities and thus aids the implementation of the WFD or similar river basin approaches to improve continuity. Our example has been a national (Netherlands) approach to prioritize in-stream, man-made barriers that need attention for rehabilitating migratory fish species. Such a tool can help decision makers to maximize restoration gains of migratory fish faunas through harmonisation on the theme of longitudinal connectivity. We believe that a method that suits such a complex hydrological and management situation in the Netherlands (Fig. 1a), could be rolled-out elsewhere. The Netherlands encompasses a delta of four major basins comprising the rivers Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt and Ems. Wide scale hydrologic engineering has resulted in a myriad of small catchments, interconnected water bodies and approximately 18,000 man-made barriers that disrupt fish migration at various scales. This complexity illustrates the need for a tool to rank barriers as it is neither feasible and affordable nor necessary to make all passable (Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1. (a) Management area boundaries of regional Water authorities, Netherlands. (b) National survey of artificial in-stream structures, WIS 1990 (In Dutch: Waterstaatkundig Informatie Systeem 1990). (c) Overview of surface waters designated to the WFD and the related selection of barriers at present without (n = 2262) and with a measure to enhance fish migration (n = 660).


209

2.1. Database A location database was compiled with up-to-date information on artificial barriers (e.g. weirs, sluices and pumping stations) and fish migration measures already in place and operating and measures planned (e.g. fish ladders, fish guidance systems, barrier removal and sluice management) in the Netherlands. Since it is outside any management goal to address approximately 18,000 potential barriers (Fig. 1b), the inventory is limited to structures located in WFD designated water bodies, which make up 65% of the total fresh water surface area, and covers most waters of ecological importance (Fig. 1c). Consecutively in 2001, 2005, 2009 and 2013 the database was upgraded with data derived from the 26 Dutch regional water authorities and 10 directorates of Rijkswaterstaat (RWS). This resulted in a uniform dataset of 2924 selected barriers (Fig. 1c) of which 660 currently have a measure to improve fish migration (version 2013). 2.2. Migratory fish guilds Key to our method is the identification of migratory fish species in the Netherlands (Table 1). Twenty-eight percent (9 families, n = 18) of the native species display a migratory component during their lifehistory, of which 10 species are protected by international legislation (Habitats Directive or CITES). We aggregate the species into five guilds based on documented differences in biology (habitat requirements, migratory behaviour) during different life-stages of each species. 2.3. GIS mapping Fig. 1 (continued).

2. Method Our approach to prioritize pools of barriers is in essence based on the requirements of fish species that have the most pronounced migration behaviour. We linked their migration requirements to specific types of water bodies that are essential to fulfil their life cycle. Barriers within or between such water bodies are in principle designated to be a priority to improve longitudinal connectivity. Our approach has four steps and can subsequently be further regionally elaborated.

By identifying the main habitat needs per guild in relation to the WFD typology, the next step is to select data subsets of water bodies and instream barriers, which are then visualized in a GIS. The Netherlands has a total of 724 WFD designated water bodies, and all are classified according to the national WFD water body typology (Table 2). The delineations, either planar or linear, are available as ESRI shapefiles (polygons and polylines) at http://www.waterkwaliteitsportaal.nl/. We implemented both shapefiles and the location database in ArcGIS10.1™, and assumed a selection of WFD typology for each guild (Table 3), following the description of indicators and fish communities of lakes and rivers (van der Molen, 2012). Finally we joined the guild-tables with the shapefiles and

Table 1 All (n = 18) migratory fish species of the Netherlands and their (inter)national status in conservation. D = diadromous, P = potamodromous. The IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2013) cites species facing a high risk of global extinction: DD = Data deficient, LC = Least concern, LR = Lower Risk, CE = Critically endangered, EX = Extinct. The EU Habitats Directive (HD; Directive No 92/43/EC): * = a priority species; annex II = animal and plant species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation; IV = animal and plant species of community interest in need of strict protection; V = animal and plant species of community interest who's taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) focuses on the negative effects caused by international trade: Appendix I = most endangered; II = may become threatened unless trade is closely controlled. The Dutch Flora & Fauna Law (FF) lists threatened species on a national scale. The Dutch Red list (Red) exclusively lists species that still breed within the Netherlands: EX = extinct, ST = seriously threatened, T = threatened, V = vulnerable, S = sensitive. Guild no.

Species

D/P

1

Allis shad Alosa alosa (Linneaus, 1758) Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar (Linnaeaus, 1758) Common sturgeon, Acipenser sturio (Linnaeus, 1758) Houting, Coregonus oxyrinchus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sea trout = Brown trout, Salmo trutta (Linneaus, 1758) Twaite shad, Alosa fallax (Lacépède, 1803) Smelt, Osmerus eperlanus (Linnaeus, 1758) Three-spined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus (Linnaeus, 1758) European eel, Anguilla Anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) Barbel, Barbus barbus (Linnaeus, 1758) Burbot, Lota lota (Linnaeus, 1758) Chub, Leuciscus cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) Dace, Leuciscus leuciscus (Linnaeus, 1758) Ide or Orfe, Leuciscus idus (Linnaeus, 1758) Nase Chondrostoma nasus (Linnaeus, 1758) River lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) Brook lamprey, Lampetra planeri (Bloch, 1784)

D D D D D D D D D D P P P P P P D P

2 3 4

5

International

National

IUCN

HD

DD LR CE EX LC LC LC LC LC CE LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC

II + V II + V * II + IV * II + IV II

CITES

FF

Red V

I

x x

EX

EX II + V

II

x

V

T T V V T

II + V II

x

T

210


Table 2 Water Framework Directive water body typology, the Netherlands. This table displays only a selection of WFD types, relevant to the NL types used by the five migratory fish guilds (Table 1). All coastal and transitional waters in the Netherlands are part of the Atlantic North Sea Eco region (CIS WG 2.4, 2002). Regarding surface waters, a water body belongs to one of four categories: rivers (R, N10 km2 basin area), lakes (M, N0.5 km2 surface area), transitional waters (O) and coastal waters (K) (van der Molen, 2012; Evers et al., 2013). All ‘R’ types are natural, while ‘M’ types include both natural lakes and artificial canals or ditches. The WFD typology divides waters by their physical dimensions and physical–chemical character. WFD water body typology, the Netherlands A. Lake type Description

Salinity (g Cl/l) Shape

Substrate N 50% Width (m) Depth (m) Surface area (km2) Buffer capacity (meq/l)

M3 M6 M7 M8 M10 M14 M20 M21 M27 M30 M31 M32

b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 b0.3 0.3–3 N3 N3

Sand Sand Sand Organic Organic Sand Sand Sand Organic

Buffered medium-sized canals Large, shallow canals Large, deep canals Buffered fen ditches Fen canals Shallow, relatively large, buffered lakes Relatively large, deep, buffered lakes Large, deep buffered lakes Relatively large, shallow, fen lakes Light brackish waters Small brackish till salt waters Large brackish till salt lakes

Line Line Line Line Line Planar Planar Planar Planar Line/planar Line/planar Planar

b3 b3 N3 b3 b3 b3 N3 N3 b3

8–15 N15 N15 b8 N8

1–4 1–4 1–4 1–4 1–4 1–4 1–4 1–4

0.5–100 0.5–100 N100 0.5–100 b5 N5

B. River type

Description

Gradiënt (m/km)

Flow velocity (cm/s)

Substrate N 50%

Width (m)

Surface area river basin (km2)

R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R10 R12 R14 R15 R16 R18

Brook, slow-flowing, upper reach Brook, slow-flowing, middle and lower reach Slow-flowing small river Slow-flowing large river Large freshwater tidal river Slow-flowing, middle reach Brook, slow-flowing, middle and lower reach, bog Brook, fast-flowing middle and lower reach Fast-flowing small river Fast-flowing large river Brook, fast-flowing, middle and lower reach

b1 b1 b1 b1 b1 b1 b1 N1 N1 N1 N1

b50 b50 b50 b50 b50 b50 b50 N50 N50 N50 N50

Sand Sand Clay–sand Clay–sand Clay–sand Lime Organic–peat Sand Gravel Sand–gravel Lime

b3 3–8 8–25 N25 N25 3–8 3–8 3–8 8–25 N25 3–8

0–10 10–100 100–200 N200 N200 0–10 10–100 10–100 100–200 N200 10–100

C. Coastal & transitional type

Description

Salinity (g Cl/l)

Tide difference (m)

Substrate

O2 K1 K2 K3

Estuarium Polyhaline coastal water Sheltered polyhaline coastal water Euhaline coastal water

Variable 10–17 10–17 N17

1–5 1–5 1–5 1–5

Sand Variable

the location database. This resulted in GIS maps per guild (Fig. 2a–f), consisting of a cropped shapefile of WFD water bodies and a subset of prioritized barriers.

3. Results

2.4. National evaluation of barrier prioritization

We identified migratory fish guilds, their distribution and migration routes within WFD designated water bodies through life-history characteristics, such as short, middle and long distances travelled inland (b 25, 25–100, N 100 km), being either diadromous or potamodromous, and habitat requirements and suitability in the various water categories (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). This resulted in a total of five guilds: two anadromous, one catadromous and two potamodromous (Table 3). With the relevant water bodies identified, next a GIS selection pin-pointed the subset of barriers relevant for each guild. Migration type 1 consists of a diverse group of seven long-distance migratory anadromous species (Fig. 2a). All except one are listed on the Habitats Directive, while two are among Europe's highly

The differentiated maps and datasets were presented to the fish migration experts of the regional water authorities, to verify our draught results relating to connection between migration guilds and individual water bodies. Following their recommendations some adjustments were made, mostly based on the geographical position of a water body and whether or not it was located on a migration route for one of the guilds. The outcome is an overview comprising the present situation of barriers and migration measures, scope for the planning of new measures, and understanding of currently undetermined sites for which it is unclear whether migration will be improved.

3.1. Migration guilds

Table 3 Five native migratory guilds, and their potential distribution specified by the category (coast K, transitional O, lake M, river R) and type of water body (e.g. R7). See text and Table 2 for further details. Migratory species are grouped into guilds based on some degree of overlap in their ecological niches, regardless of taxonomic relationships. * River lamprey is diadromous, but unlike migration guild 1 this species migrates to small rivers and brooks, therefore the species is added to guild 4. It, however, also requires the water types of guild 1. Guild no.

Migration routes between

Coastal (K) & transitional (O)

River (R)

1

The sea, transitional waters, and middle and upper (tributary) rivers from neighbouring countries (Germany, Belgium and France) The sea, transitional waters, and adjacent fresh water bodies up to 50 km inland

K1, 2, 3; O2

7, 8, 15, 16

K1, 2, 3; O2

8

K1, 2, 3; O2

4

The sea, transitional waters, rivers, and middle- and upper (tributary) rivers, and adjacent fresh water bodies Rivers, small rivers and brooks

5

Small rivers and brooks

5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 18

2 3

Lake (M)

3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, 32 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, 32


endangered species: European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) and houting (Coregonus oxyrinchus) (Table 1). The core of their native range, Allis shad (Alosa alosa) and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) lies within open waters along the coast, within estuaries, large coastal (K1, 2, 3; Table 2) and brackish transitional waters (O2). These species enter the large lowland rivers (R7) during their reproduction migrations via large freshwater tidal rivers (R8). Houting remains there, while Allis shad, Sea lamprey and sturgeon require gravel habitats and therefore migrate further upstream into Germany (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007; Billard, 1997; Quignard and Douchement, 1991; Rochard and Elie, 1994; Whitehead, 1985). Using the same entrance Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta) move towards middle and upper reaches and tributaries with swift currents and well-oxygenated gravel substrate (R15, 16) which are rare in the Netherlands, but common in Belgium, Germany and France (Fleming, 1996; Klemetsen et al., 2003; Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007; Rochard and Elie, 1994; Scott and Scott, 1988). All species have suffered from river fragmentation (e.g. Baras and Lucas, 2001; Bauchot, 1987; Garcia de Leaniz, 2008; Lepage and Rochard, 1995; Lucas et al., 2008, 2009; Whitehead, 1985). This migration guild has priority over all others. Most species are highly endangered and the barriers in the Delta comprise a very small number of very large structures positioned in river mouths and main branches, such as the big sea locks and sluice–weir complexes (including lowhead dams) and large hydropower plants. An example of local expertise verifying migration routes for this guild is the large shallow Lake IJsselmeer in the centre of the Netherlands. It is type M21 and, from its fish community perspective, would not be considered relevant for this guild. Formerly however, prior to engineering developments, it was a transitional water (O2) and due to its geographical positioning it is still considered a potentially vital link to the migration routes of most diadromous species in the Rhine river basin (Hartgers and Buijse, 2002).

211

Migration type 2 comprises short-range anadromous migration of small- to medium sized fish (Fig. 2b). Species from this guild represented in the Netherlands are smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) and the migrating strain of three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). Due to their small body size migration distances do not extend far inland. The guild disperses inland from coastal waters (K1, 2, 3), into connected estuaries (O2), freshwater tidal rivers (R8), and various lake types (Banister, 1986; Maitland and Lyle, 2010; Rochard and Elie, 1994). Worldwide, smelt stocks are locally threatened due to pollution and migration barriers (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). In contrast the three-spined stickleback is a species of little concern according to IUCN (Table 1), but it is certainly valuable as a prey to waterfowl, for example to the Eurasian spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia). Migration type 3 represents the distribution pattern of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) (Fig. 2c). The eel is amphihaline (Rochard and Elie, 1994) and inhabits all types of benthic habitats from streams to shores of large rivers and lakes (e.g. Keith et al., 1992; Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). The dispersion of eel inland depends on factors such as local population densities and the presence of suitable habitat. Eel migrate between coastal waters (K1, 2, 3), transitional waters (O2), many brackish and fresh water M-types, and large and small river systems (Edeline et al., 2005; Van de Wolfshaar et al., 2014). For eel in particular, barriers should be passable in both directions. Predation of glass eel increases substantially at migration barriers (Vollestad and Jonsson, 1988). Adult eel are susceptible to mortalities at weirs and hydropower plants (Jansen et al., 2007; Klein Breteler et al., 2007; Breukelaar et al., 2009; ICES, 2004; Pedersen et al., 2012; Winter et al., 2007). Pumping stations are an issue of particular importance to eel in the Netherlands and other flat and low-lying countries that encompass deltas and estuaries, such as Flanders in Belgium (Buysse et al., 2014). Watercourse length and surface area are therefore the most important criteria that determine suitable eel-habitats at a

Fig. 2. Overview of the potential distribution ranges of migratory fish guilds in the Netherlands and the prioritized barriers with or without migration facility. (a) Guild 1, long-distance anadromous migration, mostly via large rivers Rhine and Meuse towards upstream neighbouring countries 1. (b) Guild 2, short-distance anadromous migration within about 50 km from the coast. (c) Guild 3, long-distance catadromous migration, eel migration. (d) Guild 4, potamodromous migration between large rivers and their tributaries. (e) Guild 4 detail, as an example of the selected water body typologies. (f) Guild 5, potamodromous migration within small rivers and brooks.

212


Fig. 2 (continued).

regional level. Our GIS analysis of surfaces and lengths of M-types showed that the lakes (polygon shapes: M14, 20, 21, 27, 32) comprise a small number of migration barriers and the largest surface (2.575 km2; 88%). In contrast the artificial canals (polyline shapes: M3, 6, 7, 10, 30) comprise the largest length (8.800 km; 88%), but contain numerous migration barriers (a myriad of sluices, weirs and pumping stations). Therefore, it is suggested to focus on mitigation measures reconnecting lakes with estuaries. Short list of 30 high-priority barriers to European eel The eel stock is outside safe biological limits (Feunteun, 2002; ICES, 2012), and given the strong decline of the species, emergency measures are required to reverse this trend (EC Eel Regulation, Council Regulation No 1100/2007/EC). The Netherlands consists for the greater part of the delta of the large rivers Rhine and Meuse, and of all migratory fish species eel has the most widespread distribution and is consequently confronted with the largest number of barriers (Fig. 3c, Table 4). In response RWS, charged with managing all large water bodies (K & O types, large R and M-types) and sluice–weir complexes between the marine and freshwater environments, asked for a short list of 30 highpriority barriers to eel (Buijse et al., 2009) (Fig. 2c). The criteria used were a maximum of one or two barriers between the freshwater and marine environments and access to large freshwater surface areas. Migration type 4 comprises mid-distance potamodromous migration within slow to fast-flowing, large to medium sized rivers and brooks (Fig. 2d and e). These are characterised by well oxygenated water, moderate to strong currents, and sand–gravel substrate. Species are barbel (Barbus barbus), burbot (Lota lota), chub (Squalius cephalus), ide (Leuciscus idus) and nase (Chondrostoma nasus). The core of the distribution area of barbel and nase lies in faster flowing middle reaches (barbel zone) outside the Netherlands, while ide is more found in the lower reaches (bream zone) (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007; Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Riede, 2004). Species like barbel, burbot, dace and nase migrate between larger rivers (R7, 8) and gravel-rich small rivers

and brooks (R6, 14, 15, 16, 18) (Billard, 1997; Muus and Dahlström, 1968). Ide are known to enter slow flowing tributaries on peat (R12) (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). Chub also use lower and middle river stretches and migrate for spawning to inflowing streams (R5, 10) (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). Side channels and temporary connected floodplains serve as nursery habitat for larvae and juveniles (Grift, 2001). We grouped the anadromous river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) in this guild, because river lampreys can undertake upstream reproduction migrations into small rivers and brooks (R5, 10, 12) (Kelly and King, 2001; Narberhaus et al., 2012; Rochard and Elie, 1994). While the passability of barriers relevant for guild 1 is equally important for this species, it has a more widespread distribution in rivers and brooks in the Netherlands compared to the other anadromous species. Free-flowing and passable sub-basins or river stretches of sufficient length with access to all habitats needed for the various life stages are of importance to support viable populations. Suitable waters require good quality (physical and chemical), which implies that rehabilitation of habitat and removal or mitigation of migration barriers have to go hand in hand. Migration type 5 represents short-ranged potamodromous migration within the middle and upper reaches of brooks and small rivers (R4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 18) (Fig. 2f). This puts focus on connectivity within the sub-basins of the tributaries of the Rhine and Meuse. In the Netherlands guild 5 is represented by brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri). Migration is vital when the habitats are too small to sustain populations. However, it is not always necessary to open up full river stretches or sub-basins. Brook lamprey need a minimum habitat length of only about 3 km for reproduction when this encompasses suitable spawning redds and nursery grounds (Waterstraat and Krappe, 1998). Ammocoetes (larvae) of brook lamprey are resident close to their spawning areas for several years and serve as mid-term bio-indicators for good water quality and a specific hydromorphology (Hanel and Andreska, 2006; Hardisty, 1986; Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007).


213

Fig. 2 (continued).

3.2. National evaluation of barrier prioritization The WFD designations of the five combined guilds resulted in an overall flow chart representing their shared habitats and migration routes (Fig. 3). From this schematic overview it can easily be deduced where multiple migratory fish species benefit most from restoration of longitudinal connectivity. For example, restoration of transitions between coastal and transitional waters and M-types will help eel, smelt and the three spined stickleback (guilds 2 and 3). Another example would be restoration of upstream connections from slow-flowing, small rivers (R6), which would help multiple rheophilic species, such as barbel, ide, nase and brook lamprey (guilds 4 and 5). Moreover, linking the WFD categories and geographical setting of individual water bodies to migration requirements of the various guilds shows that 84% of WFD water bodies is important for at least one guild (Tables 4 and 5). This is often for eel, which has the widest distribution of all migratory fish species. Twenty water bodies are important for four guilds and thus represent the top priority from a fish migration perspective. Inevitably running waters (rivers and streams) are more important to fish migration than lakes and canals, but still 42% of all water bodies designated as either lake or canal is of importance for two or three migration guilds (Table 5). In order to find out how much progress has been made in solving migration barriers, an overview was compiled by linking the delivered and planned migration facilities to the requirements of the various fish guilds (Table 6). Results were available for nearly 2000 barriers. Information is grouped into the phase of completion or planning to make barriers passable. In 490 (25%) cases migration facilities are already in place (prior to 2008 and 2008–2011), while for 485 (24%) a solution is planned in the WFD river basin management plans (2012–2015 and 2015–2027). On the whole, more barriers have been made passable in water bodies that are of importance for multiple migration guilds, which is very positive. However there is a very large number of barriers (n = 776) that

are not yet passable in water bodies that are considered important for two or three migration guilds and where nothing appears to be planned. The three most common types of barriers are weirs (n = 1759), pumping stations (n = 434) and sluices (n = 205), which together comprise more than 80% of all barriers (n = 2924), and of these respectively 18.0, 16.1 and 28.3% has been equipped with a fish migration facility. For 741 sites (25%) the choice for fish migration facility was known. Mostly of course because the facility is already in place and operational (n = 541), but also when it has been decided what will be constructed in the near future. There is a wide range of measures applied to facilitate fish migration (Table 7). Up to 2011 predominantly various forms of fish passes or by-pass channels have been put in place. Adapted sluice management has been implemented in nearly half of the barriers, while fish-friendly pumps and siphons are a more recent approach to enhance fish migration, in particular in lakes and canals where water levels are managed by pumping stations. It is, however, quite disappointing that by having hundreds of migration facilities in place there is so little insight to which extent they have improved conditions for fish to pass the barrier. Monitoring studies on the efficiency of fishways and other migration facilities is mostly solely reported in grey literature and as such too little available to support a wellfounded decision-making for cost-effective migration facility given the environmental conditions and species requirements. 4. Discussion 4.1. Geospatial inventories of barriers Kemp and O'Hanley (2010) reviewed procedures to evaluate and prioritize barrier passability. They concluded that there is a bias towards facilitating upstream migrating adult salmonids, while ignoring other life-stages and the migration of non-salmonid species. Their review strengthens us in our new approach to identify the habitat needs of all native migratory fish and put the prioritization of in-stream barriers in

214


3 2

Freshwater M3, 6, 7, 8, 10,14, 20, 21, 27

Brackish M30, 31, 32

1

4 R8

K1, 2, 3; O2

R7

R6

Germany Belgium R15, 16

5 R5, 10, 12

R14, 18

4.2. This approach

R4 Fig. 3. Schematic overview of migratory fish guilds and their habitat within WFD water body typology. Large numbers and boxes represent fish guilds and their selection of habitat; connections of habitats are shown with arrows. See text, Tables 1 and 2 for further explanation.

a broader perspective. Kemp and O'Hanley (2010) recommend the development of comprehensive and centrally owned geospatial inventories of barriers that can be used for ecosystem management of large rivers and floodplains and thus for transboundary cooperation, for

Table 4 Number of water bodies grouped according to typology and migration guild. The type (K, O, R or M) of the water body has been linked to a migration guild. Some water bodies may however be not relevant, based on their geographical location in the river basin. This explains when numbers per guild are lower than the total number for any specific type, which is particularly relevant for guild 2 (smelt, three-spined stickleback). Vice versa, some water bodies are considered relevant based on their geographical location e.g. the few M-types for guild 1. Type

Guild 1

K0 K1 K2 K3 O2 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 M1 M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M10 M12 M14 M20 M21 M23 M27 M30 M31 M32 Total

Total 2

3

5 3 4 2 5

3 4 2 5

1 7 7

1 2 2 8

7 110 30 11 8 6

2 1 1

3 1 1

3

4 21

4 1

16 7 4 14 17

85 32 18 16 31

1 1

44 5 2

47 23 2

1

17 44 12 2 214

24 49 9 2 558

1

1

1

41

5

5 3 4 2 5 2 114 30 11 10 5

1 1

2

4

185

which there is a clear need (e.g. Huisman et al., 2000; Sparks, 1995; Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig, 1994; Van Dijk et al., 2006). Accordingly the Water Framework Directive has led to River Basin Management Plans for all EU Member States which can easily be consulted via the internet (e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/ map.htm). To resolve connectivity issues several transboundary geospatial inventories of barriers covering whole river catchments have been made. For example, the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) has developed maps of the historical distribution and currently freely passable reaches of the Rhine and its major tributaries, focusing on Atlantic salmon, sea trout, lake trout and eel (ICPR, 2009). This information has been used specifically to discuss the key points for fish migration in a transboundary context.

30 79 11

2 3 1 3 4

1

134

5 3 5 2 5 47 133 30 11 10 6 2 3 1 1 6 4 47 2 99 38 18 18 31 1 52 29 2 6 24 61 20 2 724

The present study shows that there is a further need to detail the prioritization of barriers to smaller rivers and brooks as well as lacustrine ecosystems. Our inventory started in 2001. By 2006 when the first mandatory collection and identification of anthropogenic pressures for the WFD were completed, data had been collected from thousands of barriers hampering fish migration. This demonstrated the need to develop a prioritization procedure to identify the most critical barriers. Approaches such as those proposed by Cote et al. (2009) and O'Hanley et al. (2013) offer practical tools to assess stream networks, but do not include the linkage between fish communities and water body typology. Nunn and Cowx (2012) prioritized barriers for Atlantic salmon, eel and river lamprey using information on fish stock status, the passage efficiency of individual structures, the distance from sea and the downstream passability, and the quantity and quality of habitat upstream structures. Our study differs in that it starts from the potential distribution of all migratory species based on the typology of water bodies and its type-specific fish community. This allowed us to assess all 724 WFD water bodies, either natural or artificial, for their importance for 19 migratory fish species. The approach proposed by Nunn and Cowx (2012) could be an efficient and more detailed follow-up, but requires more data and therefore was particularly useful to apply for parts of the catchment. Our approach was considered necessary as the connectivity issue embraces much more than a single anadromous species such as the Atlantic salmon which mainly uses the Netherland watercourses as a transit route between the sea and the spawning grounds in mountainous regions in Germany, France and Belgium. Identifying native species with their most prominent migration requirements and their potential distribution based on surface water typology, demonstrates that migration issues occur not only in running waters and transitions between marine and freshwater environments, but also in standing aquatic ecosystems. This is especially the case in lower countries and their deltas and estuarine regions. In the Netherlands, the lower Rhine and Meuse have more than 1500 barriers considered important for at least two out of five migration guilds. To date nearly 30% has a measure in place improving fish migration, leaving an enormous task for more than 1000 others.

Table 5 Importance of the various water categories for fish migration. The value represents the number of designated water bodies. Category

Coastal & estuarine Lakes & canals Rivers and brooks Total Coastal & estuarine Lakes & canals Rivers and brooks Total

Water bodies

Migration guilds (n)

n

0

1

2

3

4

20 450 254 724

1 76 39 116

0 184 35 219

5 183 61 249

14 6 108 128

0 1 11 12

5% 17% 15% 16%

0% 41% 14% 30%

25% 41% 24% 34%

70% 1% 43% 18%

0% 0% 4% 2%


215

Table 6 Realised (prior to 2008; 2008–2011) and planned (2012–2015, 2015–2027) migration facilities; and unknown whether a migration facility will be installed. The three categories are grouped per combination of migration guild. For a migration guild description, see Table 2. Migration guild 1

2

X X X

X

X

X

Barriers

Realisation & planning

3

4

5

n

Prior to 2008

2008–2011

2012–2015

2016–2027

No facility foreseen

Unknown

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X

4 1 13 711 46 454 37 314 3 100 3 288 1974

1 0 10 213 9 66 9 41 0 11 0 13 373

0 0 3 22 3 29 17 27 1 3 1 11 117

0 1 0 25 5 71 2 69 2 4 0 43 222

0 0 0 48 2 72 0 46 0 8 1 86 263

0 0 0 12 2 12 0 8 0 0 0 5 39

3 0 0 391 25 204 9 123 0 74 1 130 960

X

X

X X X

X X

Although the relevant water authorities recognize that an important step has been made towards restoration of longitudinal connectivity, there are strengths and weaknesses in this present approach.

4.2.1. Strengths There are clear interrelations between guilds where important paths (migration routes) coincide. Measures taken to rehabilitate one guild can therefore be profitable to species from another guild, and also to other less demanding species. The European eel can benefit when migration is improved for guild 1 as this connects large areas, in particular between marine and freshwater environments. In brackish waters, European flounder (Platichthys flesus) and grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) will also benefit from measures required for guild 1 and 2. In guild 5, several rheophilic species can profit from the rehabilitation and connection of these habitats, e.g. stone loach (Barbatula barbatula), gudgeon (Gobio gobio) and bullhead (Cottus gobio). The list of species that can profit from restoration of longitudinal connectivity is extensive, and although the species we have focussed on are, in our view, those that must migrate to fulfil their cycle, other more stationary species also profit. Besides the rather well-known diadromous species (e.g. Atlantic salmon) it is important to have better insight into the migratory behaviour of potamodromous species both in riverine and lacustrine ecosystems. In the Netherlands we propose to distinguish between at least two potamodromous migration strategies. It is therefore likely that a better understanding of such migratory behaviour will lead to more effective and cost-efficient solutions in the long term for restoration of Europe's fish faunas. Identifying a short list of high priority barriers, such as that for eel, is effective as this emphasizes the potential biggest gains. Taking into consideration the threatened status of eel, its longevity and uncertainty of the causes of its decline, we believe that the prioritized top 30 barriers

Table 7 Selection of the most common applied measures to facilitate fish migration up to 2011 in the Netherlands; ranked by percentage of realised fishways relative to planned fishways. Type of migration facility

n

% realised

V-shaped fish pass Pool-type fish pass By-pass or side channel De wit fish passage Vertical slot fish pass Cascade fish pass Remove barrier Sluice management Fish-friendly pump or siphon

60 108 62 79 48 159 22 116 110

95% 89% 87% 77% 75% 71% 68% 45% 28%

(Buijse et al., 2009) will, once resolved, significantly contribute to enhancement of adult silver eel migration to sea. It would be helpful if such short lists were prepared for other species and guilds in each EU member state. River basin migration plans could then deliver longitudinal connectivity solutions in a cost-effective transnational approach.

4.2.2. Weaknesses This present study is based upon the principles developed within the WFD framework for the associated fish faunas and their migration needs. One shortcoming of this is that the selection of WFD water bodies covers only about 65% of all water bodies (Fig. 1c). It is unclear whether this sub-set of water bodies will be enough to rehabilitate certain vulnerable species, but currently this is the best that can be achieved and it gives decision makers a clear target. In contrast to improving connectivity, there are some situations where isolation of habitat is preferred, for example in the case of pristine isolated waters containing specific native species that need protection from influences of exotic invasive species or when river basins or subbasins are artificially interconnected (Bij de Vaate et al., 2002). In addition, decision makers can also postpone barrier mitigation in cases where either water quality or morphology is at present inadequate for the targeted species. The distinction between fish species that characterise migratory guilds requires good levels of understanding of species biology. For example, the anadromous L. fluviatilis was clustered within the potamodromous fish guild 4. This case illustrates that the accessibility of (shared) spawningand nursery areas is also very important when identifying migratory guilds, based upon their habitat needs. Several species described in the guilds are obligate migrants, while others tend to be more flexible in their migratory behaviour and choice of habitats. Anguilla sp. for example are considered to be facultative catadromous i.e. it does not always need to migrate into freshwater (Tsukamoto and Arai, 2001; Daverat et al., 2006; Narberhaus et al., 2012). A proportion of eel move frequently between different environments during their life, and some remain in estuarine or marine habitats. Sea lamprey, river lamprey (Renaud, 2011), smelt (Maitland and Lyle, 2010) and three-spined stickleback (Elofsson et al., 2003), and resident male Atlantic salmon (Hutchings and Myers, 1988; Thorpe, 1989) can each fulfil their full life history in fresh water. This life cycle diversity can in some cases facilitate recovery of populations (Secor and Kerr, 2009). Possibly specific M-types, lakes and canals encompass parts of migration routes, and may not be covered by GIS mapping. In these cases corrections based on expert judgement are important and indeed this is always likely to be the case, since no model or method of assessing migration barriers can be 100% accurate.

216


4.3. Recommendations In addition to selecting the most appropriate barriers to mitigate, it is also essential to make sure that fishways are designed, constructed, assessed, maintained and managed appropriately and that the functionality is evaluated (Kroes et al., 2006). Despite the fact that there are hundreds of fish pass solutions in place there remains inadequate insight into their effectiveness (Larinier, 2001). Effectiveness needs to be assessed by taking account of environmental context including the location of barriers and the range of migratory fish present. This also encompasses the type of water bodies and the migration guilds for which they are important. In principle our WFD based approach can be systematically evolved into an internationally applicable tool, encompassing data from other EU Member States, and covering basin wide restoration planning efforts, and cross-disciplinary interests. To achieve this with this present method, the WFD water body typologies between countries have to be compared for their type-specific fish communities and where possible harmonised. To accomplish this task, representatives of international river basin management authorities will need to meet periodically to develop a unified, multi-national and multi-river basin approach. We believe that the experience in the Netherlands provides a favourable template for rapid progress. 4.4. How to apply this approach elsewhere? It is clear that across Europe there is a much larger diversity in both aquatic ecosystems and fish species than those present in the Netherlands. So how could river basin authorities or other countries adopt and apply our approach. Within the European Communities all member states are obliged to implement the WFD. It is the WFD implementation requirements that formed the basis and point of departure for our approach. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that other EU member states will or should have similar data sources to make similar assessments (Table 8). To summarise the main elements: member states have to develop a typology for their surface water bodies. An overview of all existing national typologies has been made and will be published by the end of 2014 (Lyche-Solheim, pers. comm.). For each type the type-specific fish community needs to be described. Relevant information for this is

Table 8 Essential data sources and information type to prioritize fish migration routes. At the local level a selection of barriers hampering fish migration can be further prioritized by incorporating information on suitable habitat quality for various life stages, cumulative costs to fully open migration routes, source populations of migratory species, etc. Data sources

Type of information used

Water body typology

River type Lake type Transitional water type Coastal water type Geographical location Relevance for migratory route

Type-specific fish community

• Specify per guild or species Identify migratory species

Pressure assessment

• Anadromous • Catadromous • Potamodromous Obstructing continuity

Programmes of measures

• Specify: type, location Migration improvement • Specify: type, planning, priority

the compilation of ecological requirements of fish in the EU research projects FAME and EFI + and formed the basis for the successful intercalibration to assess the ecological status of rivers using fish community composition. What we subsequently added is identifying the species with strong migration requirements. It is then known between which types of surface water bodies those species need to migrate. The WFD further requires a collection and identification of anthropogenic pressures for each water body including those impacting longitudinal continuity. Lastly member states have to compile a programme of measures to improve the ecological to either GES or GEP. In our study these various data sources were compiled and presented to local water managers asking for the following additional information: • Specify the pressure impacting the continuity. • Specify the measure to improve fish migration. • Verify for each water body which migratory fish species should be present. So in our opinion most European countries could develop a similar prioritization for fish migration, because they should have comparable data sources at their deposition. Acknowledgements This study was partially financed by Sportvisserij Nederland. The authors would like to thank these organisations for their complementary financial support: the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (RWS), and the Interreg IVB North Sea Region Programme Living North Sea (2009– 2013). We thank all aquatic ecologists and water managers of the Water management authorities who provided their data and information on migration barriers and fish passages, and helped to fine-tune this present national prioritization method. We wish to extend especial thanks to Peter van Puijenbroek and Karen van de Wolfshaar for proof reading the article. References Aarts BG, Nienhuis PH. Fish zonations and guilds as the basis for assessment of ecological integrity of large rivers. Hydrobiologia 2003;500:157–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-1084-9_11. Aarts BG, Van Den Brink FW, Nienhuis PH. Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: the transversal floodplain gradient. River Res Appl 2004;20(1):3–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.720. Banister K. Gasterosteidae. In: Whitehead PJP, Bauchot M-L, Hureau J-C, Nielsen J, Tortonese E, editors. Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, Vol. 2. Paris: UNESCO; 1986. p. 640–3. Baras E, Lucas MC. Impacts of man's modifications of river hydrology on the migration of freshwater fishes: a mechanistic perspective. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 2001;1(3): 291–304. Baras E, Lambert H, Philippart JC. A comprehensive assessment of the failure of Barbus barbus spawning migrations through a fish pass in the canalized River Meuse (Belgium). Aquat Living Resour 1994;7(3):181–9. Bauchot M-L. Poissons osseux. In: Fischer W, Bauchot ML, Schneider M, editors. Fiches FAO d'identification pour les besoins de la pêche. (rev. 1). Méditerranée et mer Noire. Zone de pêche 37Rome: Commission des Communautés Européennes and FAO; 1987. p. 891–1421. Benelux-beschikking (M (2009) 1) inzake de vrije vismigratie in de hydrografische stroomgebieden van de Beneluxlanden. Bij de Vaate A, Jazdzewski K, Ketelaars HAM, Gollasch S, Van der Velde G. Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2002;59:1159–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f02-098. Billard R. Les poissons d'eau douce des rivières de France. Identification, inventaire et répartition des 83 espèces. Lausanne: Delachaux & Niestlé; 1997. Bölscher T, van Slobbe E, van Vliet MT, Werners SE. Adaptation turning points in river restoration? The Rhine salmon case. Sustainability 2013;5(6):2288–304. http://dx.doi. org/10.3390/su5062288. Breukelaar AW, Ingendahl D, Vriese FT, De Laak G, Staas S, Klein Breteler JGP. Route choices, migration speeds and daily migration activity of European silver eels Anguilla anguilla in the River Rhine, north‐west Europe. J Fish Biol 2009;74(9):2139–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02293.x. Buijse T, Beld van den T, Brevé N, Wanningen H. Knelpunten en migratievoorzieningen op de migratieroutes voor aal naar de belangrijke leefgebieden in Nederland. Opdrachtgever RWS Waterdienst; 2009 [Project 1002104-000. Kenmerk: 1002104000-ZWS-0003, 23 pp.].

N.W.P. Brevé et al. / Science of the Total Environment 496 (2014) 206–218 Buysse D, Mouton AM, Stevens M, Van den Neucker T, Coeck J. Mortality of European eel after downstream migration through two types of pumping stations. Fish Manag Ecol 2014;21:13–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/fme.12046. CIS WG 2.4. Common implementation strategy working group 2.4 — typology: guidance for typology in transitional and coastal waters; 2002. Cote D, Kehler DG, Bourne C, Wiersma YF. A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landsc Ecol 2009;24:101–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980008-9283-y. Daverat F, Limburg KE, Thibault I, Shiao JC, Dodson JJ, Caron F, et al. Phenotypic plasticity of habitat use by three temperate eel species, Anguilla anguilla, A. japonica and A. rostrata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2006;308:231–41. De Groot SJ. A review of the past and present status of anadromous fish species in the Netherlands: is restocking the Rhine feasible? Ecological Restoration of Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Ecosystems in the Netherlands (NW Europe). Netherlands: Springer; 2002. p. 205–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1335-1_11. Van de Wolfshaar KE, Tien N, Winter HV, De Graaf M, Bierman SM. A spatial assessment model for European eel (Anguilla anguilla) in a delta. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 2014;412:02. Edeline E, Dufour S, Elie P. Role of glass eel salinity preference in the control of habitat selection and growth plasticity in Anguilla anguilla. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2005; 304:191–9. Elofsson H, McAllister BG, Kime DE, Mayer I, Borg B. Long lasting stickleback sperm; is ovarian fluid a key to success in fresh water? J Fish Biol 2003;63(1):240–53. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00153.x. European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. Rehabilitation of rivers for fish. In: Cowx Ian G, Welcomme RL, editors. Food & Agriculture Org.; 1998 Evers CHM, Knoben R, van Herpen FCJ, editors. Omschrijving MEP en maatlatten voor sloten en kanalen voor de Kaderrichtlijn water 2015-2021. Stowa rapport 2012-34. (incl. errata) 9789057733833; 2013. Fagan WF. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 2002;83(12):3243–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[3243: CFAERI]2.0.CO;2. Feunteun E. Management and restoration of European eel population (Anguilla anguilla): an impossible bargain. Ecol Eng 2002;18(5):575–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0925-8574(02)00021-6. Fleming IA. Reproductive strategies of Atlantic salmon: ecology and evolution. Rev Fish Biol Fish 1996;6(4):379–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00164323. Fullerton AH, Burnett KM, Steel EA, Flitcroft RL, Pess GR, Feist BE, et al. Hydrological connectivity for riverine fish: measurement challenges and research opportunities. Freshw Biol 2010;55(11):2215–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010. 02448.x. Garcia de Leaniz CG. Weir removal in salmonid streams: implications, challenges and practicalities. Hydrobiologia 2008;609(1):83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750008-9397-x. Grift RE. How fish benefit from floodplain restoration along the lower River Rhine. Doctoral dissertation Wageningen, TheNetherlands: Wageningen University 9058084884; 2001. Hanel L, Andreska J. Bioindicative evaluation of the brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) in water environment. In: Ko?árek P, Plášek V, Malachová K, editors. Environmental changes and biological assessment III. Scripta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Universitatis Ostraviensis Nr. 163, Ostrava; 2006. p. 234–8. [355 pp.]. Hardisty MW. Lampetra planeri (Bloch, 1784). In: Holcík J, editor. The Freshwater Fishes of Europe. Vol. 1. Part I. Petromyzontiformes. Wiesbaden: Aula; 1986. p. 279–304. Hartgers EM, Buijse AD. The role of Lake IJsselmeer, a closed-off estuary of the River Rhine, in rehabilitation of salmonid populations. Fish Manag Ecol 2002;9:127–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2002.00283.x. Huisman P, De Jong J, Wieriks K. Transboundary cooperation in shared river basins: experiences from the Rhine, Meuse and North Sea. Water Policy 2000;2(1):83–97. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(99)00023-9. Hutchings JA, Myers RA. Mating success of alternative maturation phenotypes in male Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Oecologia 1988;75(2):169–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF00378593. ICESReport of the ICES/EIFAC Working Group on Eels. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Sukarrieta, Spain, 7–11 October 2003; 2004. [ICES CM 2004/ACFM: 09. Available at http://www.eaa-europe.org/fileadmin/templates/uploads/Eels/ICES_ WGEEL_2004.pdf]. ICESReport of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES Working Group on Eels (WGEEL), 3–9 September 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:18; 2012. [824 pp.]. ICPR. Master plan migratory fish Rhine. Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine; 2009 [32 pp.]. IUCN. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2013.1. IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; 2013 [Downloaded in June 2013]. Jansen HM, Winter HV, Bruijs MCM, Polman HJG. Just go with the flow? Route selection and mortality during downstream migration of silver eels in relation to river discharge. ICES J Mar Sci 2007;64:1437–43. Keith P, Allardi J, Moutou B. Livre rouge des espèces menacées de poissons d'eau douce de France et bilan des introductions. Paris: Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Secrétariat de la Faune et de la Flore, Conseil Supérieur de la Pêche, CEMAGREF and Ministère de l'Environment; 1992 [111 pp.]. Kelly FL, King JJ. A review of the ecology and distribution of three lamprey species, Lampetra fluviatilis (L.), Lampetra planeri (Bloch) and Petromyzon marinus (L.): a context for conservation and biodiversity considerations in Ireland. Biol Environ 2001; 101B:165–85. Kemp PS, O'Hanley JR. Procedures for evaluating and prioritising the removal of fish passage barriers: a synthesis. Fish Manag Ecol 2010;17(4):297–322. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2400.2010.00751.x.

217

Klein Breteler J, Vriese T, Borcherding J, Breukelaar A, Jörgensen L, Staas S, et al. Assessment of population size and migration routes of silver eel in the River Rhine based on a 2-year combined mark-recapture and telemetry study. ICES J Mar Sci 2007; 64(7):1450–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm130. Klemetsen A, Amundsen PA, Dempson JB, Jonsson B, Jonsson N, O'connell MF, et al. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a review of aspects of their life histories. Ecol Freshw Fish 2003;12(1): 1–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0633.2003.00010.x. Kottelat M, Freyhof J. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Cornol, Switzerland: Publications Kottelat 978-2-8399-0298-4; 2007 [646 pp.]. Kroes MJ, Monden S. Vismigratie, een handboek voor herstel in Vlaanderen en Nederland/ Aminal, Afdeling Water in samenwerking met OVB, Organisatie ter Verbetering van de Binnenvisserij; 2005 [In Dutch. Fish migration, a manual for the rehabilitation in Flanders and the Netherlands]. Kroes MJ, Gough P, Schollema PP, Wanningen H. From sea to source; practical guidance for restoration of fish migration in European rivers; 2006. Kroes MJ, Brevé N, Vriese FT, Wanningen H, Buijse AD. Nederland leeft met…vismigratie. Naar een gestroomlijnde aanpak van de vismigratieproblematiek in Nederland. Rapport: VA2007_33 opgesteld in opdracht van:Directoraat-Generaal Water en de Unie van Waterschappen; 2008. Larinier M. Environmental issues, dams and fish migration. FAO fisheries technical paper, 419; 2001. p. 45–89. Lepage M, Rochard E. Threatened fishes of the world: Acipenser sturio Linnaeus, 1758 (Acipenseridae). Environ Biol Fish 1995;43(1):28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF00001813. Lucas MC, Baras E, Thom TJ, Duncan A, Slavík O, editors. Frontmatter, in migration of freshwater fishes. 10.1002/9780470999653.fmatter. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.; 2008. Lucas MC, Bubb DH, JANG MH, Ha K, Masters JE. Availability of and access to critical habitats in regulated rivers: effects of low‐head barriers on threatened lampreys. Freshw Biol 2009;54(3):621–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02136.x. MacCrimmon HR, Gots BL. World distribution of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. J Fish Res Board Can 2011;36(4):422–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f79-062. Maitland P, Lyle A. The smelt Osmerus eperlanus in Scotland. Freshwater Forum, vol. 6, No. 1. ; 2010. [May]. Molls F, Nemitz A. Restoration of Atlantic salmon and other diadromous fishes in the Rhine River system. American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol. 49, No. 1. American Fisheries Society; 2008. p. 817. Muus BJ, Dahlström P. Süßwasserfische. München: BLV Verlagsgesellschaft; 1968 [224 pp.]. Narberhaus I, Krause J, Bernitt U, editors. Threatened biodiversity in the German North and Baltic Seas. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, HeftBonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; 2012. Noble RAA, Cowx IG, Goffaux D, Kestemont P. Assessing the health of European rivers using functional ecological guilds of fish communities: standardising species classification and approaches to metric selection. Fish Manag Ecol 2007a;14:381–92. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00575.x. Noble RAA, Cowx IG, Starkie AS. Development of fish-based methods for the assessment of ecological status in English and Welsh rivers. Fish Manag Ecol 2007b;14:495–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00574.x. Nunn AD, Cowx IG. Restoring river connectivity: prioritizing passage improvements for diadromous fishes and lampreys. Ambio 2012;41:402–9. O'Hanley JR, Wright J, Diebel M, Fedora MA, Soucy CL. Restoring stream habitat connectivity: a proposed method for prioritizing the removal of resident fish passage barriers. J Environ Manage 2013;125:19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.055. Parrish DL, Behnke RJ, Gephard SR, McCormick SD, Reeves GH. Why aren't there more Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1998;55(S1):281–7. http://dx.doi. org/10.1139/d98-012. Pedersen MI, Jepsen N, Aarestrup K, Koed A, Pedersen S, Økland F. Loss of European silver eel passing a hydropower station. J Appl Ichthyol 2012;28(2):189–93. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01913.x. Quignard J-P, Douchement C. Alosa alosa (Linnaeus 1758). In: Hoestlandt H, editor. The freshwater fishes of Europe. Vol. 2. Clupeidae, Anguillidae. Wiesbaden: AULA-Verlag; 1991. p. 89–126. Raat AJ. Ecological rehabilitation of the Dutch part of the River Rhine with special attention to the fish. Regul Rivers: Res Manage 2001;17(2):131–44. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/rrr.608. Renaud CB. Lampreys of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of lamprey species known to date. FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes. No. 5. Rome: FAO 978-92-5-106928-8; 2011. [109 pp.]. Riede K. Global register of migratory species — from global to regional scales. Final Report of the R&D-Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; 2004. [329 pp.]. Rochard E, Elie P. La macrofaune aquatique de l'estuaire de la Gironde. Contribution au livre blanc de l'Agence de l'Eau Adour Garonne. In: Mauvais J-L, Guillaud J-F, editors. État des connaissances sur l'estuaire de la Gironde. Bordeaux, France: Agence de l'Eau Adour-Garonne, Éditions Bergeret; 1994. p. 1–56. [115 pp.]. Rochard E, Lambert P. Chapter 30 modelling the future of stocked fish. In: Williot P, Rochard E, Desse-Berset N, Kirschbaum F, Gessner J, editors. Biology and conservation of the Atlantic European sturgeon Acipenser sturio L. Springer; 2011. p. 1758. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North Am J Fish Manag 2002;22(1):1–20. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022b0001:AROSRTN2.0.CO;2. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North Am J Fish Manag 2008;28(3):856–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1.

218


Schmutz S, Cowx IG, Haidvogl G, Pont D. Fish-based methods for assessing European running waters: a synthesis. Fish Manag Ecol 2007;14:369–80. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2400.2007.00585.x. Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig A. Outline of the ecological master plan for the Rhine. Water Sci Technol 1994;29(3):273–80. Scott WB, Scott MG. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can Bull Fish Aquat Sci 1988;219. [731 pp.]. Secor David H, Kerr LA. Lexicon of life cycle diversity in diadromous and other fishes. Am Fish Soc Symp 2009;69:537–56. Slawski TM, Veraldi FM, Pescitelli SM, Pauers MJ. Effects of tributary spatial position, urbanization, and multiple low-head dams on warm water fish community structure in a Midwestern stream. North Am J Fish Manag 2008;28(4):1020–35. http://dx. doi.org/10.1577/M06-186.1. Sparks RE. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. BioScience 1995;45(3):168–82. Thorpe JE. Developmental variation in salmonid populations. J Fish Biol 1989;35(sA): 295–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1989.tb03073.x. Tsukamoto K, Arai T. Facultative catadromy of the eel, Anguilla japonica, between freshwater and seawater habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser0171-8630 2001;220:265e276. van der Molen DTIn: Pot R, Evers CHM, van Nieuwerburgh LLJ, editors. Referenties en maatlatten voor natuurlijke watertypen voor de Kaderrichtlijn water 2015-2021. Stowa rapport 2012–31; 2012. [incl. errata]. Van Dijk GM, Marteijn ECL, Schulte‐Wülwer‐Leidig A. Ecological rehabilitation of the River Rhine: plans, progress and perspectives. Regul Rivers: Res Manage 2006; 11(3‐4):377–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450110311.

Vannote RL, Minshall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1980;37:130–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f80-017. Vollestad LA, Jonsson B. A 13-year study of the population dynamics and growth of the European eel Anguilla anguilla in a Norwegian river: evidence for densitydependent mortality, and development of a model for predicting yield. J Anim Ecol 1988:983–97. Waterstraat A, Krappe M. Distribution and abundance of Lampetra planeri populations in the Peene drainage (NE Germany) in relation to isolation and habitat conditions. Ital J Zool 1998;65(S1):137–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11250009809386805. Whitehead PJP. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 7. Clupeoid fishes of the world (suborder Clupeioidei). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the herrings, sardines, pilchards, sprats, shads, anchovies and wolf-herrings. FAO Fish. Synop., 125(7/1). Rome: FAO; 1985. p. 1–303. Williams JG, Armstrong G, Katopodis C, Larinier M, Travade F. Thinking like a fish: a key ingredient for development of effective fish passage facilities at river obstructions. River Res Appl 2012;28(4):407–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1551. Winter HV, Jansen HM, Breukelaar AW. Silver eel mortality during downstream migration in the River Meuse, a population perspective. ICES J Mar Sci 2007;64:1444–9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm128. Wofford JE, Gresswell RE, Banks MA. Influence of barriers to movement on withinwatershed genetic variation of coastal cutthroat trout. Ecol Appl 2005;15(2): 628–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/04-0095.