Restaurar Rios PDF

ICONGRESOIBRICODERESTAURACINFLUVIAL
RESTAURAROS
LEN,1820DEOCTUBREDE2011
2
ICONGRESOIBRICODERESTAURACINFLUVIAL
RESTAURAROS
LEN,1820DEOCTUBREDE2011
Actas

Organiza:
2

2

Edita:
CentroIbricodeRestauracinFluvial
MinisteriodeMedioAmbienteyMedioRuralyMarino
ConfederacinHidrogrficadelDuero
Diseoymaquetacin:Ecoter,www.ecoter.com.es
Fotografaseimgenes
Portada:ConfluenciadelroEbroyelroGllego(Zaragoza)PaulaMarco
Conferenciasplenarias:RoUlla(Lugo)DavidGranado
Sesin1:RoBarrosaenParzn(Huesca)AlfredoOllero
Sesin2:RoEbro(Zaragoza)IsmaelSanz
Sesin3:RoUltzama(Navarra)CaminoJaso
Sesin4:DelimitacindelTerritorioFluvialenelroArga(Navarra)Ecoter
Sesin5:CanalRoyaenLaRinconada(Huesca)DavidGranado
Sesin6:AzuddeMendaraz,roUrumea(Guipzcoa)IkerAzpiroz
Sesin7:RoArgaenFunes(Navarra)VanesaAcn
Sesin8:RoAlagnenCoria(Cceres)DavidGranado
Sesin9:RoIrati(Navarra)VanesaAcn
Sesin10:RoBullaqueenPueblonuevodeBullaque(CiudadReal)VanesaAcn
Psters:RoMajonesenVillarrealdelaCanal(Huesca)VanesaAcn
Talleres:RoCaldars(Huesca)VanesaAcn
Conclusiones:CascadadelCaozoenValdastillas(Cceres)DavidGranado
Contraportada:RoGarona(Huesca)DavidGranado
Depsitolegal:Z34852011
ISBN:9788469499054
Paracitarestetrabajosesugiere:
VV.AA.(2011):ICongresoIbricodeRestauracinFluvial.

2

HIDROMORFOLOGAESCALA RESTAURACINFLUVIAL
BIOINGENIERAINUNDACINPREVENCINMITIGACIN
2

HIDROLOGAHBITATSVOLUNTARIADOPARTICIPACIN

RIBERASECOSISTEMACALIDADREGENERACINROS

SIGCRECIDACONTINUIDADEVALUACINBIODIVERSIDAD

GEOMORFOLOGAREHABILITACINNATURALIZACIN

SEGUIMIENTOVEGETACINCONECTIVIDADMODELO

RECONEXINCAUDALCARTOGRAFAHIDRODINMICA

LIDARPROTECCINGESTINVALORACINPROYECTO

ESTADOECOLGICOBIOLOGANUTRIENTESCAUCEAGUA

RESTAURAROS
2
COMITCIENTFICO

AlfredoOlleroOjeda,UniversidaddeZaragoza(coordinador)
RafaelBaenaEscudero,UniversidaddeSevilla
JosBarqunOrtiz,UniversidaddeCantabria
FranciscoA.ComnSebastin,InstitutoPirenaicodeEcologa
RuiManuelV.Cortes,UniversidadedoTrsosMonteseAltoDouro
JuanManuelDezHernndez,UniversidaddeValladolid
JosRamnDezLpez,UniversidaddelPasVasco
JosAnastasioFernndezYuste,UniversidadPolitcnicadeMadrid
MaraTeresaFerreira,UniversidadeTcnicadeLisboa
BartFokkens,ECRR
DiegoGarcadeJalnLastra,UniversidadPolitcnicadeMadrid
GuillerminaGarznHeydt,UniversidadComplutensedeMadrid
AndreaGoltara,CIRF
AmeliaGmezVillar,UniversidaddeLen
MartaGonzlezdelTnagodelRo,UniversidadPolitcnicadeMadrid
AskoaIbisateGonzlezdeMatauco,UniversidaddelPasVasco
FernandoMagdalenoMas,CEDEX
JuanPedroMartnVide,UniversidadPolitcnicadeCatalua
JuanAntonioMartnVentura,ConfederacinHidrogrficadelCantbrico
RobertoMartnezRomero,CEDEX
MarcosMndezIglesias,UniversidadReyJuanCarlos
MiguelSnchezFabre,UniversidaddeZaragoza
JavierSanzRonda,UniversidaddeValladolid
DavidUribelarreadelVal,UniversidadComplutensedeMadrid
JosefaVelascoGarca,UniversidaddeMurcia
4

CONFERENCIASPLENARIAS

JessYage.SubdirectorGeneraldeGestinIntegradadelDominioPblicoHidrulico.MARM.LAESTRATEGIA
NACIONALDERESTAURACINDEROS..........................................................................................................................15
IgnacioRodrguez.ComisariodeAguasdelaCHD.LAENRRENLACUENCADELDUERO...........................................31
AlfredoOllero.CIREF.RESTAURACINFLUVIAL:PRINCIPIOS,DIFICULTADESYPROPUESTAS.LAPERSPECTIVADEL
CIREF...............................................................................................................................................................................35
JeanPaulBravard.UniversityLumireLyon2.GENEALOGYOFTHERIVERMOBILITYSPACECONCEPT,FRANCE.
THEORYANDIMPLEMENTATIONASPECTS.....................................................................................................................46
JukkaJormola.LandscapeArchitect.FinnishEnvironmentInstituteSYKE.MITIGATION,COMPENSATIONAND
RESTORATIONOFHABITATSINCONSTRUCTEDRIVERS:NATURELIKEBYPASSCHANNELS..........................................59
BartFokkens.PresidentedeECRR.FLOODPREVENTIONANDRIVERRESTORATION:ROOMFORTHERIVER............67
MarkBriggs.Hydroecologist.ChihuahuanDesertProgram,WorldWildlifeFundo.RESTORINGRIVERSIN
SOUTHWESTERNUNITEDSTATESANDNORTHERNMEXICOLESSONSLEARNEDFORMTHEPASTTOBENEFITTHE
FUTURE...........................................................................................................................................................................80
AndersIversen.DIRNATNoruega.RESTAURACINFLUVIALENNORUEGA.EXPERIENCIASYEJEMPLOS...................94
SESIN1:RESTAURACINYPREVENCINDEINUNDACIONES
CarlesFerreriBoix(UPC)
1.1.F.J.Snchez,C.Andrs,J.QuirsyS.Cuesta.ELSNCZICOMOHERRAMIENTACLAVEENLACONSERVACINY
RECUPERACINDELESPACIOFLUVIAL.............................................................................................................................98
1.2.D.GarcadeJaln,M.GonzlezdelTnago,J.Maroto,J.P.MartnVide,C.M.Baldissone,M.Rodrguez,
A.Ibisate,A.Ollero,V.Acn,D.Ballarn,P.Besn,E.Daz,M.Gimeno,D.Granado,A.Rey,I.SnchezPinto,F.
Magdaleno,R.Martnez,C.PrezMartnyE.GarcaBalaguer.ENFOQUETRANSDISCIPLINARPARALAMITIGACIN
DEEFECTOSDEINUNDACIONESYLARESTAURACINFLUVIAL:APLICACINALOSTRAMOSBAJOSDELOSROS
ARGAYARAGN.............................................................................................................................................................105
1.3.F.J.Caballero,H.Perotas,.J..Guerrero,I.Fernndez,R.GoyayM.A..Cuadrado.DELIMITACINDEZONAS
INUNDABLESENTRAMOSDELRORBIGO...................................................................................................................106
1.4.P.Vizcano,C.Alonso,J.Gortzar,M.Marchamalo,D.BaezayD.GarcadeJaln.ANLISISDELAEVOLUCIN
HISTRICADELAINUNDABILIDADYCONSIDERACIONESPARALAPLANIFICACINDELAGESTINFLUVIALENLA
CUENCADELROJARAMA..............................................................................................................................................116
1.5.O.Conde,V.Acn,D.Ballarn,S.Domenech,J.Elso,F.Espejo,M.Gimeno,D.Granado,L.E.Gonzalo,A.Ibisate,
F.Magdaleno,M.Mrida,.D.Mora,A.Olleroy.M.SnchezFabre.PERSPECTIVASENLABSQUEDADE
SOLUCIONESDEMITIGACINALRIESGODEINUNDACINENLARIBERAALTAARAGONESADELEBRO.....................117
1.6.L.Polanco,D.Gargantilla,G.CobosyE.Lastrada.CONEXINHIDROLGICAYMEJORADEHBITATSENEL
MEANDRODESOTOSARDILLASENELROARGA...........................................................................................................125
1.7.J.A.Ortega,G.GarznyL.Razola.CRITERIOSGEOMORFOLGICOSPARALADETECCINDEPROBLEMASEN
LARESTAURACINFLUVIALYSUSIMPLICACIONESDURANTEEPISODIOSDEAVENIDASSBITAS...............................134
1.8.P.Delgado,J.SanfranciscoeI.Terrades.ACTUACIONESDEDEFENSAYREHABILITACINAMBIENTALENEL
TRAMOBAJODELROSERPIS.........................................................................................................................................144
1.9.M.Gutirrez,J.A.MartnVenturayR.SantosAlonso.PREVENCINDELRIESGODEINUNDACIONESY
PROTECCINAMBIENTALDECAUCESCANTBRICOSMEDIANTEPROTOCOLOSDECOLABORACINCON
AYUNTAMIENTOS...........................................................................................................................................................154
1.10.G.Garca,M.Manzano,G.Sanz,M.ButillyC.Pedrocchi.RESTAURACINECOLGICADELENTORNO
FLUVIALDELMONASTERIOCISTERCIENSEDESANTESCREUS(ROCAI,TARRAGONA):LARECUPERACIN
MOFOFUNCIONALDEMEANDROSCONFINADOSBAJOELPRINCIPIODEMNIMAINTERVENCIN............................163
5
SESIN2:PARTICIPACINYVOLUNTARIADO
AlfonsoCalvoToms(CHE)

2.1.R.Prez,V.Rodrguez,F.Baobre,M.Miguns,L.ParenteyM.J.Castro.ELPAPELDELVOLUNTARIADO
AMBIENTALENLARESTAURACINDEROS.CAMPODEVOLUNTARIADOAMBIENTALDELROTEA..........................173
2.2.F.J.Snchez,J.GarcaDaz,M.Aparicio,J.Carpio,I.MartnGranizoyS.DelCampo.LAIMPORTANCIADELA
PARTICIPACINPBLICAYLAACEPTACINSOCIALDELASOBRASDERESTAURACINDEROS................................182
2.3.P.Teiga.PARTICIPAOPBLICAEMREABILITAODERIOSERIBEIRAS(PROJECTORIOS,PORTUGAL).............197
2.4.J.R.Aragn,C.MonteagudoyM.D.Aragons.RECONQUISTANDOROS...............................................................198
2.5.F.J.Snchez,J.Garca,A.Ballester,A.Lpez,J.R.Molina,E.PalaciosyG.Schmidt.GUAMETODOLGICA
PARAELDISEODEPROCESOSDEPARTICIPACINENPROYECTOSDERESTAURACINDEROS...............................208
2.6.F.J.Snchez,G.Pulido,A.Guilln,F.Gonzlez,L.Martnez,C.Gulln,J.M.GarcaGuijas,A.SaizdelaHoya.EL
PROGRAMADEVOLUNTARIADOENROS.UNAAPUESTAPBLICAPARALACONSERVACINDELOSROS:LOGROS
YDESAFOS.....................................................................................................................................................................209
2.7.M.Burgui,M.Mrida,R.Prez,I.SanzyJ.Ezquerra.ELPROYECTOVOLUNTARRIOS:PARTICIPACIN
CIUDADANAENLACONSERVACINYRESTAURACINDELOSROSDEARAGN........................................................215
2.8.M.Guibert,C.PrezMartnyF.Mendoza.PROYECTOPILOTODEMEJORAAMBIENTALDELMEANDRODEL
PLANTOENLOSMUNICIPIOSDEMENDIGORRAYMAERU(ROARGA,NAVARRA)..................................................216
SESIN3:ELUSODELABIOINGENIERAENLARESTAURACINFLUVIAL
JuanAntonioMartnVentura(CHC)

3.1.D.E.MartnezyM.Daz.METODOLOGADESELECCINDETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAY
DIMENSIONAMIENTODEESTRUCTURASENPROYECTOSDERESTAURACINDEROS................................................226
3.2.F.J.Snchez,M.Aparicio,J.GarcaDaz,J.CarpioeI.Martn.DISEODELASOBRASDEBIOINGENIERAEN
RELACINALASCONDICIONESHIDROLGICASEHIDRULICASDELACORRIENTEYALAGEOMORFOLOGADE
LOSCAUCES...................................................................................................................................................................234
3.3.A.GarcaVega,F.J.SanzRonda,J.F.Fuentes,J.NavarroyA.Martnez.PROPUESTAMETODOLGICAPARAEL
DISEODEMUROSKRAINER.........................................................................................................................................235
3.4.M.Gonzlez,F.J.Snchez,M.AparicioyA.SaizdelaHoya.OPTIMIZACINDETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERA
PARALAMEJORADELESTADOECOLGICOYESTABILIZACINDELOSMRGENESDELOSROS................................245
3.5.F.J.Snchez,M.Aparicio,J.M.GarcaGuijasyG.Heredero.MODELIZACINHIDRULICAENLOSPROYECTOS
DERESTAURACINDEROSCONTCNICASDEBIOINGENIERA...................................................................................252
3.6.A.deAntayM.E.deCastro.EXPERIENCIASDERESTAURACINCONTCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAENLAS
CUENCASDELOSROISMIO,SILYLIMIA.....................................................................................................................260
3.7.A.Calvo.RESTAURACINDEDOSTRAMOSDELROPIEDRAENLOSTT.MM.DELLUMESYCIMBALLA
(ZARAGOZA)MEDIANTETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERA..................................................................................................268
3.8.J.A.MartnVenturayR.Santos.APLICACINDETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAPARALAPROTECCINY
RESTAURACINDEMRGENESFLUVIALESENROSCANTBRICOS..............................................................................270
3.9.C.R.Antunes,M.A.CoutinhoyG.P.Silva.REQUALIFICAODESISTEMASFLUVIAISNOCONCELHODESILVES
RECORRENDOATCNICASDEBIOENGENHARIA............................................................................................................279
3.10.A.Besal,S.Fructuoso,E.Mota,I.Rueda,M.Ros,F.SabateryA.Sorolla.EVALUACINDELSISTEMA
RADICULARDELOSHELFITOSYPOSIBILIDADESDEUSOENBIOINGENIERAAPLICADAALPAISAJE...........................280
6
SESIN4:HERRAMIENTASPARALARESTAURACINFLUVIAL
RobertoMartnezRomero(CIREF)

4.1.P.Teiga,VelosoGomesyR.Maia.PROPOSTADEMETODOLOGIADEREABILITAODERIOSERIBEIRAS,
(AVALIAOTCNICA,PORTUGAL)................................................................................................................................282
4.2.C.MartnezyJ.A.Fernndez.OBTENCINDEESCENARIOSDERGIMENAMBIENTALDECAUDALES(RAC)A
PARTIRDELRGIMENNATURAL:UNANUEVAEXTENSINDELSOFTWAREIAHRIS......................................................283
4.3.F.Sabater,J.Lluis,E.Marti,M.Altuna,J.Comas,J.DezyA.Elosegi.STREAMES1.0:UNSISTEMAEXPERTODE
SOPORTEPARALATOMADEDECISIONESAMBIENTALESENLAGESTINYRESTAURACINFLUVIAL.........................293
4.4.M.Altuna,F.Sabater,E.Mart,J.Lluis,J.DezyA.Elosegi.STREAMES1.0(parteII):APLICACINDEL
SISTEMAEXPERTODESOPORTEPARALAGESTINFLUVIALENDOSROSDEGUIPZKOA(PASVASCO)CON
PROBLEMTICASRELACIONADASCONLOSNUTRIENTES..............................................................................................294
4.5.J.Paredes,F.MartnezCapel,A.SolerayV.Aguilella.IMPLEMENTACINDECAUDALESECOLGICOSEN
SISTEMASDERECURSOSHDRICOSCOMPLEJOS.CASODEESTUDIO:CUENCADELRODUERO(ESPAA)..................295
4.6.D.Granado,V.Acn,E.Daz,A.IbisateyA.Ollero.ANLISISDIACRNICODELAMIGRACINDECAUCES
FLUVIALESMEDIANTETCNICASDESIGVECTORIAL......................................................................................................296
4.7.F.MagdalenoyR.Martnez.LOSNUEVOSREGMENESECOLGICOSDECAUDALESCOMOHERRAMIENTA
PARALAMEJORAAMBIENTALDELOSECOSISTEMASACUTICOSYRIPARIOS.............................................................305
4.8.A.Sorolla,E.MotayM.Vias.APROVECHAMIENTODELOSPROPIOSRECURSOSMATERIALES,ECOLGICOSY
MORFOLGICOSDELOSROSENLOSPROCESOSDERESTAURACIN..........................................................................306
4.9.R.MartnezyF.Magdaleno.APLICACIONESDELLIDARENLARESTAURACINFLUVIAL:SIMULACIN
HIDRULICAYEMPLEODERICDARENELESTUDIOGEOMORFOLGICOYDEVEGETACINDERIBERA.....................307
4.10.N.lvarez,M.S.Santidrin,E.CalvoyM.Alcoba.PROPUESTAMETODOLGICAPARALAELABORACINDE
PLANESDEREGENERACINENPEQUEOSROSURBANOS.APLICACINENCINCOCUENCASCOSTERASQUE
DESEMBOCANENLARADOBURGO(ACORUA)........................................................................................................314
SESIN5:NDICESEINDICADORES
IakiUrrizalkiOroz(URA)
5.1.D.Mora,D.Ballarn,R.Montorio,M.ZigayA.Ollero.APLICACINDELNDICEIHGENLACUENCADEL
EBRO:EVALUACINDERESULTADOS............................................................................................................................324
5.2.F.MagdalenoyR.Martnez.APLICACIONESDELNDICERFVENLOSPROYECTOSDERESTAURACINY
RECUPERACINDELMEDIOFLUVIAL.ESTUDIODECONTRASTECONOTROSNDICES.................................................331
5.3.S.GaspareI.Azpiroz.SEGUIMIENTODELADEMOLICINDEUNOBSTCULO(AZUDDEMENDARAZ)EN
ELRORUMEAMEDIANTEPARMETROSBIOLGICOS,FSICOSEHIDROMORFOLGICOS.......................................338
5.4.A.Ollero,A.Ibisate,J.Horacio,C.FerreriBoix,J.P.MartnVide,V.Acn,D.Ballarn,E.Daz,D.Granado,D.
MorayM.SnchezFabre.INCADORESGEOMORFOLGICOSPARAELSEGUIMIENTODELARESTAURACIN
FLUVIAL...........................................................................................................................................................................346
5.5.F.Blanco,I.LpezAlbacete,A.Herrera,F.MagdalenoyR.Martnez.RELACINENTREVEGETACINRIPARIAY
CAUDALES:RESULTADOSPRELIMINARESENTRAMOSFLUVIALESDELSURDEESPAA..............................................356
5.6.E.J.Olaya,F.MartnezCapel,R.SoaresyJ.D.Alcaraz..MODELIZACINDELARIQUEZADEPECESNATIVOS
PARASIMULARMEDIDASDEMITIGACINENTRAMOSDEROSALTERADOS..............................................................367
5.7.I.RojoyV.Herriz.ESTUDIODEINDICADORESAMBIENTALESENLARESTAURACINECOLGICADELRO
BORNOVA(GUADALAJARA,ESPAA).............................................................................................................................375
5.8.G.Gonzlez,I.Rodrguez,P.Seisdedos,D.Prez,D.Migulez,R.Gallego.DISEODENDICESPARALA
EVALUACINDELACONECTIVIDADLONGITUDINALENLACUENCADELDUERO.........................................................378
5.9.J.Barqun,L.BendayD.Miller.THESCIENTIFICBASISFORACATCHMENTPERSPECTIVEINRIVER
RESTORATION:THECASEOFTHEHJARRIVER,EBROCATCHMENT,NORTHERNSPAIN...............................................386
7
SESIN6:RESTAURACINDELACONTINUIDADLONGITUDINAL
GustavoGonzlezFernndez(Icthios)
6.1.L.Polanco,C.Ferrer,D.Gargantilla,G.CobosyE.Lastrada.MEJORADELACONTINUIDADLONGITUDINALDE
DIFERENTESCURSOSMEDIANTELAELIMINACINDEESTACIONESDEAFORO(VARIASPROVINCIAS)........................396
6.2.F.lvarez,D.SanEmeterioyP.Tams.CRITERIOSDEDISEODELASACTUACIONESENOBSTCULOS
REALIZADASPORLADIPUTACINFORALDEGIPUZKOA................................................................................................397
6.3.R.GarcaDaz.ESCALADEPECESENAUSTRIA.ESCALASNATURALIZADAS:ROSARTIFICIALES(BYPASS)Y
RAMPADEPIEDRAS........................................................................................................................................................405
6.4.L.Polanco,D.Gargantilla,G.CobosyE.Lastrada.ACTUACIONESPARALAMEJORADELACONTINUIDAD
LONGITUDINALDELROTASTAVINSENLACUENCADELMATARRAA.........................................................................416
6.5.F.Torrent,A.Goltara,B.LorenteyD.GarcadeJaln.PROYECTOCH2OICE:HACIAUNAMEJORADELA
ENERGALIMPIA.............................................................................................................................................................425
6.6.C.FerreriBoixyJ.P.MartnVide.ESTUDIOMATEMTICOYEXPERIMENTALDELARETIRADADEPRESAS.
APLICACIONESALARESTAURACINFLUVIAL................................................................................................................426
6.7.F.J.SanzRonda,A.GarcaVegayJ.F.Fuentes.EVALUACINHIDRULICAYBIOLGICADEUNPASO
NATURALIZADO(ROARTIFICIAL)ENELMARN(ROTORMES,SALAMANCA)..............................................................435
6.8.T.Nebot,A.CavallyR.Morillo.PERMEABILIZACINDEOBSTCULOSENELMBITODELACONFEDERACIN
HIDROGRFICADELJCAR.............................................................................................................................................443
6.9.A.Lara,E.Aramburu,G.Gonzlez,F.Morcillo,M.Castillo,D.GarcadeJaln,R.GarcaDazyF.Torrent.LA
RESTAURACINDELACONTINUIDADFLUVIALPARALASESPECIESPISCCOLASMIGRADORAS.DIFERENCIAS
OBSERVADASENTRESESPECIESANALIZADASENUNAESCALADEHENDIDURAVERTICAL..........................................444
6.10.L.Arenillas.TRESPROYECTOSDERESTAURACINFLUVIALENLACUENCADELTAJO:ESCALADEPECESENEL
ROTITAR,ELIMINACINDEUNAZUDENELROGUADARRAMAYTCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAENELPARQUE
NATURALDELALTOTAJO..............................................................................................................................................452
SESIN7:ASPECTOSJURDICOS,ECONMICOSYSOCIALESDELARESTAURACIN
VctorM.ArquedEsqua(CHD)

7.1.I.Rodrguez,V.Martnez,F.J.Snchez,M.Aparicio,S.Jimnez,G.LpezMontenegro,J.R.Molina,A.Santiago,
R.SeizyG.Schmidt.ESTUDIOCOSTEBENEFICIODELPROYECTODERESTAURACINFLUVIALENELROUCERO
(SORIA),CONESPECIALCONSIDERACINDELAPREVENCINDEDAOSPORINUNDACIN......................................462
7.2.R.Huertas.LARESTAURACINDEROSATRAVSDELOSINSTRUMENTOSDEGESTINYADMINISTRACIN
DELDOMINIOPBLICOHIDRULICO.............................................................................................................................471
7.3.A.Gallegos,F.GmezyA.Herrera.PROPUETAPARALAINCORPORACINDEUNAFIGURADEPROTECCIN
PARACAUCESFLUVIALESENLALEGISLACINANDALUZA............................................................................................479
7.4.J.A.Fernndez,C.MartnezyF.Magdaleno.LAINSTRUCCINDEPLANIFICACINHIDROLGICAYEL
RGIMENAMBIENTALDECAUDALES:PRINCIPIOS,REALIDADESYTAREASPENDIENTES..............................................486
7.5.J.M.Rubio.LARESTAURACINDEROSDESDELAEXIGENCIADELCUMPLIMIENTODELCONDICIONADO
CONCESIONALENLOSAPROVECHAMIENTOHIDROELCTRICOS...................................................................................495
7.6.J.GarcaRodrguez,E.LafuenteyG.Delgado.DIFICULTADESENLAIMPLANTACINDELAESTRATEGIA
NACIONALDERESTAURACINDEROSENLADEMARCACINHIDROGRFICADELSEGURA......................................504
7.7.R.Lpez,V.Malfaz,M.SanVenancio,A.M.Dez.CREACINYDESARROLLODEUNPROGRAMADE
ACTUACIONESDECARCTERMEDIOAMBIENTALPARAFOMENTARLAMEJORADELOSECOSISTEMASFLUVIALES
ENLACUENCADELDUERO.PROGRAMADEINTERVENCINMEDIOAMBIENTAL.........................................................512
7.8.F.J.Snchez,J.Garca,M.Aparicio,J.CarpioyI.MartnGranizo.LAFUNCIONALIDADDELASOBRASDE
RESTAURACINDEROS.................................................................................................................................................514
7.9.J.Borrell,E.Bravo,L.God,E.Garcia,A.Grcia,J.VerdyE.Crego.ACTUACIONESHIDROMORFOLGICASDE
RECUPERACINDECAUCESYDEGESTINYCONSERVACINDELAVEGETACINDERBERAENELROTORDERA
ENELNCLEOURBANODELMUNICIPIODETORDERA.................................................................................................531
8
SESIN8:SEGUIMIENTOYEVALUACINDELASACTUACIONESDERESTAURACIN
FranciscoMartnezCapel(UPV)

8.1.J.Calzn.EVALUACINAMBIENTALDELOSROSENASTURIAS.MODELOSPTIMOSDERECUPERACIN
FLUVIAL.....................................................................................................................................................................541
8.2.M.Gonzlez,F.J.Snchez,M.AparicioyJ.M.GarcaGuijas.SEGUIMIENTODETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERA
DENTRODELPROYECTODEI+D+iDEOPTIMIZACINDETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAPARALAMEJORADEL
ESTADOECOLGICOYESTABILIZACINDELOSMRGENESDELOSROS....................................................................550
8.3.J.Verd,E.GarcaBurgos,L.God,E.CregoyA.Grcia.BALANCEDEALGUNASACTUACIONES
MORFOLGICASDERECUPERACINFLUVIALENCATALUNYA......................................................................................558
8.4.A.Saiz.VALORACINDELASACTUACIONESDEMEJORADELHBITATPARALAFAUNAENVARIOSROSDEL
CERRATODELAPROVINCIADEPALENCIA.....................................................................................................................567
8.5.J.M.Quionero,C.Boix,J.deVenteyF.LpezBermdez.CAMBIOSENLAMORFOLOGADELOSCAUCES
COMOCONSECUENCIADELAAPLICACINDEMEDIDASDECONSERVACINENSUSCUENCASDEDRENAJE.............577
8.6.F.J.Snchez,M.Aparicio,D.Gargantilla,M.Gonzlez,S.Jimnez,G.LpezMontenegro,J.R.Molina,
E.Palacios,P.Romero,R.SeizyG.Schmidt.METODOLOGAPARAELSEGUIMIENTODELPROYECTODE
RESTAURACINDELROCINCA(HUESCA)YCUMPLIMIENTODELOSOBJETIVOSDELAESTRATEGIANACIONALDE
RESTAURACINDEROS................................................................................................................................................586
8.7.I.Rodrguez,S.LeblicyL.Gutirrez.METODOLOGAPARAELSEGUIMIENTODELOSOBJETIVOSENLA
EJECUCINDEPROYECTOSDERESTAURACINDEROSENLACONFEDERACINHIDROGRFICADELDUERO..........596
8.8..EnrquezdeSalamancayM.J.Carrasco.RESULTADOSDELARESTAURACINDEVASOSLAGUNARESDE
GRAVERASENLAVEGADELJARAMA(MADRID)............................................................................................................597
8.9.D.GarcadeJaln,M.GonzlezdelTnago,M.Romn,D.Ballarn,I.Goikoetxea,L.E.Gonzalo,A.IbisateyA.
Ollero.EVALUACINDELASACTUACIONESDERESTAURACINDEROSENESPAA................................................608
8.10.F.J.Snchez,M.Aparicio,A.SaizdelaHoyayG.Heredero.PROPUESTAMETODOLGICAPARAEL
SEGUIMIENTOYEVALUACINDELASOBRASDEBIOINGENIERA.................................................................................609
SESIN9:BIODIVERSIDADYRESTAURACINDEHBITATSYPROCESOS
CaminoJasoLen(CIREF)

9.1.A.Frechilla,A.Casares,O.Prez.NATURALIZACINDECURSOSFLUVIALESMEDIANTEPLANTACIN.
EJEMPLODERESTAURACINARROYOBERRUEZ,VILLALNDECAMPOS(VALLADOLID)..............................................619
9.2.J.R.Dez,A.Elosegi,M.Sarriegi,A.Soloaga,K.AgirreyJ.Kail.RESTAURACINDELHBITATPISCCOLADEL
ROARAXES(GIPUZKOA,PASVASCO)MEDIANTELAINTRODUCCINDEESTRUCTURASDEMADERA..........................625
9.3.A.Grcia,E.GarcaBurgos,G.Garca,L.God,C.O.Pedrocchi,M.Butill,R.Pascual,J.VerdyE.Crego.
CARTOGRAFIADODEDETALLEDELOSHBITATSDELESPACIOFLUVIALAESCALAREGIONAL:NUEVOSENFOQUES
YAPLICACIONESENPROCESOSDEPLANIFICACINECOHIDROLGICA................................................................................626
9.4.F.MagdalenoyJ.A.Fernndez.LARESTAURACINDELEBROMEDIOATRAVSDELANLISISDESUDINMICA
ECOLGICAEHIDROGEOMORFOLGICA....................................................................................................................................627
9.5.R.M.V.Cortes,L.F.Sanches,J.M.N.CardoyJ.Jesus.ALTERAODAREPOSIOSEDIMENTOLGICANO
ESTURIODOLIMA:CONSEQUNCIASEROSIVASELIMITESDARESTAURAOESCALALOCAL..................................634
9.6.E.Lafuente,C.Gmez,F.J.GmenezyA.Espinosa.PROYECTODERESTAURACINYLIMPIEZADEESCOMBROS
DELARAMBLADELASMORERASYMEJORAYCONSOLIDACINDELHUMEDALASOCIADO............................................641
9.7.R.P.Fernndez,F.GarcaNovoeI.Vecino.RESTAURACINDEARROYOSEFMEROSMEDITERRNEOS.
LECCIONESDEUNCASOCONCRETOENELPARQUENATURALDEDOANA(ESPAA)......................................................649
9.8.A.GarcaAriasyF.Francs.EFECTOSDELAREGULACINDECAUDALESSOBRESLAVEGETACINRIPARIAEN
UNENTORNOSEMIRIDO............................................................................................................................................................658
9.9.J.Maroto,M.Marchamalo,D.GarcadeJaln,M.GonzlezdelTnagoyR.MartnezMarn.INTEGRATED
METHODOLOGYFORSASSESSINGTHEEFFECTSOFGEOMORPHOLOGICALRIVERRESTORATIONONFISHHABITAT
ANDRIPARIANVEGETATION.........................................................................................................................................................667
9
9.10.P.Seral,R.Aliod,S.GarcaAsn,E.FaciyJ.Pao.SIMULACINECOHIDRODINMICAYANLISISDELA
INFLUENCIADELFILTRADORBNTICODREISSENAPOLYMORPHA(MEJILLNCEBRA)ENECOSISTEMASFLUVIALES.
APLICACINALCONTROLDELAESPECIEENELEMBALSEDEMEQUINENZACOMOMEDIDADERESTAURACIN
ECOLGICA.......................................................................................................................................................................................672
SESIN10:EJEMPLOSDEACTUACIONESDERESTAURACIN
MiguelSnchezFabre(UZ)

10.1.J.A.MartnVenturayF.Mendizbal.ESTRATEGIANACIONALDERESTAURACINDEROSENELMBITODE
LACONFEDERACINHIDROGRFICADELCANTBRICO:PROYECTOSDESARROLLADOS...................................................685
10.2.C.Marcos.DEPURACINENPEQUEOSMUNICIPIOSDELACUENCADELDUERO..............................................694
10.3.T.Nebot,A.CavallyR.Morillo.PROYECTODERESTAURACINDELROVERDEENLOSTT.MM.DE
BENIMODO,MASSALAVS,ALBERIQUEYALZIRA(VALENCIA).......................................................................................703
10.4.J.GarcaRodrguez,E.LafuenteyG.Delgado.PROYECTOSDELAESTRATEGIANACIONALDERESTAURACIN
DEROSENLADEMARCACINHIDROGRFICADELSEGURA........................................................................................704
10.5.N.Cifuentes,F.Jimnez,S.PrezyF.Ariza.PROYECTOSDELAESTRATEGIANACIONALDERESTAURACIN
DEROSENCUENCADELGUADIANA:PROBLEMTICAYEXPERIENCIAS.......................................................................713
10.6.A.Matorras,E.ValbuenayE.Migulez.RESTAURACINDEROAFECTADOPORGRANEMBALSE.
RECUPERACINSERVICIOSECOSISTEMASFLUVIALESENELVALLEDERIAO,ROESLA(LEN)..................................724
10.7.A.Sorolla,A.Salvat,yM.Isnard.RESTAURACINDELROCONGOSTT.M.DELAGARRIGA(BARCELONA).........725
10.8.J.M.Snchez,A.Figueroa,F.J.GarcaHernanz,E.Mellado.ELCURSOBAJODELROGUADALETE:NUEVAS
APROXIMACIONESYESTRATEGIASPARASURESTAURACIN.......................................................................................728
10.9.X.M.Viln,F.J.Snchez,J.GarcaDiaz,J.JimnezyJ.M.GarcaGuijas.PROYECTODEI+D+iDEOPTIMIZACIN
DELOSSISTEMASDEELIMINACINYCONTROLDECAAVERALESPARAMEJORADELESTADOECOLGICOY
RECUPERACINDELACAPACIDADDEDESAGEDELOSROS......................................................................................735
10.10.A.Agust,E.LafuenteyJ.J.Fenoll.PROYECTOSDEI+D+iDEOPTIMIZACINDELOSSISTEMASDE
ELIMINACINYCONTROLDECAAVERALESPARALAMEJORADELESTADOECOLGICO,RECUPERACINDELA
CAPACIDADDEDESAGEYPARALAOPTIMIZACINDETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAPARALAMEJORADEL
ESTADOECOLGICOYESTABILIZACINDEMRGENESENELROSEGURAT.M.DECIEZA,GUARDAMARDEL
SEGURAYMURCIA(PROVINCIASALICANTEYMURCIA)................................................................................................744
PSTERS

1.F.J.BravoyF.J.SanzRonda.PROBLEMASYSOLUCIONESALMOVIMIENTODEPECESATRAVSDEESTACIONES
DEAFORODELTIPOCANALRECTANGULARCONVERTIDOLIBRE..............................................................................754
2.J.Pinto.EMPLEODEIMGENESHIPERESPECTRALESPARALAEVALUACINDEPARMETROSFISICOQUMICOS
YCARACTERIZACINDELAVEGETACINRIPARIA.........................................................................................................759
3.J.Camprodon,M.Ordeix,F.Llach,D.Guix,L.JimnezyN.Sellars.RICOVERPROJECT,RIPARIANBIODIVERSITY
ANDECOLOGICALSTATUSASSESSMENTINSUDOEEUROPE.EXPERIENCEINTHETERRIVER,CATALONIA,
NORTHEASTOFTHEIBERIANPENINSULA.....................................................................................................................760
4.F.J.Snchez,G.Pulido,A.Guilln,F.Gonzlez,L.Martnez,C.Gulln,J.M.GarcaGuijas,A.SaizdelaHoya.
PROGRAMADEVOLUNTARIADOENROS20062012:EVOLUCINYRESULTADOS......................................................761
5.I.Rodrguez,S.Leblic,J.Pinto,L.Gutirrez,J.M.Jimnez.PROYECTODEMEJORADELESTADOECOLGICODEL
RORBIGO(LENYZAMORA)......................................................................................................................................762
6.J.Macarro,I.Bustamante,A.PereyF.Escorihuela.RESTAURACINFLUVIALYAMBIENTALDEUNTRAMODEL
ROTERENLAZONADELAPILASTRA,SALT(GIRONA),PARALACOMPATIBILIZACINCOMELUSO
LDICODEPORTIVO........................................................................................................................................763
7.R.ZeidJanyJ.Beltrn.ACONDICIONAMIENTOYREGENERACINDELBARRANCODEBENIMODO(VALENCIA)......767
10
8.F.J.SanchoyG.Gonzlez.REVEGETACINDETALUDESINESTABLESMEDIANTEEMPALIZADASENMALLADE
BREZOYGAVIONESENELRODUERNA.........................................................................................................................768
9.P.Delgado,J.SanfranciscoeI.Terrades.ACTUACIONESDEMEJORADELESTADOECOLOGICODELROSERPIS
MEDIANTELAERRADICACINYELCONTROLDELASMASASDECAACOMN..........................................................772
10.V.Acn,D.GranadoyA.Ollero.CARACTERIZACINYVALORACINGEOMORFOLGICADELOSROSDELA
COMARCADESOBRARBE(HUESCA)YPROPUESTADEMEDIDASDERESTAURACINFLUVIAL.....................................774
11.E.FernndezdelaReguera,B.Gutirrez,S.Snchez,G.Sanz,I.MontequiyR.MartnezAlegra.
CARACTERIZACINDEALTERACIONESMORFOLGICASYPROPUESTARESTAURACINENELTRAMOMEDIODEL
ROVALDERADUEY...............................................................................................................................................775
12.A.Bells,R.DezyF.Galimany.ACTUACIONESRECIENTESENELROANOIAENMARTORELL.CONTRA
CORRIENTE......................................................................................................................................................................777
13.V.Acn,D.Granado,E.Daz,A.IbisateyA.Ollero.ANLISISDELAEVOLUCINDELOSUSOSDELSUELOEN
LLANURASDEINUNDACINYDELIMITACINDELTERRITORIOFLUVIALATRAVSDESIG..........................................778
14..R.GarcaDazyR.GonzlezDvila.MEJORADELAHIDROMORFOLOGAYRESTAURACINDELHBITAT
TRUCHEROENELRONOGUERADETORTENELTRAMOURBANODEBARRUERA(LAVALDEBOI,LLEIDA)................783
15.J.MartnezFortyM.P.Donat.RELACINENTRELOSFACTORESDEUSODELSUELOYLOSFACTORESDE
EVALUACINDELACALIDADAMBIENTALDELROALBAIDA(VALENCIA,ESPAA)......................................................791
16.F.J.SanzRonda,L.SernayJ.Ruz.DEMOLICINDEPRESASYAZUDES:CONSIDERACIONESTCNICAS.................793
17.L.Martn,J.L.GarcaRodrguezyM.DeBlas.ESTUDIOHIDRULICODELROMANZANARESDESDELAPRESA
DEELPARDOHASTALAPRESAN2...............................................................................................................................794
18.N.Navarro,A.Blasco,A.SerranoyM.J.Baeza.RESTAURACINECOLGICADELBOSQUEDERIBERAENLA
DESEMBOCADURADELROSEGURAMEDIANTELAAPLICACINDETCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAYCONTROLDE
ESPECIESHIDRFITAS.....................................................................................................................................................795
19.J.M.lvarez,P.Arroyo,E.Cabrera,M.Callejo,J.Falagn,S.Gmez,A.Martnez,C.Martnez,M.I.Muoz,M.
Nicols,F.J.Pereira,E.Pertejo,S.M.PuenteyL.I.Tascn.PROGRAMASDEMEJORAYCONSERVACINDELRO
OMAA(LEN).ESTUDIODELHBITATFSICO,DIVULGACINYRESTAURACINDERIBERASDEUNRODEALTO
VALORNATURAL.............................................................................................................................................................797
20.L.Polanco,D.Gargantilla,G.CobosyF.Gutirrez.RESTAURACINDELROARAENLAUBICACINDELA
PRESADEJNOVAS(T.M.DEFISCAL,HUESCA)..............................................................................................................803
21.L.Polanco,D.Gargantilla,J.ConejoyF.Gutirrez.RESTAURACINAMBIENTALYCONEXINHIDRULICADEL
ANTIGUOCAUCEDELROGUADALOPEENCASPE(ZARAGOZA)....................................................................................804
22.J.A.MartnVentura,L.GilyJ.Pertierra.MEJORADELACONECTIVIDADLONGITUDINALENROSDELACHC.......805
23.B.PearandayJ.GmezBermejo.MOVINDONOSPORELRO:INTERVENCINMEDIOAMBIENTALDECRUZ
ROJAESPAOLAENLEN..............................................................................................................................................806
24.J.SoleryA.Sorolla.EXPERIENCIASDELAVIABILIDADDELABIOINGENIERAENELMBITOMEDITERRNEO......807
25.I.Rodrguez,J.I.Santilln,J.M.HerreroyF.Labrador.ACTUACIONESDEMEJORADELACONECTIVIDAD
LONGITUDINALYLATERALDELOSROSDELACUENCADELDUERO.............................................................................808
26.R.LpezArgeso.TCNICASDEBIOINGENIERAEMPLEADASPORLACONFEDERACINHIDROGRFICADEL
DUEROPARALAESTABILIZACINDEMRGENESENELROTMEGAASUPASOPORELCONCELLODEVERN
(OURENSE)......................................................................................................................................................................809
27.J.Broncano,J.P.BarqueroyL.Gutirrez.MEJORADELACONTINUIDADLONGITUDINALDELCAUCEDELRO
LOZOYAENPINILLADELVALLE(MADRID)......................................................................................................................811
28.I.Rodrguez,J.MeilanyS.Leblic.DETERMINACINDELASITUACIONDEREFERENCIAENRESTAURACINDE
ROSMEDIANTESIG.CARTOGRAFAHISTRICAEINFORMACINLIDAR......................................................................812
29.N.Cifuentes.LUCHACONTRALASESPECIESINVASORASENLACUENCADELGUADIANA.....................................813
11
30.A.Lucas.PROPUESTAPARALACREACINDEUNAZONADEINTERSESPECIALPARALANUTRIA(Lutralutra)
ENLOSTRMINOSMUNICIPALESDEMORATALLA,CALASPARRAYCIEZA(MURCIA,CUENCADELSEGURA)...............814
31.J.Jimnez,F.J.Snchez,J.GarcaDaz,X.M.VilnyJ.M.GarcaGuijas.RESPUESTADELAPLANTAEXTICA
INVASORAArundodonaxL(CAACOMN)FRENTEALAACCINSISTMICADEDISTINTOSTIPOSDEHERBICIDAS
PARASUCONTROLYERRADICACIN.............................................................................................................................819
32.F.Francs,G.Egger,T.FerreirayF.MartnezCapel.MODELACINDINMICADELAVEGETACINDERIBERA:
ELPROYECTORIPPLOW..................................................................................................................................................820
33.I.Jowett,B.Milhous,T.Payne,yJ.M.DiezHernndez.SOFTWARESEFA(SYSTEMFORENVIRONMENTAL
FLOWANALYSIS)PARAELANLISISDECAUDALESECOLGICOS(CE)...........................................................................821
34.J.L.Lorenzo,M.dePazyJ.A.Rodrguez.CONTROLDECAUDALESMEDIOAMBIENTALESASOCIADOSA
DISPOSITIVOSDEPASOPARALAICTIOFAUNA...............................................................................................................825
35.F.A.Comn,B.Miranda,R.Sorando,S.Molinero,A.CalvoyV.Anzalone.LAPLANIFICACINDELA
RESTAURACINECOLGICADELOSROSAESCALADECUENCAHIDROGRFICA........................................................826
36.P.TeigayS.Vieira.PROPOSTADEREABILITAODEUMTROODORIOLIS(PISTADEPESCADACARREIRA,
LEIRAPORTUGAL).........................................................................................................................................................827
37.D.Mora,D.Ballarn,R.MontorioyM.Ziga.VALORACINDELACALIDADHIDROGEOMORFOLGICADELOS
ROSDELACUENCADELCINCA......................................................................................................................................828
38.A.Saiz,R.GarcaObregn,J.M.Roldn,F.J.SanzyJ.Navarro.CONTROLDEESPECIESVEGETALESEXTICASEN
RIBERAS:ELPOLGONOJAPONS(ReynoutriajapnicaHoutt).....................................................................................829
39.F.J.SanzRonda,N.RamosyF.J.Bravo.EVALUACINHIDRULICAYBIOLGICADEUNAESCALAPARAPECES
DEHENDIDURASVERTICALESENVEGASDELCONDADO(LEN)...................................................................................834
40.C.Valcrcel,A.GuardoyE.Galindo.ELPROCEDIMIENTOADMINISTRATIVODECADUCIDADDELAS
CONCESIONESAPLICADOALARESTAURACINDEROS...............................................................................................839
41.D.Martn,F.LabradoryJ.Maisterra.NATURALIZACINDECURSOSFLUVIALESMEDIANTEPLANTACIN............840
42.A.LuponyF.Sabater.MEJORADELAAUTODEPURACINFLUVIALMEDIANTEDEFLECTORESVEGETADOS..........841
43.N.Cifuentes.ACTUACIONESSOBREBARRERASTRANSVERSALESENELROGUADIANA.........................................842
44.M.Ordeix,L.Jimnez,N.Sellars,F.Llach,J.CamprodonyD.Guix.PROYECTORIBERESDELTER:
IMPLICACINDEAYUNTAMIENTOSYPROPIETARIOSENLACUSTODIAYRESTAURACINFLUVIAL.LAEXPERIENCIA
ENUNTRAMODELROTER.CATALYUNYA,NORESTEDELAPENNSULAIBRICA........................................................843
45.R.FernndezBeceiro.RECUPERACINVECINALDELPATRIMONIOMATERIALEINMATERIALDELVALLEDE
ESMELLE..........................................................................................................................................................................844
46.J.CarrascalyM.DazRedondo.METODOLOGADEELECCINDETRAMOSFLUVIALESPARAREHABILITARO
RESTAURARAPARTIRDELESTUDIODEBIOINDICADORESENLACUENCAHIDROGRFICADELGUADIANAASU
PASOPOREXTREMADURA.............................................................................................................................................849
47.G.LpezBeltrn.ADECUACINAMBIENTALYUSOEDUCATIVODELMARJALYELSESTANYSDEALMENARA
(CASTELLN)...................................................................................................................................................................857
48.C.GarcaAsenjo.TRABAJARPORLACUENCADELDUERO.......................................................................................861
50.J.A.Mijares,P.Couceiro,E.Palacios,G.SchmidtyA.LpezSantalla.PROGRAMARIOSVIVOSOBRASOCIAL
CAJAMADRID:1ACTUACIONDEMEJORADEHBITATSDEINTERSCOMUNITARIOENLARIBERADERECHADEL
ROHENARESASUPASOPORALCAL(MADRID)..........................................................................................................862
51.J.Parra,I.LacombayS.Poveda.INTEGRACIN,GENERACINYCONEXINDELOSHBITATSDEGALPAGO
EUROPEO(Emysorbicularis)ENELENTORNODELPROYECTOOBRASDELAMINACINYMEJORADELDRENAJE
DELACUENCADELARAMBLAGALLINERA(OLIVA,VALENCIA)...................................................................................863
52.I.Rodrguez,J.PintoyF.Gutirrez.MEJORADELESTADOECOLGICODELRONEGROYAFLUENTES
(ZAMORA).......................................................................................................................................................................864
53.C.GarcaAsenjo.VOLUNTARIOSPORELDUERO20072010....................................................................................865
54.F.J.Snchez,J.GarcaDaz,A.Ballester,A.LpezSantalla,J.R.Molina,E.PalaciosyG.Schmidt.GUA
METODOLGICAPARAELDISEODEPROCESOSDEPARTICIPACINENPROYECTOSDERESTAURACINDEROS....867
12
55.M.D.Aragons,E.Puebla,L.Fnez,J.MartnyC.Monteagudo.RESTAURARELTRAMOPALUSTREDELRO
GIGELAOSUSHUMEDALESARTIFICIALES?..................................................................................................................868
TALLERES
TALLER1.Tcnicasdemejoradelfuncionamientohidrogeomorfolgicoderosalterados.........................................875
TALLER2.Participacinpblicaenlarestauracinderos:retoadicionalparalagestintradicionaldelosrosen
Espaa.............................................................................................................................................................................876
TALLER3.Bioingenieraenmbitofluvial......................................................................................................................877
TALLER4.SistemaexpertoStreames1.0.:diagnsticoderosconproblemasconnutrientesyanlisisdelas
opcionesderestauracin...............................................................................................................................................879
TALLER5.Laeconomadelarestauracinfluvial:costes,beneficiosymtodosdeevaluacin...................................880
TALLER6.Problemasybsquedadesolucionesenlamigracindelospeces..............................................................881
TALLER7.Propuestasdemejoraenlalegislacinparalaconservacinylarestauracinfluvial..................................883
TALLER8.Valoracinycrticadelasactuacionesderestauracinfluvial......................................................................885
TALLER9.Lacartografadehbitatsenlasestrategiasdeconservacinyrestauracinfluvial....................................886
TALLER10.Mitosyverdadesdelagestindelaguaenlosmediosdecomunicacin...................................................887
CONCLUSIONES
CONCLUSIONESFINALES.................................................................................................................................................889
EXCURSINDELICONGRESOIBRICODERESTAURACINFLUVIAL...........................................................................891
13
CONFERENCIAS
PLENARIAS
RESTAURAROS
I CONGRESO IBRICO DE RESTAURACIN FLUVIAL RESTAURAROS. LEN, 18-20 DE OCTUBRE 2011
LA ESTRATEGIA NACIONAL DE RESTAURACIN DE ROS
Jess Yage Crdova
Subdirector General de Gestin Integrada del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Rural y Marino
Resumen
La Estrategia Nacional de Restauracin de Ros es un conjunto de medidas coordinadas orientadas a alcanzar los objetivos
ambientales de la Directiva Marco del Agua, minimizar los efectos de las inundaciones y promover el empleo asociado a la
conservacin y restauracin de los ecosistemas, poniendo en valor los recursos naturales de los que dispone nuestro territorio.
Entre los datos principales, se pueden destacar los siguientes: Se han propuesto un total de 54 Reservas Naturales Fluviales;
recopilado los estudios de un total de 39.377 km de cauces y contratado otros 12.850 km para la delimitacin del DPH o
realizacin de la cartografa de riesgos de inundacin como base del Sistema Nacional de Cartografa de Zonas Inundables;
aprobado un total de 95 reas de Riesgo Potencial Significativo de Inundacin (ARPSIs) que representan 2.021,6 km de cauces;
ejecutado un total de 6.237 actuaciones dentro del Programa de Conservacin del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico; planteado la
realizacin de un total de 102 proyectos dentro del Programa de Restauracin (de los cuales, 25 se encuentran actualmente en
fase de ejecucin o ya se han ejecutado); realizado dos proyectos dentro del programa de I+D+i; realizado 5 convocatorias del
Programa de Voluntariado en Ros con ms de 118.800 voluntarios participantes y se han editado un total de 9 publicaciones
tcnicas.
Palabras clave: restauracin fluvial, Directiva Marco del Agua, inundaciones, legislacin, voluntariado, participacin
Abstract
The Spanish National Strategy for River Restoration is a couple of coordinated measures focused on the achievement of the
Water Framework Directives environmental objectives, the minimization of flood impacts on society and promotion of
ecosystem-based employment, upgrading the values of our natural resources. The following key data show the impact of the
Strategy: 54 Natural River Reserves have been proposed; 39,377 km have been studies and 12,850 km contracted either to
identify the Public Riverine Domain or to classify the flood-prone areas according to the SNCZI; 95 Areas of Significant Risk Areas
(APSFR) with a length of 2,021.6 km have been identified; 6,237 actions have been developed in the frame of the Public Domain
Conservation Programme; 102 river restoration projects have been prepared (out of which 25 are finished or currently being
developed); 2 R+D projects have been developed; 5 calls for volunteers programs with more than 118,800 participants have been
implemented and 9 technical publications have been edited.
Key words: river restoration, Water Framework Directive, floods, legislation, volunteers, participation
1. Introduccin
La necesidad de agua en nuestro pas para satisfacer las demandas de los distintos usuarios, a la vez que la
ocupacin del espacio fluvial o la defensa contra inundacin ha motivado que, nuestros ros no presenten en una
gran parte de los casos un estado ambiental adecuado, tanta es la alteracin, que en ocasiones se ha perdido la
consciencia de cmo es un ro en buen estado ecolgico, fundamentalmente en los tramos medios y bajos de los
ros, de forma que se requiere un nuevo enfoque en su gestin y aprovechamiento ms acorde con los principios de
desarrollo sostenible y de conservacin de la biodiversidad, coincidentes con los objetivos de la Directiva Marco del
Agua.
Por otra parte, tambin en el nuevo escenario creado por la Directiva Marco del Agua y la Directiva de Inundaciones
se hace patente la necesidad de diversificar y ampliar la formacin de los tcnicos encargados de la planificacin y
gestin de las masas de agua en Espaa, creando equipos multidisciplinares, y de crear foros de encuentro y de
debate que fomenten la participacin ciudadana y la complicidad de los agentes sociales en la gestin de los
sistemas fluviales y sus recursos naturales.
Todas estas circunstancias movieron al Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino a proponer nuevas
lneas de actuacin sobre la gestin que permitan actualizar los enfoques y objetivos y el diseo de una poltica de
Conferencias
15
plenarias
conservacin y restauracin de los ros como ecosistemas, con un aprovechamiento ms sostenible de los recursos
hdricos.
2. Finalidad y principios
Para definir una Estrategia Nacional de restauracin de ros era necesario en primer lugar establecer su finalidad
ltima y concretar los principios en que debe asentarse de acuerdo a la intencin perseguida, justificando su
contenido, importancia y los mtodos a seguir propuestos.
La Estrategia Nacional de restauracin de ros se concibi como un conjunto de actuaciones encaminadas a iniciar un
proceso de cambio en la gestin de los sistemas fluviales, a travs del cual se pueda lograr la mejora del estado
ecolgico de los ros e integrar, cada vez en mayor medida, la participacin social.
De esta forma, los objetivos de la Directiva Marco del Agua, relativos a evitar todo deterioro adicional en los ros y
mejorar y recuperar gradualmente su estado ecolgico, junto a los conceptos impulsados por dicha Directiva de
calidad ecolgica, tanto mayor cuanto ms prximo est el ro de su estado natural; indicadores biolgicos e
hidromorfolgicos de calidad ecolgica, completando la informacin otorgada por los indicadores del estado fsico-
qumico de las aguas; condiciones de referencia equivalentes a un estado muy prximo al natural, necesarias para
valorar los efectos de las presiones e impactos y para disear la restauracin de las masas de agua; y participacin
ciudadana propiciada en todos los procesos y niveles de gestin de los sistemas fluviales, deben estar recogidos e
integrados en cualquier poltica propuesta en los pases comunitarios relacionada con los ros o el aprovechamiento
de sus recursos y deben incorporarse realmente en los procesos de toma de decisiones.
Del mismo modo, es fundamental considerar la realidad del estado de los ros y la organizacin de su administracin
y gestin en Espaa. En este sentido hay que considerar las caractersticas y variabilidad natural de los cursos de
agua, el uso tradicional de sus recursos, las tradiciones e inercias de la gestin de los ros a travs de los diferentes
Organismos de cuenca y las posibilidades creadas para su mejora para dar cumplimiento no solo a las exigencias
planteadas en la Directiva Marco del Agua sino tambin a una demanda actual de la sociedad espaola, cada vez
ms concienciada de los problemas ambientales y ms proclive y con mayor sensibilidad para afrontar los costes
econmicos y sociales que puede representar la restauracin y conservacin de los ecosistemas acuticos.
El marco jurdico y las directrices de las polticas nacionales y comunitarias, especialmente en materia de aguas y
medio ambiente, pueden sintetizarse en una serie de principios bsicos que contribuyen a orientar o restringir las
decisiones en la Estrategia Nacional de Restauracin de Ros.
Figura 1 La ENRR persigue la recuperacin del buen estado de conservacin de nuestros ros, en consonancia con los objetivos
establecidos en la Directiva Marco del Agua y la Directiva de Evaluacin y Gestin de los Riesgos de Inundacin. Ro Tormes,
CH Duero, 2010
3. Objetivos
El Objetivo general de la Estrategia Nacional propuesta es ayudar a alcanzar el buen estado ecolgico de los ros
mejorando su funcionamiento como ecosistemas, fijndose como objetivos especficos los siguientes:
Conferencias
16
plenarias
- Fomentar la integracin de la gestin de los ecosistemas fluviales en las polticas de uso y gestin del
territorio, con criterios de sostenibilidad.
- Contribuir a la mejora de la formacin en los temas relativos a la gestin sostenible de los ros y su
restauracin.
- Aportar informacin y experiencias para mejorar las actuaciones que se estn llevando a cabo en el
mbito de la restauracin de los ros en Espaa.
- Fomentar la participacin ciudadana e implicar a los colectivos sociales en la gestin de los sistemas
fluviales.
4. Diagnstico de los ros en Espaa
Formando parte de las actuaciones realizadas para formular la Estrategia Nacional de Restauracin se organizaron
las Mesas de Trabajo, en torno a las presiones e impactos de mayor relevancia en los ros espaoles, designando un
coordinador cientfico o tcnico por cada Mesa encargado de redactar un documento inicial de trabajo y de
coordinar las respectivas reuniones de debate. Los distintos documentos iniciales se discutieron y consensuaron
entre los participantes de cada Mesa, a lo largo de una o varias sesiones de trabajo, y finalmente han dado lugar a
unos documentos definitivos de gran valor para conocer la problemtica de los ros espaoles, y las opiniones o
grado de acuerdo entre los diferentes participantes y agentes sociales implicados.
Dichos documentos finales, disponibles en la web del MARM, tratan de reflejar todo lo concerniente al tema tratado
de inters para la mitigacin de los impactos y alternativas para la restauracin de los ros a desarrollar por parte de
las respectivas administraciones y agentes sociales. Aunque cada Mesa de Trabajo analiz los problemas de los ros
desde diferentes perspectivas, en todas ellas pusieron de manifiesto los siguientes problemas:
- Necesidad de una mejora de la formacin de los tcnicos encargados de la gestin de los ros, necesitando
enfrentarse a nuevas exigencias y normativas.
- Necesidad de una mejora de la coordinacin entre administraciones, coincidiendo en la necesidad de

integrar la restauracin de los ros en las polticas de ordenacin del territorio, planes agrarios y de
desarrollo rural y planes urbansticos.
- Importancia de la agricultura y la urbanizacin como principales presiones de los ros espaoles,

motivando la regulacin de los caudales, los trabajos de dragados y encauzamientos y la contaminacin de
las aguas como principales impactos, con un efecto muy notable en la proliferacin de especies exticas
invasoras que representan una seria amenaza para la conservacin de las especies autctonas.
- Necesidad de un aumento de vigilancia de los ros y sus caudales circulantes, para detectar y sancionar
posibles invasiones del dominio pblico hidrulico y mejora de la participacin pblica contribuyendo al
mantenimiento y proteccin de los ros y sus riberas.
- Necesidad de estudios que delimiten el espacio fluvial y la ordenacin de zonas inundables, y que analicen
el estado de los ros respecto a especies invasoras y el papel de los espacios protegidos en la conservacin
de las funciones y servicios de los sistemas fluviales.
5. Definicin de lneas de trabajo
Con la base del diagnstico elaborado por las mesas de trabajo, desde el ao 2006 se estn ejecutando las siguientes
lneas de trabajo constituyendo diferentes Programas, cada uno de ellos abarcando diferentes Proyectos de
ejecucin:
Conferencias
17
plenarias
5.1. Modificaciones en la legislacin vigente
Dentro del marco de la Estrategia, cabe destacar las siguientes modificaciones legislativas realizadas durante este
perodo, inspiradas en parte en las conclusiones de las mesas de trabajo de la Estrategia Nacional de Restauracin de
Ros:
Por su importancia, destaca la modificacin del Reglamento del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico realizada por el Real
Decreto 9/2008, de 11 de enero, en la que se incluye la necesidad de incorporar definitivamente los criterios
geomorfolgicos e histricos en la determinacin del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico, a la vez que limita los usos del
suelo en la zona de flujo preferente y crea el Sistema Nacional de Cartografa de Zonas Inundables, como elemento
bsico en la gestin del espacio fluvial.
Tambin destaca la Orden MAM/85/2008, de 16 de enero, por la que se establecen los criterios tcnicos para la
valoracin de los daos al dominio pblico hidrulico y las normas sobre toma de muestras y anlisis de vertidos de
aguas residuales, en la que se fijan los criterios para la valoracin de daos al dominio pblico hidrulico,
incorporndose los criterios de valor del DPH, la reversibilidad de los impactos, sensibilidad del cauce, ubicacin en
reservas naturales o tramos de especial significacin, costo de las actuaciones de recuperacin ambiental, etc.
Ya en 2010, durante el proceso de transposicin de la Directiva de Inundaciones, enmarcado en el Real Decreto

903/2010 se establece como elemento esencial la ordenacin de los usos del espacio fluvial, incluyndose como
primera medida de los Planes de Gestin de los Riesgos de Inundacin la restauracin fluvial.
Durante 2011 est en tramitacin una nueva modificacin del Reglamento del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico
(www.marm.es) fruto de la necesidad de homogeneizar y mejorar los procesos de gestin del dominio pblico
hidrulico de acuerdo con los nuevos Planes hidrolgicos de cuenca y en la que se propone la incorporacin de
nuevos criterios en las autorizaciones de obras en dominio pblico hidrulico, continuidad fluvial, plantaciones, etc.
sobre la que ya se dispone de distintos informes favorables de los organismos implicados.
5.2. Formacin y educacin ambiental
Esta lnea de trabajo corresponde a una serie de actuaciones prioritarias, cuyo objetivo es mejorar el grado de
formacin de los tcnicos y la educacin ambiental de la sociedad en su conjunto, mejorando en esta ltima su
percepcin sobre el valor de los ros en buen estado ecolgico y sobre la necesidad de su implicacin en los cambios
de hbitos y actitudes frente a los mismos. Los trabajos propuestos van destinados a dos tipos de colectivos,
diseando para cada uno de ellos distintas actuaciones, como sigue:
- Tcnicos y profesionales encargados de la gestin administrativa del territorio, en especial de los ros y sus
recursos, la redaccin de proyectos, realizacin de informes, etc. Para ellos ya se ha iniciado un programa
de formacin que abarca la organizacin de cursos y seminarios, la publicacin de libros, revistas y
manuales de carcter cientfico-tcnico, manteniendo un permanente contacto con especialistas en la
materia de diferentes pases.
- Ciudadana en su conjunto, donde a su vez se pueden diferenciar distintos colectivos, grupos de edades,
niveles de formacin, etc. a travs del desarrollo de proyectos del Programa de voluntariado en ros
En este sentido durante estos aos se han publicado, por orden cronolgico, la Gua para el diseo de Proyectos de
voluntariado en ros, la Gua Metodolgica para la elaboracin de proyectos de restauracin de ros, la Gua Jurdica
para la implementacin de proyectos de restauracin fluvial y recientemente la Gua metodolgica para la
realizacin de procesos de participacin pblica en la restauracin de ros. Tambin, estn a punto de finalizarse la
Gua metodolgica para la determinacin del dominio pblico hidrulico y zonas inundables conforme a los criterios
expuestos en la modificacin del Reglamento del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico y otra publicacin sobre Buenas
Prcticas Ambientales en la Gestin de Embalses.
Conferencias
18
plenarias
Figura 2 La adecuada formacin y capacitacin tcnica es clave para el desarrollo exitoso de los proyectos de restauracin.
Jornada formativa del curso de restauracin fluvial para funcionarios organizado por la CH Duero. Rio Tormes, 2010
5.3. Proteccin y conservacin
En esta lnea de trabajo se enmarcan todas las actuaciones que propician la conservacin y proteccin de los ros. En
ella se deben incluir medidas para la mejora del conocimiento de los ros y la elaboracin y puesta en marcha del
Catlogo de Reservas Naturales Fluviales. Tambin de acuerdo con esta lnea de trabajos, en el Real Decreto 9/2008
(BOE 16-1-08) de modificacin del Reglamento del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico se incluy el Sistema Nacional de
Cartografa de Zonas Inundables, como elemento bsico en la planificacin territorial para la identificacin y gestin
adecuada de las zonas inundables, con el objetivo de disminuir los futuros daos frente a inundaciones a la vez que
se preserva el espacio fluvial para lograr un estado ecolgico ptimo de nuestros cauces.
Por ltimo se esta ejecutando un programa de actuaciones de conservacin de ros, por el que los Organismos de
cuenca disponen de medios materiales y humanos para realizar distintas operaciones sencillas de conservacin de
nuestros ros, como son la limpieza de residuos, escombros, basuras, desbroces, retirada de especies invasoras,
retirada de peces muertos en pocas de sequa, mejora de las condiciones de los hbitats pisccolas, eliminacin de
azudes, creacin de escalas para peces, mejora del uso pblico de los ros, plantaciones, acotados al pastoreo para
mejora de la vegetacin de ribera, etc.
5.3.1. Reservas naturales fluviales
Las Reservas Naturales Fluviales se constituyen en torno a los tramos de ro con escasa o nula intervencin humana,
con el fin de preservarlos sin alteraciones. El concepto de Reserva Natural Fluvial tiene su origen en la Ley 11/2005,
de 22 de junio, por la que se modifica la Ley 10/2001, de 5 de julio, del Plan Hidrolgico Nacional.
Para la primera propuesta del Catlogo Nacional de Reservas Fluviales, actualmente en proceso de estudio para su
integracin en los Planes hidrolgicos correspondientes, desde el CEDEX se hizo una seleccin inicial de tramos en
mejor estado de conservacin en base al anlisis de criterios relacionados con la alteracin hidrogeomorfolgica de
los ros, y con la estructura y composicin de la vegetacin riparia.
Con esta Red de Reservas se pretenden alcanzar los siguientes objetivos:
- Proteccin y conservacin de los tramos fluviales an no alterados por la accin del hombre en las
distintas cuencas hidrogrficas espaolas.
- Mantenimiento de un nmero amplio de tramos fluviales que sean representativos de la diversidad

biolgica, que an es posible encontrar en los diferentes tipos de ecosistemas fluviales espaoles, y que
permitan su utilizacin como tramos de referencia en el mbito de los objetivos impuestos por la Directiva
Marco del Agua (2000/60/CE).
Conferencias
19
plenarias
- Seleccin de aquellos tramos fluviales que merecen un especial esfuerzo de recuperacin en el entorno de
las futuras Reservas Fluviales, con el fin de alcanzar una verdadera red de corredores biolgicos de ndole
fluvial, capaces de vertebrar los espacios protegidos en la actualidad por ser parte de la Red Natura 2000.
Tabla 1. Resumen del nmero de Reservas Naturales Fluviales propuestas por Demarcacin
Demarcaciones
N Reservas Longitud total (km)
Hidrogrficas
Mio-Sil 7 110,8
Cantbrico 15 239,02
Duero 24 508,09
Guadiana 1 15,13
Guadalquivir 7 280,5
TOTAL 54 1.153,54
El MARM ha realizado un amplio trabajo de recopilacin de estos tramos y, tras el correspondiente acuerdo con las
Comunidades Autnomas, se ha incorporado una propuesta en los borradores de los Planes Hidrolgicos de las
Demarcaciones Hidrogrficas. La siguiente tabla muestra un resumen del nmero de Reservas Naturales Fluviales
propuestas por Demarcacin.
5.3.2. Prevencin de los daos por inundaciones
Las inundaciones en Espaa constituyen el riesgo natural que, a lo largo del tiempo, ha producido mayores daos,
tanto materiales como en prdida de vidas humanas. La creciente y rpida presin sobre los cauces,
fundamentalmente urbanstica, reduce da a da el espacio fluvial, incrementa los riesgos frente a las inundaciones y
menoscaba la proteccin medioambiental del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico. Todas estas razones fundamentan la
necesidad de legislar adecuadamente para prevenir y evitar dichos efectos negativos.
La Directiva 2007/60/CE, del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 23 de octubre de 2007, relativa a la evaluacin y
gestin de los riesgos de inundacin ha sido desarrollada para dar respuesta a esta problemtica a nivel europeo.
Esta Directiva contempla nuevos instrumentos a nivel comunitario para reducir las posibles consecuencias de las
inundaciones mediante la gestin del riesgo, apoyada en una cartografa de peligrosidad y de riesgo de avenidas. Se
ha traspuesto recientemente a la legislacin espaola mediante el Real Decreto 903/2010, de 9 de julio, de
evaluacin y gestin de riesgos de inundacin que establece un proceso lgico para su realizacin que consta de tres
fases diferenciadas:
1. Evaluacin Preliminar del Riesgo de Inundacin (EPRI). Fase en la que se debe realizar un anlisis
sobre el riesgo potencial de inundacin en base a la informacin relativa a episodios de inundacin
pasados.
2. Desarrollo de los Mapas de Peligrosidad y Riesgo de Inundacin. Fase en la que se debe

desarrollar la zonificacin y cartografa especfica del riesgo de inundacin, en funcin de la
informacin generada en la fase de la EPRI.
3. Desarrollo de los Planes de Gestin del Riesgo de Inundacin. Fase en la que se deben establecer
los objetivos y medidas para la reduccin de las consecuencias negativas asociadas al fenmeno de
la inundacin.
La ENRR juega un papel clave en la consecucin de los objetivos del RD 903/2010, especialmente en lo relativo a
materia de planificacin y ejecucin de intervenciones localizadas en la zona de DPH, y sus actuaciones se estn
coordinando con la implementacin de las actividades definidas por la Directiva 2007/60/CE, con el objetivo de
fomentar sinergias positivas. Por ejemplo, la Confederacin Hidrogrfica del Cantbrico esta firmando protocolos de
Conferencias
20
plenarias
colaboracin con los Ayuntamientos, para liberar el espacio fluvial de la presin urbanstica, a la vez que se realizan
actuaciones de restauracin fluvial en esos mbitos.
Otro ejemplo de dichas sinergias positivas lo encontramos en el proyecto de restauracin fluvial del ro Ucero,
promovido por la Confederacin Hidrogrfica del Duero. En este proyecto la combinacin de las actuaciones de
cambio de usos del suelo (cambios de tierras de labor en secano a choperas de produccin de madera y parcelas de
rplica del soto fluvial) y la respuesta a las demandas de la poblacin local para la minimizacin de los daos
producidos por las avenidas, ha dado lugar a una solucin en la que se alcanza la restauracin del ecosistema fluvial
y la reduccin del riesgo de inundacin.
En el marco del proyecto se ha llevado a cabo un estudio Coste-Beneficio (CB) para evaluar la repercusin y
eficiencia econmica de los efectos de la intervencin/no intervencin. Este estudio ha puesto de manifiesto el
hecho de que optar por el cambio de aprovechamiento de los usos del suelo (entre las actuaciones del proyecto), no
solo disminuye el riesgo ante una inundacin en la zona (un 33% menor a consecuencia de las actuaciones), sino que
aporta mayor beneficio al conjunto territorial que mantener la zona sin cambios significativos (alternativa SIN
proyecto).
Figura 3. Comparacin del diferencial (B-C) acumulado para cada una de las alternativas. El anlisis de esta evolucin permite
discernir el momento en el los beneficios acumulados superan a los costes acumulados. Como puede apreciarse, a partir del ao
42 la inversin del proyecto se ha recuperado por completo y los beneficios a medio-largo plazo que este aporta a la zona
ascienden al final del periodo considerado (ao 99 del grfico) a 2.476.945 euros (lo que representa un 118 % ms de beneficio)
Comparacin del diferencial (B-C) acumulados (Con proyecto) y (Sin proyecto)
B-C_desc_Acumu (Sin Proyecto) B-C_desc_Acumu (Con Proyecto) Dif_ (ConProyecto)-(Sin Proyecto)

5.000.000,00
4.000.000,00
3.000.000,00
Valor (euros)
2.000.000,00
1.000.000,00
0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
-1.000.000,00
Tiempo (aos)
5.3.3. Sistema Nacional de Cartografa de Zonas Inundables (SNCZI)
Siguiendo los principios de la Directiva 2007/60 sobre evaluacin y gestin de riesgos de inundacin, el Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino puso en marcha el Sistema Nacional de Cartografa de Zonas Inundables
(SNCZI), como instrumento de apoyo a la gestin del espacio fluvial, la prevencin de riesgos, la planificacin
territorial y la transparencia administrativa. La pgina Web del MARM cuenta con un visor del SNCZI como muestra
la siguiente figura.
Conferencias
21
plenarias
Figura 4. Imagen extrada del visor del SNCZI al introducir una consulta sobre las reas de Riesgo Potencial y Significativo de
Inundacin (ARPSIs), en la que se pueden apreciar las diferencias tanto entre aqullas en fase de consulta pblica como las ya
aprobadas
En estos momentos est contratada la ejecucin de casi 13.000 km de cauces, lo que ha supuesto una inversin
repartida desde el ao 2007 hasta el 2013 de ms de 23 millones de euros de acuerdo con la informacin
suministrada en la tabla adjunta:
Tabla 2. Longitud de cauces contratada para su cartografa
Confederacin Km de cauces
Importe Observaciones
Hidrogrfica contratados
Mio Sil 2.222.162 750
Cantbrico 4.039.605 2,550
Duero 3.675.228 2,500
Contratada solo la
Tajo 251.050
EPRI
Contratada solo la
Guadiana 251.050
EPRI
Guadalquivir 251.050 EPRI en licitacin
Segura 2.759.878 1,350
Jcar 3.979.132 2,500
Ebro 4.424.593 3,200
Coordinacin 2.120.273
Total 23.974.020.90 12,850 km
5.3.4. Situacin actual de la implantacin de la Directiva 2007/60/CE por Demarcaciones Hidrogrficas
En estos momentos ya estn aprobadas las EPRIs, y con ellas las reas de Riesgo Potencial Significativo de
Inundacin (ARPSIs), de las Demarcaciones Hidrogrficas del Duero, Jcar y Segura, que se acogieron a la disposicin
Conferencias
22
plenarias
transitoria del artculo 13 de la Directiva 2007/60. Estas ARPSI se pueden consultar en el visor cartogrfico del
Sistema Nacional de Cartografa de Zonas Inundables.
Paralelamente, las Evaluaciones Preliminares del Riesgo de Inundacin de las Demarcaciones del Mio-Sil, Ebro,
Cantbrico Oriental y Cantbrico Occidental se sometieron a consulta pblica durante los meses de junio, julio,
agosto y septiembre estando actualmente en tramitacin su aprobacin.
Del mismo modo, se encuentran en estos momentos en consulta pblica las EPRIs de Galicia Costa y Cuencas
Internas de Catalua pudindose hacer las alegaciones que se estimen convenientes hasta el 8 y el 9 de diciembre
de 2011 respectivamente. A lo largo de este ao se sometern a consulta pblica las EPRI del resto de
Demarcaciones Hidrogrficas. En la Tabla 3 quedan recogidos los datos estadsticos correspondientes a las distintas
ARPSIs en las diferentes Demarcaciones Hidrogrficas.
Tabla 3. Datos estadsticos (kilmetros y nmero) correspondientes a las ARPSIs aprobadas en las demarcaciones hidrogrficas
del Duero, Jcar y del Segura
TIPO DE INUNDACIN
TOTALES
Demarcacin Fluvial Fluvial/ Marina Martima
Hidrogrfica Long. Num. Long. Num. Num. Num.
Long. (Km) Long. (Km)
(Km) ARPSIs (Km) ARPSIs ARPSIs ARPSIs
DUERO 424,58 19 - - - - 424,58 19
SEGURA 551,51 22 - - 34,48 13 585,99 35
JCAR 284,65 19 620,10 11 106,36 11 1.011,11 41
TOTAL 1.260,7 67 620,1 11 140,8 24 2.021,6 95
5.3.5. Programa de actuaciones para la conservacin del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico
Desde mayo de 2005 se est ejecutando un programa de actuaciones de conservacin, las cuales tienen el doble
objetivo de mejorar en lo posible el estado de nuestros ros y minimizar el riesgo de inundaciones derivado, en
determinados casos, de su estado generalizado de degradacin. La inversin inicial llevada a cabo por la Direccin
General del Agua en sus primeros aos, ha sido reforzada posteriormente con la puesta en marcha del Plan E por
Real Decreto Ley 9/2008, de 28 de noviembre, por el que se crea un Fondo Estatal de Inversin Local y un Fondo
Especial del Estado para la Dinamizacin de la Economa y el Empleo.
Con este Programa, los Organismos de cuenca disponen de medios materiales y humanos para realizar operaciones
sencillas de mejora de nuestros ros como son la limpieza de residuos, escombros y basuras, desbroces, lucha contra
especies invasoras o exticas, retirada de peces muertos en pocas de sequa, mejora de las condiciones de los
hbitats pisccolas, eliminacin de azudes, creacin de escalas para peces, mejora del uso pblico de los ros,
plantaciones, mejora de la vegetacin de ribera, etc., as como la realizacin de pequeas actuaciones para la
defensa contra avenidas en tramos de ro en estado de conservacin, en general, muy deficiente.
En el perodo 2005-2010, se han invertido un total de 317 millones de euros en este programa, que han supuesto
ms de 6.000 actuaciones, con una inversin media anual cercana a los 50 millones de euros y ms de 1.000
actuaciones cada ao. De estas actuaciones, ms de 120 millones de euros (casi un 40% del presupuesto global)
fueron debidos al Plan E, que permiti ejecutar ms de 1.400 actuaciones.
En cuanto a la tipologa de las actuaciones y su repercusin en el estado de los ros, las actuaciones cuyo efecto
positivo ha revertido sobre un mayor nmero de kilmetros de ro son las que han consistido en la retirada de
residuos, fundamentalmente de origen antrpico.
En orden de importancia, estas actuaciones son seguidas por las de lucha contra especies invasoras o exticas y
limpieza, poda, desbroce y tratamientos selvcolas de otras especies, destacando, en la lucha contra especies
invasoras, las actuaciones de control del jacinto del agua en el Guadiana y del mejilln cebra en el Ebro, y la lucha
contra la caa comn en el Jcar, Segura y Guadiana.
Siguen en importancia a las anteriores, las actuaciones vinculadas a devolver la continuidad longitudinal al ro
mediante la eliminacin de barreras transversales (azudes, presas, tramos de lecho hormigonado, etc.), ejecutadas
principalmente por las demarcaciones del Duero y del Cantbrico, y en menor medida en el Mio-Sil y Tajo. Esta
tipologa de actuacin es de especial relevancia ya que acta sobre la eliminacin de una presin que afecta
Conferencias
23
plenarias
negativamente al buen estado ecolgico de los ros, satisfaciendo as las recomendaciones dadas por la Directiva
Marco del Agua. Se destaca tambin la permeabilizacin de obstculos transversales con la creacin de escalas para
peces, en las que tambin las Demarcaciones del Guadiana, Ebro y Tajo han realizado importantes actuaciones.
Finalmente, se destaca la realizacin de plantaciones de ribera, siendo de mayor repercusin, adems del
Cantbrico y Duero, las realizadas en las Demarcaciones del Ebro, Mio-Sil y Segura.
Figura 4. La restauracin de ros genera puestos de trabajo. CH Cantbrico, 2009
5.4. Restauracin
Dentro de esta lnea de trabajo se distinguen dos tipos de proyectos de restauracin en los cursos fluviales:
proyectos de rehabilitacin, centrados fundamentalmente en tramos de cauce urbanos o donde puede ser mayor el
riesgo hidrolgico de las avenidas e inundaciones y proyectos de restauracin propiamente dichos, que pueden
llevarse a cabo en los tramos de cauce no urbanos con mayores posibilidades de recuperacin o en un mbito ms
amplio, a nivel de cuenca. Estos ltimos pretenden recuperar en la medida de lo posible la integridad del
funcionamiento ecolgico de los ros a travs de su dinmica y resiliencia propias.
La Estrategia Nacional de restauracin de ros incluye hasta el momento un total de 102 proyectos de restauracin
en las cuencas intercomunitarias de Espaa. De todos estos proyectos, 25 se encuentran actualmente en fase de
ejecucin o bien ya se han ejecutado y sobre ellos se est realizando un seguimiento que tiene por objeto evaluar los
objetivos alcanzados y su grado de ajuste con respecto a los objetivos esperados.
Los 77 proyectos restantes estn redactados o en distintas fases de tramitacin, destacando en nmero de
proyectos la DH del Guadiana, que est realizando tambin una importante labor en el alto Guadiana en
coordinacin con el Plan Especial del Alto Guadiana.
De forma general, las actuaciones de restauracin estn enfocadas a mejorar la conectividad transversal, recuperar
la morfologa natural y la continuidad longitudinal del corredor fluvial, donde las necesidades de intervencin se
determinan en base al diagnstico del IMPRESS (Estudio de repercusiones e impactos de la actividad humana en el
estado de las aguas superficiales y subterrneas) realizado en todas las CCHH por prescripcin de la Directiva Marco
del Agua. En la figura 7 se representan las diferentes tipologas de actuaciones y el porcentaje de proyectos de la
ENRR que las incluyen.
En cuanto a las actuaciones por cuencas hidrogrficas, cabe hacer mencin a la utilizacin, cada vez ms frecuente,
de diferentes tcnicas de bioingeniera para la estabilizacin y recuperacin de mrgenes y riberas. En el norte
peninsular estas tcnicas presentan un uso cada vez ms generalizado, donde la CH del Cantbrico ha ejecutado
varios proyectos de restauracin fluvial en los que se ha utilizado la combinacin de varias tcnicas y entre los que se
encuentran los ros Esva, Deva y Cadagua, entre otros, con un elevado porcentaje de xito.
Asimismo, en el oeste peninsular se encuentran actualmente en ejecucin dos obras de restauracin en el entorno
del Guadiana, concretamente en Montijo y Lobn (Badajoz, Extremadura), donde se han utilizado tcnicas de
Conferencias
24
plenarias
bioingeniera en una fase experimental, combinando muros krainer, empalizadas trenzadas de sauce, escolleras
vegetadas, biorrollos, mantas orgnicas y estaquillado de sauce.
Figura 5 Localizacin geogrfica de los proyectos incluidos en el Programa de Restauracin y Rehabilitacin
Figura 6 . Tipologas de actuaciones y el porcentaje de proyectos de la ENRR que las incluyen
30,8
31,9
29,7 7,7 36,3 40,7
48,4 9,9
12,1
25,3
34,1
12,1 56,0
46,2 20,9
34,1 60,4 87,9 25,3
Eliminacin de barreras t ransversales Creacin de est ruct uras pisccolas (escalas, pasos, rampas,)
Eliminacin de barreras longit udinales Ret ranqueo de defensas
Recuperacin morf olgica de la llanura de inundacin Recuperacin morf olgica del cauce
Recuperacin cauces ant iguos M ejora del hbitat pisc cola
Plant aciones y siembras Trat amientos selvicult urales
Lucha cont ra especies invasoras Limpieza y ret irada de rest os ant rpicos
Delimit acin del DPH Incorporacin de t errenos adyacent es al DPH
Limit acin de usos y aprovechamient os no compatibles Zonas recreat ivas
Dot aciones de int erpret acin Restauracin del pat rimonio hidrulico (cult ural)
Acondicionamient o de sendas
Conferencias
25
plenarias
Figura 8. La utilizacin de tcnicas de bioingeniera adquiere cada vez mayor relevancia en los proyectos de restauracin. Izq.:
estabilizacin de taludes en el ro Deva, CH Cantbrico. Dcha.: Zona experimental con escollera y bioingeniera en el ro Guadajira,
CH Guadiana
La presencia de azudes es bastante frecuente en los ros de Espaa, y los proyectos de restauracin enfocan sus
actuaciones tanto a la eliminacin de estas barreras transversales, como a la creacin de estructuras que permitan
el paso de la fauna pisccola, con un 40,7 % y un 30,8 %, respectivamente, de proyectos que incluyen este tipo de
actuaciones.
La lucha contra las especies alctonas, algunas de las cuales presentan carcter invasor, tambin es una actuacin
frecuente en los proyectos de restauracin, debido a su habitual presencia en los cauces y riberas espaoles, y suele
estar incluida en la mayor parte de los proyectos.
Entre las especies arbreas se encuentra el eucalipto, donde cabe citar las numerosas plantaciones existentes en las
riberas de los ros Guadiana y Zjar de eucalipto rojo (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) preferentemente, estando el
eucalipto blanco (Eucalyptus globulus) ms extendido, por lo general, en el norte de Espaa.
Figura 7 La limpieza de especies alctonas y/o invasoras forma parte tambin de las actuaciones llevadas a cabo en los proyectos
de restauracin. De izquierda a derecha Oenothera glazioviana en la ribera del ro Nansa (Cantabria) y seguimiento de la altura de
los rebrotes de Arundo donax despus de la aplicacin de tratamientos para su erradicacin en la ribera del ro Mijares
(Castelln), 2010)
Por otra parte, como especies alctonas no arbreas y que tambin son objeto de eliminacin pueden citarse a
Oenothera glazioviana, Crocosmia crocosmiiflora y Reynoutria japonica en el Norte, Ipomoea indica en el levante y
Arundo donax en la mayor parte de la pennsula aunque con mayor extensin en la mitad sur peninsular debido a la
existencia de condiciones ms favorables para su desarrollo.
Conferencias
26
plenarias
En relacin a las actuaciones relacionadas con el uso pblico de los ros y su entorno, es frecuente el
acondicionamiento/creacin de sendas destinadas al uso recreativo, donde, en algunos casos, se complementa con
la inclusin de zonas recreativas y dotaciones de interpretacin. Si bien este tipo de actuacin es frecuente
encontrarla en los proyectos de la mayor parte de las demarcaciones, s cabe destacar los proyectos de las
Confederaciones Hidrogrficas del Cantbrico y del Segura, donde el 70% de los proyectos de restauracin que
actualmente se encuentran en tramitacin, incluyen este tipo de actuaciones.
Figura 8 La participacin pblica es una herramienta muy til para hacer proyectos de restauracin fluvial ms exitosos:
establece cauces de comunicacin entre promotores, tcnicos e interesados, garantizando una mayor calidad de las decisiones.
Taller participativo para la creacin de la imagen objetivo para el ro Verde, CH Jcar, 2009
5.5. Voluntariado
Con el Programa de Voluntariado en Ros se pretende incentivar la participacin pblica en la gestin de los ros, y
compartir la responsabilidad de su estado ecolgico entre los responsables administrativos, los hbitos y costumbres
de los ciudadanos y los intereses de los agentes econmicos y sociales de mayor importancia en cada cuenca
vertiente.
Figura 9 La participacin ciudadana proporciona beneficios de gran calado en el medio ambiente y en la sociedad: la buena salud
y el cuidado de los ros dependen de las personas. Voluntarios de la Asociacin para la Gestin del Medio Ambiente, Agesma,
instalando un cartel informativo
Como objetivos concretos tiene:
- Sensibilizar sobre los valores socio-ambientales de los ecosistemas fluviales.
Conferencias
27
plenarias
- Promover la participacin ciudadana a travs de grupos y entidades de voluntariado para el conocimiento,

diagnstico y mejora de los sistemas fluviales.
- Conservar y mejorar el patrimonio natural y cultural de los ros en el marco de un desarrollo sostenible.
- Fomentar la coordinacin entre todos los agentes

implicados.
Los participantes en el Programa son, por un lado, asociaciones u organizaciones medioambientales sin nimo de
lucro y, por otro, todos los voluntarios interesados a travs de las propias asociaciones o de la Oficina de
Voluntariado en Ros del Programa.
Anualmente el MARM celebra una convocatoria en la que las asociaciones presentan su propuesta de proyecto de
voluntariado en ros para su valoracin y en su caso, ejecucin. El MARM, a travs de una Comisin de Valoracin,
las analiza para seleccionar aquellas que, cumpliendo los requisitos legales, sean ms adecuadas a los objetivos del
Programa. Posteriormente la ejecucin de las actuaciones finalmente definidas se lleva a cabo por medio de un
acuerdo de colaboracin con las organizaciones. La siguiente tabla muestra los resultados de las convocatorias,
Tabla 3 Datos de las convocatorias 2007 a 2011
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Nmero de propuestas 65 76 103 150 130
Propuestas de voluntariado Nmero de organizaciones 54 71 89 135 122
recibidas Presupuesto solicitado
+ 1,5 + 1,9 + 3,8 + 5,6 + 2,4
(millones )
Nmero de propuestas 39 49 53 50 33
Nmero de organizaciones 36 44 52 49 33
Propuestas de voluntariado Nmero de voluntarios + + + +
-
seleccionadas participantes 15.000 25.800 50.000 28.000
Nmero de monitores
+ 500 + 1.370 + 1.400 + 1.400 -
participantes
Dentro de este Programa se realizan proyectos enfocados a los tres mbitos principales de actuacin de la Estrategia
Nacional, centrados en la Formacin y Educacin, Conservacin y Proteccin de tramos fluviales y Restauracin y
Rehabilitacin, por ejemplo:
- Campaas de sensibilizacin, diagnstico de calidad del ecosistema fluvial, diseo de planes para la mejora
de su estado ecolgico, etc.
- Tareas de limpieza y retirada de basuras y malezas de los cursos fluviales
- Mejora del hbitat para favorecer la regeneracin natural de especies nativas
- Control de especies invasoras y deteccin de causas de su expansin
- Adecuacin de infraestructuras para el uso y disfrute de los ros
- Tareas de sealizacin, documentacin y puesta en valor de paisajes fluviales
- Restauracin de pequeas infraestructuras del patrimonio cultural, y recuperacin de costumbres

tradicionales ligadas al mbito fluvial
- Vigilancia ambiental, informacin de denuncias e infracciones y deteccin de nuevas presiones e impactos
Conferencias
28
plenarias
- Realizacin de encuestas sobre distintas problemticas en torno a los ros
Figura 12. Voluntarios del Programa de Voluntariado en ros del MARM plantando rboles con SEO/BirdLife
5.6. I+D+i
En esta lnea de actuacin, y gracias a la financiacin derivada del Plan E, el MARM puso en marcha dos proyectos
con un presupuesto total de 10 millones de euros. El primero tiene el objetivo de mejorar el conocimiento y diseo
de las actuaciones de bioingeniera para la estabilizacin de los taludes de los cauces y mejora de la estructura de la
vegetacin riparia.
El segundo tiene como objetivo el anlisis de las diversas tcnicas para la eliminacin de la caa comn, ya que las
distintas administraciones emplean anualmente una importante cantidad presupuestaria en su eliminacin, siendo
el objetivo del proyecto la optimizacin de estos costes.
Actualmente los proyectos han finalizado ya todas las obras asociadas, estando en proceso la generacin de las
conclusiones finales.
Figura 13: Equipo de desarrollo de la actuacin de I+D+i de bioingeniera en el rio Piedra (Ebro-Zaragoza)
Conferencias
29
plenarias
6. Conclusiones
Este conjunto de actuaciones impulsadas desde su inicio por el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y
Marino se estn integrando en la planificacin hidrolgica establecida por los respectivos Organismos de cuenca.
Para el logro de estos fines es necesario que haya mejorado la formacin, los mecanismos de participacin e
implicacin de los colectivos sociales, la creacin de equipos multidisciplinares y la capacidad para llevar a cabo los
respectivos proyectos estableciendo colaboraciones y compartiendo competencias y responsabilidades.
Como aspecto esencial se encuentra la participacin pblica, puesto que en general, uno de los principales
problemas de la restauracin fluvial es que la sociedad en su conjunto y en las entidades locales todava muestra una
resistencia importante al cambio, puesto que en gran parte, el buen estado ecolgico de la Directiva Marco dista
notablemente de la mentalidad de la poblacin, especialmente la rural. Uno de los esfuerzos mayores a realizar es
conseguir cambiar esa mentalidad.
Tambin se est desarrollando un programa de seguimiento y evaluacin de todo lo realizado, fomentado la

investigacin y la creatividad para revisar todo lo establecido y disear nuevas alternativas, segn evolucionen los
problemas y retos ambientales y la capacidad colectiva de la sociedad espaola para abordarlos.
Agradecimientos
La Estrategia Nacional de Restauracin de Ros se est elaborando desde la colaboracin de numerosas entidades y
organizaciones, desde las Confederaciones Hidrogrficas, asociaciones participantes en el Programa de Voluntariado
en Ros, empresas consultoras, constructoras, investigadores, etc. de forma que durante estos aos ms de 100.000
personas estuvieron involucradas en su desarrollo en distintos grados de participacin.
Conferencias
30
plenarias
LA ESTRATEGIA NACIONAL DE RESTAURACIN DE ROS EN LA CUENCA DEL DUERO
Ignacio Rodrguez Muoz
Comisario de Aguas
Confederacin Hidrogrfica del Duero
1. Introduccin
La Estrategia Nacional de Restauracin de Ros en la cuenca del Duero se ha enfocado no slo como una serie de
proyectos y actuaciones de ejecucin de obras de restauracin, sino como un conjunto de actuaciones que incluyen
aspectos tales como la formacin, planificacin y gestin. Tener que hacer un proyecto de restauracin de ros es la
constatacin de un fracaso en las fases previas, ya que con un buen conocimiento, una visin prospectiva y una
adecuada administracin, se puede hacer una labor preventiva que permita compatibilizar el uso del agua y de los
espacios fluviales con su conservacin.
Figura 1. Tramo transfronterizo del ro Duero corriendo libre
2. Conocimiento y formacin
En este apartado se abordan las principales fuentes de conocimiento necesarias para hacer restauracin de ros.
Dado que los ros son un medio muy complejo, sometido a una gran dinmica y que sufre numerosas agresiones
conviene manejar conocimientos cientfico-tcnicos de diversa ndole tales como la hidrologa, la hidrulica fluvial, la
geografa fsica, la geologa, la hidrogeologa, la ecologa y la limnologa. Todos esos conocimientos aplicados al
estudio de los ros conforman una ciencia que apenas tiene escuela en nuestro pas que se denomina potamologa.
Conferencias
31
plenarias
En Espaa ha dominado el enfoque hidrulico, que no el de hidrulica fluvial, mucho mas integrador y comprensivo a
la hora de estudiar los ros e intervenir sobre ellos. Este dominio de la hidrulica se ha notado muy negativamente ya
que se ha dado a los ros un tratamiento de canales y se ha procurado por todos los medios de convertirlos en
canales para responder mejor a los modelos, cosa que obviamente es imposible y conduce a situaciones
insostenibles desde un punto de vista econmico.
Figura 2. Ortofotos comparativas de 1956-2006 de un tramo del ro rbigo
Evidentemente, adems de los conocimientos cientficos y tcnicos arriba mencionados, hay que conocer el rgimen
jurdico aplicable a travs de las leyes y reglamentos del agua y del dominio pblico hidrulico, tener una idea de los
procedimientos administrativos, de la economa de la restauracin de ros y en especial del anlisis coste-beneficio,
de la percepcin psicosocial que tenemos de los ros que nos lleva en numerosas ocasiones a defender actuaciones
aberrantes, destructoras e innecesarias como algo bueno y muy necesario y, por ltimo, sobre la participacin
pblica que ha de ir ms all de la informacin pblica, ya que lo que se pretende no es cubrir un expediente sino
tener la certeza de que todas las opiniones han sido odas y convenientemente analizadas.
3. Medidas relacionadas con la planificacin
Las principales actuaciones de restauracin de ros se deben llevar a cabo de forma preventiva a travs de los
instrumentos de conservacin y proteccin incorporados a nuestro ordenamiento. Entre ellos destaca el de la
planificacin hidrolgica cuyo objetivo principal es hacer compatible el suministro de agua a la poblacin y sus
actividades econmicas con la preservacin y mejora de los ecosistemas ligados al agua.
Las actuaciones de proteccin encaminadas a salvaguardar el espacio y la forma fluvial y los caudales, se ejercitan a
travs de las determinaciones que incorpora la planificacin hidrolgica, que a su vez debe incorporar y articular las
prescripciones de la Directiva Marco del Agua de la Unin Europea. Todo ello se plasma en el establecimiento de los
objetivos, de las redes de seguimiento, la elaboracin de los programas de medidas y la redaccin de la normativa
del Plan Hidrolgico de la cuenca del Duero.
4. Medidas relacionadas con la gestin o administracin
El da a da es muy importante para velar por que no resulte necesario hacer restauracin fluvial. A travs de la
elaboracin de informes de EIA, del artculo 25.4 del TRLA, los vinculantes de vertidos, entre otros; de las tareas de
vigilancia llevadas a cabo mediante personal de campo o a travs de redes de seguimiento; del rgimen de
autorizaciones y concesiones y, por supuesto, la aplicacin del rgimen sancionador que cumple una importante
misin ejemplarizante y disuasoria.
Conferencias
32
plenarias
Existen, adems, toda una serie de instrumentos de gestin muy transversales que pueden y deben ser utilizados en
la restauracin de ros:
- Programa Alberca
- Proyecto LINDE y la Cartografa Nacional de Zonas Inundables
- Programa de voluntariado
- Evaluacin ambiental de planes y programas
- Poltica Agraria Comn
5. Proyectos y actuaciones especficas de restauracin de ros
Este tipo de actuaciones son obras que se llevan a cabo bien a travs de proyectos especficos de la Estrategia
Nacional de Restauracin de Ros y o bien mediante pequeas actuaciones que tienen un encaje muy bueno dentro
de los Programas de Mantenimiento y Conservacin de Cauces (obras de mera conservacin de cauces)
La tipologa de actuaciones es relativamente sencilla:
- Recuperacin de la continuidad longitudinal

- Recuperacin de la conectividad lateral (espacio de libertad fluvial)
- Recuperacin de la conectividad vertical
- Recuperacin de caudales (cuantitativa y cualitativa)
En la cuenca del Duero, bien a travs de proyectos especficos o de las actuaciones de los Programas de
Conservacin y Mantenimiento de Cauces, se han llevado a cabo un buen nmero de actuaciones cuyo resumen
provisional, ya que el programa est en plena ejecucin, sera:
SUBPROGRAMA 3. Recuperacin y mejora de la continuidad longitudinal de nuestros ros
Obstculos transversales eliminados (la mayora azudes): 75, con 410 km de ro reconectados
Construccin de pasos de peces: 25, con 135 km de ro reconectados
SUBPROGRAMA 4. Recuperacin y mejora de la conexin lateral de nuestros ros
Motas eliminadas: 41.500 m.l.

Motas retranqueadas: 2.400 m.l.
Descanalizaciones con recuperacin del cauce original: 8.800 m.l.
Figura 3. Eliminacin de azud en el Cea
Conferencias
33
plenarias
Conviene, por ltimo reflexionar sobre lo que no es restauracin fluvial, aunque de forma muy puntual puede
constituir una operacin auxiliar de la misma:
- defensas, incluidas las biotecnias

- dragados
- todo tipo de modificaciones morfolgicas
- uso pblico
- labores selvcolas, que a veces estn ms prximas a la jardinera que a una verdadera restauracin de la
vegetacin de ribera
Conferencias
34
plenarias
RESTAURACIN FLUVIAL: PRINCIPIOS, DIFICULTADES Y PROPUESTAS.

LA PERSPECTIVA DEL CIREF
Alfredo Ollero Ojeda
Socio fundador del Centro Ibrico de Restauracin Fluvial (CIREF). Vocal de la Junta Gestora
Resumen
Se define restauracin fluvial como la auto-recuperacin de los procesos, estructura, funciones, territorio, dinmica y resiliencia,
a partir de la eliminacin de los impactos, hasta alcanzar un funcionamiento natural y auto-sostenible. El paradigma de
restauracin debe mantenerse en ciencia y educacin, como marco terico, pero para recuperar sistemas fluviales fuertemente
degradados es poco viable. Es ms prctico optar por medidas de rehabilitacin basadas en objetivos alcanzables y con
seguimiento cientfico. Debe evitarse el empleo del trmino restauracin fluvial como marketing y las acciones de restauracin
y rehabilitacin como negocio o estrategia de maquillaje.
Palabras clave: restauracin fluvial, rehabilitacin, presin humana, naturalidad, seguimiento cientfico
Abstract
An approach to fundamentals and application of fluvial restoration. Fluvial restoration is proposed as the self-recovery of
processes, structure, functions, territory, dynamics and resilience, from the elimination of impacts up to a natural and sustainable
functioning. Paradigm of restoration should remain in science and education as a theoretical framework, but to restore heavily
degraded fluvial systems is not viable. It is more practical to opt for rehabilitation measures based on achievable goals and
scientific monitoring. Should be avoided the use of term fluvial restoration as marketing, and restoration and rehabilitation
actions as business or cosmetic strategy.
Key words: fluvial restoration, rehabilitation, human pressure, naturalness, scientific monitoring.
1. Introduccin: el gran reto de recuperar sistemas naturales
La restauracin ambiental o ecolgica es el ms avanzado de los procesos de gestin de un sistema natural cuando la
degradacin ya se ha producido, ya que el primero sera conservar y evitar la introduccin de la presin
perturbadora. La restauracin es un proceso fundamentalmente recuperador, pero tambin corrector y preventivo.
Es el ltimo paso, el ms avanzado, pero slo es viable y factible en situaciones de gestin ambiental sostenible,
mientras resulta difcil o imposible en sociedades incapaces de renunciar a su imparable consumo de recursos. En
estos casos la restauracin es muy urgente y necesaria, pero resulta inaplicable por la imposibilidad de eliminar, o
siquiera reducir, las presiones. En estos modelos econmicamente avanzados y ambientalmente insostenibles
puede aspirarse a lo sumo a la rehabilitacin, al logro de pequeas mejoras, o a la proteccin de pequeos enclaves
inconexos y relictos. As, en lneas generales, se han producido algunos xitos puntuales de restauracin en sistemas
naturales pequeos y relativamente cerrados (humedales endorreicos, por ejemplo), pero no se han podido llevar a
cabo procesos de autntica restauracin en sistemas ms extensos, abiertos y complejos.
Es precisamente en estas sociedades de consumismo y grave deterioro ambiental donde han surgido
preocupaciones e iniciativas cientficas y sociales de restauracin, que lamentablemente se ven obligadas a quedarse
en la teora o las buenas intenciones. Desde planteamientos conservacionistas y desde las ciencias ambientales se ha
desarrollado el sentimiento de la belleza de lo natural y la responsabilidad de su conservacin. Es un deber
conservar y mejorar nuestro entorno para traspasarlo a las generaciones futuras en buen estado (Convencin para la
proteccin del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural, aprobada por la Conferencia General de la Unesco en 1972). Tenemos
incluso la obligacin moral de renaturalizar los ambientes daados por una larga historia de insensibles obras y
actuaciones sobre el medio. Muy recientemente se ha comenzado a apreciar los sistemas naturales activos,
dinmicos, heterogneos, complejos, inestables, temporales, fluctuantes, irregulares, imprevistos, en continuo
cambio, la esttica de lo cambiante y salvaje, rechazando la domesticacin y simplificacin propugnadas por la
sociedad del consumo y el bienestar.
As, la restauracin ambiental se ha convertido en un gran reto de nuestro tiempo, pero se est quedando en
quimera irrealizable, sera necesario un profundo cambio de mentalidades en lo territorial y ambiental hacia la
Conferencias
35
plenarias
reduccin del consumo y hacia la sostenibilidad. Quizs la sociedad no est preparada para ese cambio, pero es
interesante constatar que en estas sociedades avanzadas haya surgido un importante yacimiento de empleo y
nicho de mercado en torno a la restauracin, as como un motivo de prestigio y factor de localizacin para las
reas restauradas. No suele tratarse de autntica restauracin, sino de prcticas de maquillaje que forman parte
de procesos urbansticos y especulativos. Es el marketing de la palabra restauracin, utilizada en demasa, con
absoluta falta de propiedad y con objetivos no ambientales.
Figura 1. Encauzamiento en Herrera de los Navarros (Zaragoza). Foto: Daniel Ballarn
Figura 2. Dragados de cauces y limpiezas de vegetacin constituyen impactos gravsimos que alteran el funcionamiento
hidromorfolgico y ecolgico del sistema fluvial. Ro Arba en Rivas (Zaragoza). Foto: Daniel Mora
Ante el reto o la utopa de la autntica restauracin, han ido apareciendo en los ltimos aos, principalmente desde
el mbito de la restauracin fluvial, nuevas tendencias posibilistas que renuncian al imposible retorno a estados
naturales y abogan por una restauracin basada en objetivos concretos y factibles, incompleta pero que responda a
criterios de naturalidad y aporte beneficios a la sociedad. Es un planteamiento interesante que, aunque implica
Conferencias
36
plenarias
renunciar a ideales, abre muchas puertas de actuacin, si bien requiere disear con mucho cuidado los programas
de mejora por el riesgo de caer en el puro marketing perdiendo los objetivos ambientales.
2. Qu es y qu no es restauracin?
Restaurar es restablecer o recuperar un sistema natural a partir de la eliminacin de los impactos que lo degradaban
y a lo largo de un proceso prolongado en el tiempo, hasta alcanzar un funcionamiento natural y autosostenible. Un
sistema natural restaurado habr recuperado:
sus procesos naturales y todas las interacciones entre sus elementos y con otros sistemas,
su estructura, es decir, todos sus componentes y flujos en toda su complejidad y diversidad,
sus funciones dentro del sistema Tierra (transporte, regulacin, hbitat, etc.),
su territorio, es decir, el espacio propio y continuo que debe ocupar para desarrollar todos sus procesos y
funciones,
su dinmica natural a lo largo del tiempo,
su resiliencia o fortaleza frente a futuros impactos, su capacidad de auto-regulacin y auto-recuperacin
y, por tanto, todos los bienes y servicios que aporta a la sociedad.
En suma, el proceso de restauracin debe lograr naturalidad, funcionalidad, dinamismo, complejidad, diversidad y
resistencia para el sistema natural. La autntica restauracin es, por tanto, auto-restauracin. El sistema debe ser
capaz de recuperarse solo progresivamente, a lo largo de un proceso, desde el momento en que se eliminen los
impactos.
Los objetivos de la restauracin no deben ser una pretendida belleza, ni recreo, ni estabilidad, como es frecuente,
ni cumplir simplemente con la legalidad vigente en cada caso. Restaurar no es estabilizar, ni revegetar, ni ajardinar,
ni urbanizar, ni maquillar ni camuflar. Por ejemplo, la restauracin estrictamente paisajstica no es autntica
restauracin, ya que se centra en la calidad escnica del sistema natural o de alguno de sus elementos, y no en la
funcionalidad o dinmica del mismo, no persigue un objetivo natural. Las tcnicas de bioingeniera o ingeniera
natural, cada vez ms extendidas, tampoco deben asociarse necesariamente con la autntica restauracin, ya que
generalmente se emplean para objetivos estticos o de estabilizacin.
3. Restauracin utpica o rehabilitacin realista?
Por tanto, hay una restauracin autntica y muchas posibles mejoras parciales, a las que conviene no llamar
restauracin, sino rehabilitacin, restablecimiento, remediacin, mitigacin, naturalizacin, creacin,
acondicionamiento, adecuacin, etc., segn sus caracteres. Parece que frente a la autntica pero muchas veces
utpica restauracin se va consolidando el concepto de rehabilitacin, como el conjunto de medidas factibles para la
mejora, sin poder llegarse a la recuperacin total.
Mientras la restauracin es un paradigma terico, puro, que responde exclusivamente a objetivos ambientales, la
rehabilitacin es una prctica que responde tambin a esos objetivos pero con las limitaciones que imponen las
presiones humanas y en consenso con la sociedad, siendo definida por los gestores. La rehabilitacin es, por tanto,
una estrategia de gestin frente a la restauracin, que es exclusivamente y estrictamente conservacionista. Ambas
cuentan con una base cientfica, pero la rehabilitacin es fundamentalmente tcnica. La restauracin es pasiva, ya
que el trabajo lo realiza el propio sistema natural, una vez eliminados los impactos, pero la rehabilitacin en muchos
casos se considera activa, ya que emplea tcnicas y estructuras concretas para acelerar los procesos.
En definitiva, la autntica restauracin es extremadamente difcil en la prctica por dos razones fundamentales:
Porque muchas actividades humanas son incompatibles con los sistemas naturales y deberan ser
modificadas o trasladadas, lo cual es social y econmicamente muy complejo. La autntica restauracin
constituira toda una revolucin. Porque hay dos requisitos bsicos para restaurar y la sociedad debera
estar dispuesta a asumirlos: eliminar o reducir al mnimo las causas del deterioro y reconsiderar las
actividades humanas que generaron esas causas. Sin embargo, los intensos procesos de urbanizacin y
especulacin siguen provocando un incremento continuo en el deterioro ambiental. Mientras se estn
restaurando algunos espacios, muchos ms estarn siendo alterados por acciones humanas, domesticacin
Conferencias
37
plenarias
del medio, urbanizacin y desnaturalizacin. Probablemente mientras la sociedad no cambie sus hbitos de
consumo de recursos y territorio la restauracin ser una labor intil.
Porque en la mayora de los casos y mbitos de restauracin no pueden encontrarse estados naturales de
referencia en el pasado. La intervencin humana ha sido extensa, compleja y duradera, y ha ido
perturbando a los sistemas naturales directamente, pero tambin de muchas formas indirectas muy
difciles de identificar y cuantificar. No es suficiente con volver, por ejemplo, a la situacin preindustrial. Es
imposible saber en qu momento del pasado un sistema se encontr en su mejor estado. Tambin hay
determinados ecosistemas que justo en los periodos de mayor intervencin humana es cuando han
contado con mayor biodiversidad y complejidad. A esto hay que unir la realidad de que es imposible
reproducir una situacin pasada porque todo ha seguido una trayectoria. La naturaleza es producto en cada
momento de condiciones que no se repetirn. Y en el proceso de recuperacin nunca se repetir
exactamente igual la trayectoria de la sucesin original. Si se acepta el concepto de trayectoria, la
restauracin slo es aplicable a muy corto plazo y para perturbaciones locales.
Ante estas dificultades se va asistiendo a un cambio progresivo de mentalidad en los defensores de la restauracin
hacia una posicin ms posibilista que se ubica claramente en el campo de la rehabilitacin. Al mismo tiempo, se da
una importancia fundamental a la naturalidad como clave de gestin ambiental, considerando los caracteres
naturales, independientemente de su origen y trayectoria (no confundir lo natural con lo actualmente imposible
prstino o virgen), como fuente de beneficios para la sociedad. Se asume adems la importancia del papel del
hombre en los sistemas naturales y la necesidad de incluir en la recuperacin ambiental los valores culturales junto a
los naturales. Esta nueva perspectiva es fundamentalmente prctica, en el sentido de que es ms fcil que pueda ser
ejecutada, ms vendible y socialmente aceptable. Sin embargo, presenta dos problemas: a) en muchos casos las
actuaciones pueden quedarse en un maquillaje muy superficial, recuperndose pocos valores naturales; b) se puede
estar favoreciendo que la rehabilitacin se convierta ante todo en un buen negocio o bien en un instrumento de
promocin poltica.
4. Principios y dificultades de la restauracin fluvial
De acuerdo con lo expuesto hasta aqu, la autntica restauracin fluvial debera ser fundamentalmente auto-
restauracin hidrogeomorfolgica y requerira caudales naturales incluyendo crecidas, sedimentos movilizables,
espacio (territorio fluvial) para el desarrollo de la dinmica natural, eliminar obstculos longitudinales y
transversales, y tiempo para la auto-recuperacin. Sin embargo, esta autntica restauracin es prcticamente
imposible, ya que los ros, torrentes, barrancos y ramblas sufren numerosas presiones e impactos en toda su cuenca,
la mayor parte de las cuales son de muy compleja eliminacin. Si fuera posible eliminar todos esos impactos (presas,
defensas, canalizaciones), la restauracin fluvial sera rpida y efectiva, ya que unas pocas crecidas seran suficientes
para recuperar todo el funcionamiento natural.
Las principales dificultades para restaurar ros derivan de la enorme complejidad de los sistemas fluviales, de la
imposibilidad de restaurar grandes impactos (embalses), de la falta de antecedentes (en nuestro pas y en mbitos
mediterrneos) que puedan servir como modelo, y de las enormes inercias sociales y conflictos administrativos, con
ausencia de voluntad poltica y social para restaurar la dinmica fluvial. Cabe aadir la presin temporal con que se
desarrollan muchas actividades de restauracin o rehabilitacin, delimitadas por el perodo legislativo. La prctica de
la restauracin va mucho ms rpida que la teora, ya que sta constituye una lnea cientfica relativamente joven.
Adems, para la restauracin fluvial es necesaria la aplicacin de numerosos conocimientos procedentes de variadas
disciplinas.
La sociedad actual consume mucha agua y tambin sedimentos (ridos) y ha ocupado buena parte de los territorios
fluviales con intensos procesos de urbanizacin y especulacin y grandes infraestructuras viarias y servicios que
provocan un continuo incremento en el deterioro fluvial. Adems, la correcta restauracin est muy alejada de las
actuales demandas sociales: seguridad, estabilidad, parques fluviales, domesticacin de las riberas, modelos urbanos
frente a naturalidad (gravas y vegetacin espontnea son sucias), moda de los escollerados innecesarios, etc.
La restauracin fluvial se apoyara en medidas como la prohibicin o la rigurosa limitacin de dragados y limpiezas,
la apertura o derribo de presas para que pasen los sedimentos, recuperacin de caudales naturales y sobre todo de
crecidas dinamizadoras, eliminacin de defensas para permitir la erosin de las orillas y la removilizacin de
sedimentos, devolucin al cauce de su espacio de movilidad, dejar que se generen nuevas superficies de sedimentos
Conferencias
38
plenarias
que la vegetacin ir colonizando o no, dejar que las riberas se vayan estructurando y convirtiendo en complejos
mosaicos de ambientes y hbitats de biodiversidad a partir de la dinmica hidrogeomorfolgica, permitiendo que
regresen valiosas especies autctonas, etc. En suma, se trata de liberar al sistema fluvial de presiones para que
pueda volver a ejercer sus funciones: que el ro vuelva a funcionar como un ro.
En todo ello hay que tener en cuenta un condicionante fundamental: la escala de actuacin, a qu tramos afecta el
proyecto, cules son las repercusiones aguas abajo. Preferentemente habra que restaurar o rehabilitar sistemas
fluviales completos, pero esto no siempre es posible.
Figura 3. Eliminacin del azud de Mendaraz en el ro Urumea (Gipuzkoa). Proyecto BIDUR de cooperacin transfronteriza para la
gestin de los ros Bidasoa y Urumea. Diputacin de Gipuzkoa (IKT), Gobierno de Navarra (GAVRN) y Consejo General de los
Pirineos Atlnticos. Foto: Iker Azpiroz
Figura 4. Eliminacin de la mota de Vallacuera en el ro Arga (Navarra). Proyecto LIFE-GERVE, gestin ecosistmica de ros con
visn europeo. Gobierno de Navarra-GAVRN. Foto: GAVRN
Conferencias
39
plenarias
Frente a todo lo expuesto se encuentra el pobre sucedneo que la mayora de las veces se ejecuta como marketing
de restauracin: estabilizaciones de orillas, aun cuando se haga con tcnicas blandas de ingeniera natural,
revegetaciones, plantaciones de chopos, ajardinamiento y urbanizacin de mrgenes, maquillaje de dragados o
escolleras, ampliaciones de seccin de desage, etc. Tambin ha habido actuaciones que, para lograr mayor
heterogeneidad y biodiversidad, han creado nuevos cauces complejos y meandriformes en ros que en estado
natural eran mucho ms simples. En suma, una versin de la restauracin fluvial se est constituyendo como
estrategia de obtencin de beneficios econmicos, publicidad e imagen, a la que la administracin dedica crecientes
presupuestos con escaso control sobre el destino, ya que se financian, bajo el nombre vendible de restauracin,
actuaciones contrarias a los fines ambientales.
Figura 5. Adecuacin medioambiental del ro Chllar en Nerja (Mlaga). Foto: Tony Herrera
Figura 6. Cauce limpiado y parque fluvial en Bergasa (La Rioja). Foto: Alfredo Ollero
Conferencias
40
plenarias
Figura 7. Actuacin en el ro Sosa en Monzn (Huesca). El canal de estiaje escollerado ha sufrido colapsos por la incisin
provocada por la propia canalizacin rectilnea. Foto: Jos Mara Puig
5. Mirando al futuro
No hay que renunciar de antemano a la restauracin fluvial por sus dificultades. Puede ser perfectamente factible y
viable en tramos afectados slo por impactos locales. Por tanto, deben seguir disendose, incluso aunque se
presuman muchas dificultades, propuestas y programas de restauracin, que pueden ms adelante reconvertirse en
procesos de rehabilitacin si las circunstancias as lo exigen. Ahora bien, en sistemas muy complejos y afectados por
mltiples presiones e impactos, es imprescindible una rehabilitacin fundamentada en objetivos concretos y
ejecutada con acciones concretas. Lo ms inteligente puede ser pensar en restauracin y actuar en rehabilitacin,
desarrollar la teora y los principios de la restauracin y, tenindolos en cuenta, ejecutar adecuadamente las tcnicas
de rehabilitacin, llegando lo ms lejos posible en los ideales de la restauracin.
Restauracin y rehabilitacin deben basarse en objetivos hacia el futuro ms que en recuperar situaciones pasadas.
Si es necesario encontrar un modelo de referencia ste no ha de buscarse en el pasado, sino en otro sistema fluvial
natural prximo que se encuentre en buen estado. Es esencial definir con claridad y precisin los objetivos, que
deben resultar de la combinacin de lo que se pretende recuperar en el sistema fluvial y de lo que funcionalmente
es posible de acuerdo con su trayectoria y estado. Deben fundamentarse en valores naturales y en caracteres
locales. En algunos casos tambin se puede tener en cuenta lo que la sociedad necesita y econmicamente es
factible, as como aspectos culturales, que no hay por qu subestimar en un proyecto de mejora ambiental.
Es urgente y necesario desarrollar normativas y establecer procedimientos pblicos de tutela de la restauracin y de

la rehabilitacin. Algunas leyes y directivas europeas no tratan de restauracin pero sientan bases de apoyo vlidas.
Paralelamente pueden plantearse moratorias para que no se sigan realizando ciertas actuaciones impactantes, as
como endurecer en muchos casos el procedimiento de evaluacin de impacto ambiental. Igualmente hay que
trabajar en nuevas figuras de ordenacin del territorio y planeamiento urbanstico. En suma, es preciso integrar la
restauracin en planes de gestin ms amplios.
Como se ha mencionado, la restauracin fluvial es un proceso de gestin que se debe aplicar cuando la degradacin
ya se ha producido. Sin embargo, es preciso insistir en que en muchos casos es posible evitar esa degradacin, lo que
evitara la posterior restauracin. Por ello, el objetivo principal que debe aplicarse en la gestin fluvial es el de la
conservacin del sistema fluvial. La prevencin es una herramienta barata y til, aunque en muchas ocasiones
olvidada. Debe estar orientada a aumentar la sensibilidad ambiental de tcnicos y pblico en general, as como a la
elaboracin de medidas administrativas cuya aplicacin asegure la proteccin de los sistemas fluviales, lo que
redundar en un mayor respeto hacia nuestros ros.
Conferencias
41
plenarias
En este sentido, hay que reclamar el cumplimiento de la escasa normativa vigente protectora del medio ambiente
frente a las presiones urbansticas y territoriales, en la lnea de lo establecido en el artculo 2 de la Ley 42/2007 de
Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad, que establece como principio la prevalencia de la proteccin ambiental
sobre la ordenacin territorial y urbanstica y los supuestos bsicos de dicha prevalencia.
La restauracin fluvial no puede hacerse depender de presupuestos econmicos que respondan a plazos cortos de
tiempo. Se trate de restauracin o de rehabilitacin, supone un proceso generalmente muy largo que requiere
seguimiento cientfico y cuya conclusin no puede ser prevista ni certificada. No pueden ejecutarse intervenciones
por el hecho de que sean rpidamente observables y vendibles, ya que probablemente constituirn un fracaso en
cuanto a sus objetivos ambientales. El imprescindible seguimiento de los resultados para comprobar la consecucin
de los objetivos puede implicar en muchas ocasiones el reajuste de los objetivos y de los medios del proceso de
restauracin o de rehabilitacin, en la lnea de la gestin adaptativa.
Figura 8. El proceso de restauracin o de rehabilitacin. Basado en Woodhill & Robins (1998) y Gonzlez del Tnago y Garca de
Jaln (2007)
Es muy necesaria la formacin tcnica y cientfica y, ante la fuerte demanda profesional que puede preverse, se hace
necesario consolidar currculos formativos en educacin superior. Tambin es fundamental la educacin ambiental
de la sociedad sobre el funcionamiento de los sistemas fluviales y los beneficios y objetivos de los procesos
recuperadores. En este sentido, no puede seguir llamndose restauracin a lo que no lo es. No hay que engaar a la
sociedad tratando de vender ciertas actuaciones con un envoltorio verde.
Conferencias
42
plenarias
Figura 9. Rehabilitacin fluvial en un mbito urbano: Sant Boi de Llobregat (Barcelona). Desarrollada por Aquanea para el
Ayuntamiento de Sant Boi . Foto: Fernando Magdaleno
Cualquier actividad que se pretenda desarrollar que potencialmente pueda afectar el medio natural debera tener en
cuenta que, para su correcta ejecucin, es imprescindible la participacin pblica activa. En restauracin fluvial este
principio adquiere todava ms relevancia, puesto que desde siempre los sistemas fluviales han sido ejes de
comunicacin entre ncleos habitados, fuente de recursos y motivo de conflictos por su ocupacin y uso. Si se
pretende restaurar o rehabilitar un tramo fluvial ha de lograrse que quien vive o disfruta del territorio vertebrado
por el ro sienta como suyo el proyecto y participe. Pero, qu participacin y cmo?
En primer lugar, para aceptar los objetivos del proyecto, el promotor del mismo debera hacer un intenso esfuerzo
en las fases previas a fin de que aqul no se vea como un simple documento tecncrata ni como un brindis al sol
ecologista, por ms bien intencionado que sea. Debe lograrse que el proyecto se asuma teniendo en cuenta las
diferentes sensibilidades, culturas, tradiciones y posicionamientos frente al medio donde pretendemos actuar, ya
que nadie tiene el patrimonio y dominio exclusivo del espacio fluvial. En esta fase todo el tiempo dedicado, que
puede ser mucho, en absoluto es perdido pues es una clara ganancia para las fases posteriores.
Durante la ejecucin de las correspondientes actuaciones de nuevo es necesario que las personas vinculadas al
espacio fluvial se impliquen activamente. Muchas jornadas de plantaciones masivas u otras actividades muy bien
intencionadas han supuesto un notable fracaso y motivo de desafeccin y decepcin. As pues, participacin s, pero
con informacin y preparacin tcnica previa clara, explicando por el promotor en qu y cmo se puede participar
para ayudar a conseguir el objetivo fijado y haciendo ver que es ms importante recuperar espacios y procesos que
plantar y que tan interesante o ms es un tramo de ro con magnificas playas de cantos rodados o taludes
escarpados y desprovistos de vegetacin que frondosos bosques de ribera. Se requiere, por tanto, de una cierta
supervisin y direccin tcnica profesional de esta participacin, aunque sin caer en dirigismos, excesivos
intervencionismos ni elitismos.
Hay que huir de la imagen polticamente correcta de la participacin pblica, pensada ms para un reportaje
publicitario, y buscar la ambientalmente eficaz, aunque sea estticamente discutible. Pero la participacin no puede
tampoco acabar aqu. La restauracin es un objetivo a largo plazo y a menudo incluso inalcanzable con costos
tcnicos, sociales y econmicos asumibles, por lo que se requerir que una vez finalizada la ejecucin de las
correspondientes obras siga habiendo implicacin pblica activa en su seguimiento, conservacin y mantenimiento.
Conferencias
43
plenarias
Bibliografa
Aronson, J.; Clewell, A.F.; Blignaut, J.N. & Milton, S.J. (2006) Ecological restoration: a new frontier for nature
conservation and economics. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14: 135-139.
Beechie, T.J.; Sear, D.A.; Olden, J.D.; Pess, G.R.; Buffington, J.M.; Moir, H.; Roni, P. & Pollock, M.M. (2010) Process-
based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience, 60(3): 209-222.
Berastegi, A.; Calvo, A.; Dez, J.R.; Elso, J.; Garca, E.; Garca de Jaln, D.; Guibert, M.; Hernndez, L.; Herrera, A.;
Ibarrola, I.; Jaso, C.; Magdaleno, F.; Martnez Capel, F.; Martnez Romero, R.; Mendoza, F.; Ollero, A.; Ordeix, M.;
Sanz, F.J. ; Segura, R.; Simon, P.; Sorolla, A.; Urra, F. y Verdier, J. (2008) Biodiversidad y restauracin de ecosistemas
fluviales. Gestin Ambiental, Viveros y Repoblaciones de Navarra, S.A., 65 p., Pamplona.
Brierley, G.J. & Fryirs, K.A. (2008) Moves toward an era of river repair. In Brierley, G.J. & Fryirs, K.A. (Eds.) River
futures. An integrative scientific approach to river repair, 3-15, Washington, Island Press.
Comn, F.A. (2002) Restauracin ecolgica: teora versus prctica. Ecosistemas, XI(1): 11-13.
Dufour, S. & Pigay, H. (2009) From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural
references and focus on human benefits. River Research and Applications, 25: 568-581.
Fryirs, K. & Brierley, G.J. (2009) Naturalness and place in river rehabilitation. Ecology and Society, 14(1): 20. (online)
Gonzlez del Tnago, M. & Garca de Jaln, D. (2007) Restauracin de ros. Gua metodolgica para la elaboracin de
proyectos. Madrid, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.
Herrera, A. (2008) Disertacin crtica sobre la evaluacin del estado ecolgico de las masas de agua y los proyectos
de restauracin, recuperacin o mejora ambiental de cauces: del mito a la realidad. VI Congreso Ibrico sobre
Gestin y Planificacin del Agua. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Fund. Nueva Cultura del Agua.
Hughes, F.M.R.; Colston, A. & Mountford, J.O. (2005) Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of
accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecology and Society, 10(1):12 (online).
Jungwirth, M.; Muhar, S. & Schmutz, S. (2002) Re-establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine
landscapes. Freshwater Biology, 47: 867-887.
Junker, B. & Buchecker, M. (2008) Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 85(3-4): 141-154.
Katz, E. (2003) La gran mentira: la restauracin humana de la naturaleza. In Kwiatkowska, T. e Issa, J. (Coords.): Los
caminos de la tica ambiental, II, 233-244, Mxico, Plaza y Valds.
Magdaleno, F. (2008) Manual de tcnicas de restauracin fluvial. CEDEX, 300 p., Madrid.
Martn Vide, J.P. (2006) Ingeniera de ros. Edicions UPC, 381 p., Barcelona (2 ed).
Muhar, S., Schmutz, S. & Jungwirth, M., (1995) River restoration concepts, goals and perspectives. Hydrobiologia,
303: 183194
Newson, M.D. & Large, A.R.G. (2006) Natural rivers, hydromorphological quality and river restoration: a
challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 31: 1606-1624.
Ollero, A.; Ibisate, A.; Acn, V.; Daz, E.; Granado, D.; Horacio, J. (2011) Innovacin y libertad fluvial. Ponencia al VI
Congreso Ibrico sobre Gestin y Planificacin del Agua, Talavera de la Reina, Fundacin Nueva Cultura del Agua.
Palmer, M.A.; Allan, J.D.; Meyer, J. & Bernhardt, E.S. (2007) River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and
experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restoration Ecology, 15(3): 472-481.
Palmer, M.; Menninger, H.L. & Bernhardt, E.S. (2010) River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a
failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology, 55(1): 205-222.
Rohde, S. (2004) River restoration: potential and limitations to re-establish riparian landscapes. Assessment and
planning. PhD dissertation, Zrich, Swiss Federal Institut of Technology.
Sear, D.A.; Newson, M.D.; Hill, C.; Old, J. & Branson, J. (2009) A method for applying fluvial geomorphology in
support of catchment-scale river restoration planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19:
506-519.
Conferencias
44
plenarias
Shields, F.D.Jr.; Cooper, C.M.; Knight, S.S. & Moore, M.T. (2003) Stream corridor restoration research: a long and
winding road. Ecological Engineering, 20: 441-454.
Soar, P.J. & Thorne, C.R. (2001) Channel restoration design for meandering rivers. Washington, Engineer Research
and Development Center. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.
Williams, P.B. (2001) River engineering versus river restoration. In Hayes, D.F. (Ed.): ASCE Wetlands Engineering &
River Restoration Conference, Reno, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Woodhill, J. & Robins, L. (1998) Participatory evaluation for landcare and catchment groups: a guide for facilitators.
Greening Australia, 54 p., Yarralumla.
Conferencias
45
plenarias
GENEALOGY OF THE RIVER MOBILITY SPACE CONCEPT, FRANCE.

THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION ASPECTS
Jean-Paul Bravard
University Lumire Lyon
Abstract
The concept of mobility space appeared in France in the early 1980s, during a period of heated debate around recent intense
river management, the excesses this policy triggered, and the resulting detrimental impacts upon the environment. The Loire and
the Rhne River basins were at the leading edge of these new ideas but these ideas needed at least a wider social consensus to
succeed, or at a minimum, to be introduced into official policy and regulation. This paper deals with some of the conceptual and
practical questions which are being posed for the implementation of the mobility space policy (including lateral extension, reach
and basin scale for the management of sediment, and EEC reference state). Some case studies are presented, notably the policy
of reactivation of fluvial dynamics in the by-passed reaches of the Rhne River within the framework of a master plan. At finally,
the difficulties met in the field are exposed.
Key words: Mobility space, fluvial hydrosystem, river training, France
1. Introduction
The concept of freedom or mobility space for rivers has been widely used in Europe, and elsewhere in the world
for at least 20 years (see Pigay et al., 2005; Dufour and Pigay, 2009 for a wide review). The scientific literature
produced on this subject is beyond the scope of this paper, which simply aims to recount the theoretical and applied
origin of the freedom space concept in France and its empirical developments. Of course, cross-border influences
have played a role between countries, especially in the last ten years, and especially in Europe thanks to EEC river
policy.
The poor social acceptance of river mobility is rooted in the recent historical past of rivers in France and probably
elsewhere in Europe. The stride to restore mobility for rivers constrained by so many types of artificial structures is
not limited to the immediate opposition of individualistic riparian owners. It is also the result of a widely
represented social attitude, which has long considered rivers as obstacles to be overcome. If constraining rivers is a
social phenomenon, illuminating activities, which ruin rivers require the convergence of multiple factors, ideas,
social groups, all acting against centuries of consensus.
First, there is the negative perception of active rivers in Europe: the legacy of the Little Ice Age. As are many
landscapes in Europe, rivers of all sizes are landscapes of memory (Schama, 1995), i.e. landscapes rooted in the
experience inherited from past generations because of a long history of deep familiarity and benevolence, of threat,
or of destruction. One of the characteristics of European rivers, at least foreland and mountain rivers, is that they
have experienced drastic hydrological and geomorphological changes through time. Indeed, the last centuries
coincided with the crisis of the Little Ice Age, which was a period of increased transport of bed load, of river
aggradation and widening, as well as floods of high frequency and magnitude.
As an example, the Isre river, a left-hand tributary of the Rhne river flowing from the Alps, experienced a
th
downstream progradation of a large sediment wave of gravel during the 18 century. The valley floor upstream of
the city of Grenoble changed from a meander pattern to a braided pattern, which was described by the engineers
Rolland, father and son, in 1741 and 1787 respectively. This early metamorphosis, well described but unnamed as
such, involved the widening of the river tract, the increase of flow velocity over the flood plain, a meander cut-off,
the filling of the main channel with sand and fine gravel across Grenoble, and the raising of the flood level. It is
obvious that the Isre river was free to adjust its geometry to the changing conditions at the watershed scale
(Bravard, 1989 and 2011). On smaller rivers of the Alps, such as the tributaries of the Drme, which meets with the
Rhne south of Valence, it has been possible to document short periods of river incision and river aggradation and
th
widening during the 19 century. On bare land, following deforestation due to excessive pressure from humans and
Conferencias
46
plenarias
cattle, short periods of intense rainfall induced erosion and the coupling of slopes and channels, while periods of
intense drought or low rainfall induced the decoupling of slope and channel processes (Astrade et al., in press).
Rivers were a severe constraint for riparian landowners, as well as for roads and bridges because of alternating
phases of incision and aggradation.
The history of river training to pace these kinds of situations is quite ancient. Embankments were built before the
th th
17 century along many rivers, such as the Rhne. Large rivers were trained during the 19 century for the sake of
navigation and the protection of adjacent land. In the 1950s and 60s, a systematic State policy concerning all types
of rivers was promoted and implemented. This was based on a sharp technical knowledge in applied hydraulics
developed by engineers. The key words of the time were: recalibration of channels, channelization, gravel
harvesting, rip rap dykes and bank revetments. It is evident that the French Corps of civil engineers, in a context of
easy funding, could invest money to satisfy the farm lobby and turn a blind eye to gravel harvesters. Rivers were
considered both as a threat and as a resource (a cheap source of gravel for construction and roads), not as an
ecosystem to be preserved. The State based its actions on the widely inherited culture of river control for protecting
agricultural land against flooding and erosion. This provided the consensus required for development.
2. The field laboratory for understanding the detrimental impacts of bad river training: the Allier River, Loire basin
(1978-1984)
The recognition of the vertical dimension in river management was recognized through direct experience. If the
question of river incision appeared early on the Italian agenda, it is due to the excessive recourse to alluvial gravel
for building the modern network of motorways in the P river plain. There is no doubt that in France, the founding
event was the collapse of the Tours bridge on the Loire River in 1978. This was due to sand dredging upstream and
downstream to such a point that the foundations were undermined. In addition, a sediment deficit along many
rivers induced the detrimental impact of lateral erosion and loss of land.
The first paper to have been published in France on this question, as far as the knowledge of the present author
goes, was written by the environmentalist Guinard (1981). It deserves to be quoted. Involved in environmental
protection of the Allier basin, Guinard pointed out abnormal bank erosion due to embankments and channel
dredging. Guinard recognized the role of the natural zone (i.e. the zone of channel shifting) for the regulation of
floods, for the easier replenishment of groundwater reservoirs, for the volume stored, and for the better self-
purification of polluted channel water. His conclusion was that the maximum width of the zone of fluvial erosion
deserves to be preserved along the whole river length. Considering that the tributaries did not contribute to
sediment load any longer, the result was bank erosion to refill the channels altered by dredging. As a consequence,
sound management of the so-called peripheral zone of the rivers in the whole Loire basin had to involve new
practices: the removal of all the gravel pits to be resettled on river terraces, the construction of longer bridges
encompassing the entire width of the flood plain in order to allow the free migration of channels, the withdrawal of
rip rap dykes, the forbiddance of any construction in the floodable area, the respect of the biological integrity of the
varennes (the pristine sandy area built up by river migration), and the removal of wells back to the margin of the
valley floor. However, traditional agriculture could be maintained, but for cattle grazing only.
The Ministry of Environment was aware of the problems, and had already sent a bill to an experimental Basin
delegation in 1978. This committee was entrusted with the implementation of the so-called Water Development
Plans. The first one, which had just been installed in the Allier basin, generated a remarkable atlas of the Val
dAllier, which maps the conflicts concerning water resources (1981). The committee then published the Allier
Development Plan (1981-1984). This document takes note of river incision, of the lowering of groundwater levels,
and of the disruption of longitudinal continuity. It recommends halting gravel harvesting from the river channel, to
let lateral erosion do its work (the document advocates for erosion in the public interest), except in the case of
direct threats upon stakes. Ironically enough, it recommends working without the will of mastering nature.
3. Laying the foundations of a new policy in favour of river mobility (1978-1990)
In the 1970s, contestation rose against uncontrolled river development and training (or plundering, in the many
cases of intense gravel harvesting). The recognition of the increasing impacts on the environment required a better
understanding of river functioning and ecology. This was achieved through different converging ways.
Conferencias
47
plenarias
3.1. From the theory of the fluvial system to the scientific bases of the hydrosystem
In 1978, the Ministry of Environment and the Scientific Research National Council (CNRS) launched a new
programme of theoretical and applied research, two years after the law on impact studies was created. They
invested notably in the improvement of the scientific knowledge concerning the ecosystems of large rivers. Several
research teams received grants from the PIREN (Interdisciplinary Research Programme on Environment). The PIREN-
Rhne (1978-1993) was an interdisciplinary team built up in Lyon during the years when the programme of river
damming by the National Rhne C was reactivated, following the 1973 oil shortage crisis. The PIREN-Rhne team
merged two parallel approaches:
- The study of the alluvial sequences of the Upper Rhne River (Pautou, 1976), and the need of fluvial
geomorphology as a discipline useful to understanding the rejuvenation and aging of landforms and
successions (University of Grenoble).
- The study of the relationship between aquatic fauna and physico-chemical conditions in the main channel
and side arms (University Lyon 1, Laboratory of Inland Water Ecology, Dr Pr A.-L. Roux).
The result of this collaboration was the concept of functional describer, a species or set of species summarizing the
functioning of aquatic and terrestrial ecological units. The role of fluvial dynamics and pattern was considered of
prime importance for understanding the structure of the ecological mosaic. The scientific basis of the morphological
approach is rooted in the concepts developed in the 1950s and 60s by Leopold and Wolman (1957). It is founded on
the concepts of fluvial pattern, channel geometry in three dimensions, and mobility described by adjustable
parameters. The notions of meander and braided belt or tracts and an active wandering channel prepared scientists
to consider not only the river channel itself, but also the alluvial plain shaped by river mobility. Interestingly enough,
the science of rivers, emerging at the same time both in the United States and in the USSR considered river mobility
as a matter of vital importance for the economic development of their northern provinces (Alaska, Siberia), and for
strategic purpose. The crossing of braided or actively meandering belts by pipelines, roads and railways required an
important investment in fundamental and applied research during the Cold War. Also, the US Army Corps of
Engineers, historically based along the Mississippi river, was on the leading edge of the scientific research dealing
with rivers. An integrated conceptual framework has been provided by S. Schumm (1977), whose fluvial system
clearly summarizes the state of the art in the mid-1970s. It is the core knowledge upon which the PIREN-Rhne could
develop the concept of hydrosystem in three dimensions.
The three dimensions of the hydrosystem, as defined in Lyon, are transversal (across the valley floor, including all
types of side channels) ; vertical (incorporating gravel and benthic fauna below the channel) ; and longitudinal (along
the river continuum). This mosaic is composed of nested ecological units (from functional units to functional sets,
and functional sectors). Each sector is shaped by a distinct fluvial processes into a distinct pattern (Roux, 1982).
3.2. New conceptions in the training of engineers in charge of rivers
The late 1960s and the early 1970s were also years of a rude contestation of the uncontrolled development of the
so-called thirty glorious years of high economic growth which followed the war. It is not surprising that the
administration progressively formalised river training. A decree passed in 1972 introduced a procedure of inquiry
before authorizing works. In 1974, a bill imposed the consultation of associations for the protection of the
environment (notably for the protection of fish) before any training project. The most important law was
implemented in 1976. This imposed an impact study for any project beyond a certain value. It was applied in 1978.
This new trend was explicitly taken into account by a new generation of engineers. As Dinger and Fischesser (1982)
quote, from now on, a new sensitivity to the quality of the living environment implies that any development policy
in the countryside must be enrolled in the respect of the equilibrium and value of the environment. These authors
condemned integral recalibration and recommend river restoration. In 1985, the French Minister of Environment
introduced a handbook dealing with river maintenance that admitted that bank protection, cleaning out of river
beds, and dredging might still be implemented (their systematic implementation is to be voided), but stated that
brutal procedures using inappropriate mechanical devices must be abandoned for the benefit of the environment. In
1986, Cacas published a textbook used in the training of French engineers (CEMAGREF) dealing with rivers. In his
case studies, the author considered that the profession of river training was changing, that the environment was
part of any project, and that soft technology was emerging; that the modern scientific bases for river restoration are
Conferencias
48
plenarias
the complex dynamic system and the steady state. In the mid-1980s, engineers and scientists began to
understand each other, if not yet developing collaborative projects.
3.3. The Ain River, a laboratory for new concepts
Understanding the functional links between fluvial dynamics and ecological successions logically paved the way for
the recognition of the ecological importance of free shifting rivers. The Rhne, embanked for navigation during the
th
19 century, allowed the study of aging ecological successions, areas with processes of regeneration being very
scarce. In 1982, the PIREN-Rhne team committed itself to the study of the Ain river, a right-hand tributary meeting
the Rhne river 30 km upstream from Lyon. The meanders of this river were still shifting laterally and displayed a
unique set of former arms and alluvial sequences. The notions of alluvial sequences, regeneration of successions,
allogenic processes, bande de remaniement (reworking belt or reorganization belt), bande active (active belt),
reversibility and irreversibility, continuum and continuity, functional space, predictive scenarios, connectivity, were
then recognized as processes acting in the hydrosystem, and widely used (1985; Roux et al., 1986; Bravard et al.,
1986; Amoros et al., 1987; 1988). These new ideas were combined to create the hydrosystem concept born on the
Rhne.
At the same time, the CNR was completing its second post-1973 dam on the Upper Rhne, starting the third one,
and planning the Loyettes dam at the confluence of the Ain and Rhne rivers. The latter would have destroyed the
most unstable area (in terms of geomorphology), and the most diverse, of the Rhne valley. The PIREN-Rhne study
was refined and incorporated into the impact study performed by the CNR (according to French legislation, the
project manager is in charge of the impact study) in order to cope with the ecological richness of the area. This study
inaugurated a new orientation for river corridors of French rivers. This first application of the hydrosystem concept
proposed the protection of fluvial processes (Roux et al., 1986), which was close to the emerging concept of espace
de libert (freedom space). This study was quickly followed by the concept of restoration following the removal of
dykes.
In 1990 the Rhne-Mditerrane-Corse Water Agency granted a study ordered by the General Council of the Ain
Department, which needed a Development Scheme of the Ain River. This geomorphological study was the first
delineation of an espace de libert for restoring fluvial dynamics, and preserves the value of the ecological mosaic
of the river corridor. The longitudinal discontinuities of lateral river activity were determined on the basis of an index
of relative stability, using multivariate analysis applied to variables such as bank type, bank elevation, width of active
tract, importance of boulders and log jams (Bravard et al., 1990).
3.4. The role of NGOs
Environmental activism is a major component of the fight for restoring wandering rivers in Europe. In The Rhne-
Alpes Region, environmentalists were fiercely opposed to the nuclear programme of Electricit de France (EDF) in
the late 1970s. They argued that the last generation of CNR dams would be able to complement the production of
EDF nuclear plants, delivering peak energy to the high tension network. Dams were not considered as providers of
clean energy. It is not surprising that, in this context, the Loyettes development scheme was strongly contested.
Activists were able to base their argument on the recent scientific knowledge provide by the PIREN-Rhne. This was
all the more effective, since some were members of the scientific team. The purpose was to protect the processes
and the ecosystems of the lower Ain valley. The environmentalists succeeded since the dam project was cancelled
and a natural reserve was designed over the confluence of the two rivers.
If the Allier had been the first river to suggest a new policy, unfortunately this empirical proposal was not followed
by an active policy. The PIREN-Rhne concepts and the Ain River environmentalist experience did provide new tools
to the environmentalists fighting against dams in the Loire valley and for the preservation of the Loire sauvage.
The NGO Loire Vivante (Living Loire) was so closely connected to the activists and scientists of Rhne-Alpes Region
that the concepts were quickly transferred. The Loire basin, still endowed with wandering rivers, had key assets for
implementing the espaces de libert and launched several projects of this kind.
Conferencias
49
plenarias
4. The official policy for the espace de libert, and the development of the methodology (1990-2003)
The implementation in France of the espace de libert regulation was prepared in an advance meeting held in
Paris in 1991 and made legal in 1992, before being slowly put into practice. The term of freedom, considered as
too sensitive or ideological, was progressively replaced by the term mobility which is neutral, and less provocative
for riparian communities. However, both terms coexist.
4.1. Step by step toward the recognition of the freedom space
The conference entitled Protection and management of alluvial plains , held in 1990 during the Assises de
lEau (Ministry of Environment, Paris), promoted the respect of fluvial dynamics in order to preserve the richness
and diversity of biology, and the restoration of flood basins (Holleaux et al., 1990). This conference inspired the 1992
Water Law, which considers rivers as a national patrimony to be preserved. Thanks to the conjunction of the
previous initiatives, it was possible to go further, and the RMC Water Agency was firmly involved in the process
during the preparation of the Directory Scheme for the Development and Management of Waters (SDAGE) Rhne-
Mditerrane-Corse (approved in 1995). It is concerned with the principle of enhancing fluvial dynamics, including
lateral shifting of channels, mobilisation of bed load, and optimal functioning of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
The definition given to the term freedom space was the following: A space within which the lateral shifting of
fluvial channel(s) allows the mobilization of sediment as well as the optimal functioning of aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. SDAGE states that the freedom space must become obligatory. Since then, the RMC SDAGE has
inspired many proposals in the Rhne basin and elsewhere throughout France.
The six French SDAGE, corresponding to six large river basins, have given a juridical existence to the freedom space.
The RMC SDAGE definition had been forged notably by the Ain river experience, by pilot studies on the Galaure
(Pigay et al., 1997), and the Drac or the Giffre rivers. These results were summarized in different papers (Malavoi
and Souchon, 1996; Pigay et al., 1996; Malavoi et al., 2002; Malavoi et al., 2003). A distinction was made between
meandering (the Allier case) and braided rivers (the Drme river case).
A major question was that of river incision and its many detrimental aspects (Bravard et al., 1997). Allowing bank
erosion was one of the proposed solutions to restore rivers (Bravard et al., 1999). In the Loire-Allier basin, Malavoi et
al. (1997) could demonstrate that bank erosion along a 200 km section of river course of the Loire between Roanne
3 -1 -1
and Nevers, provides 385 000 m .y corresponding to an erosion of 11 ha.y . The picture is still more interesting
3
along the 220 km incised section of the Allier river (Petit, 2006), since the yearly volume reaches 1,22 millions m for
-1
an eroded area of 35 ha.y .
The new cartography proposed delineating the potential freedom space and a more acceptable (restricted) area,
according to the assets present on the valley floor and the morphological evolution of the river. The necessity of
preserving a minimal area to allow the river channel the sustainable possibility of refilling the channel with
sediment, to maintain its capacity to adjust in three dimensions to expectable changes of water and sediment
discharge in the future was underlined.
The major reasons then for protecting river mobility zones are as follows:
- The capacity of the river to adjust landforms to changing external control

- The regeneration of biotopes and the maintenance of biodiversity (vegetation, fauna)
- The rejuvenation of riparian wetlands
- The shaping of natural landscapes
- The extension of floodable areas
- The preservation of water quality thanks to the self-purification provided by riparian vegetation.
- The stability of the elevation of river bed and alluvial groundwater.
4.2. A useful technical handbook (1998)
The technical handbook prepared for the Water Agency RMC to delineate the freedom space is based on the
experience acquired in the Rhne and in the Loire-Allier basins between 1996 and 1998 (Malavoi et al., 1998). The
handbook provides standardized methods for river technicians and engineering consulting firms. It is widely used in
France.
Conferencias
50
plenarias
The steps to determine the spindle zone of mobility are the following:
- Marking the boundaries of the wider zone of mobility (EMAX), i.e. the zone shaped by fluvial processes
during the Holocene. It usually corresponds to the modern alluvium of the geological map.
- Marking the boundaries of the theoretical functional zone of mobility (EFONC). It may proceed from 1) the
empirical determination of steady equilibrium of rivers. For instance through the optimal amplitude of river
meanders (where the amplitude A and the river width W would be linked by the following relationship: A =
10 W), 2) the marking of the historical zone of lateral shifting during the last 150 years (superposition of the
active tracts during this period of time). This zone is theoretical because it does not take any kind of land
occupation into account.
- Marking the boundaries of the functional zone of mobility (EMIN) by taking land occupation into account (or
not). The main constraints are important transport infrastructures, built areas, gravel pits
4.3. The legal framework
All these legislative developments actually require the extent of the erodible corridor to be clearly defined (Pigay et
al., 2005). Current French legislation is composed of three main documents:
Type of regulation Summary of content

Decree of 24 January 2001 - Forbids any gravel extraction inside the space of river mobility
- If the area has not been delimitated a minimum space must be preserved or the
delineation of the espace de libert must be proposed by the contractor in the
application file (minimum length = 5 km in the vicinity of the gravel pit)
Decree of 13 February 2002 - Bank protection structures must not be longer than 50 m (for rivers less than 7.5m
wide) or 200m (for rivers wider than 7.5 m).
- Bank protections must not significantly reduce the space mobility of the channel
- The corridor must be defined on the basis of an historical analysis of channel mobility
Law 2003-699 (30/07/2003) - Possibility to create or restore areas of mobility upstream of urbanized areas in order
relative to the prevention of to preserve or restore the key hydrological or geomorphological characters of the
natural and technological river.
hazards and to the restoration - In these areas, any embankment susceptible to creating an obstacle to the natural
of damages shifting of a river may be forbidden
To have a legal significance, the mobility projects have to be incorporated in the SAGE at the scale of smaller basins.
Moreover, the implementation of the mobility space may help by applying EEC framework directives more
efficiently, eg. those concerning habitats, birds, water, floods, and nitrates. It may also contribute to the efficient
implementation of EEC programmes on agriculture and biodiversity (green and blue belts). A study of the potential
mobility space is usually realized before the instruction of river contracts. This type of study is subsidised by water
agencies by up to 80% of the total cost, which in the long run is cheap for the project manager and for the
communes. The specifications of the study are provided by the Water Agency of the basin. They are very demanding
and the study offices often strive to provide complete answers when the rivers are poorly documented.
5. Actual practical and conceptual questions for the implementation of the freedom space
If the legal framework is stabilized, at least for the years to come, new questions arise when the mobility space is
implemented.
5.1. Mobility or buffer zones?
According to Malavoi et al. (2003), the erodible zone devoted to refill rivers with sediment or to rejuvenate
ecological habitats and successions (even if the sediment balance is in equilibrium) should be restricted to actively
shifting rivers, i.e. to high energy rivers.
However, other envelopes or buffer zones may be preserved along stable rivers, for instance for the protection of
wetlands and zones of ecological value, the reduction of nitrate load, and the expansion of floods, the definition of
potential zones for setting up economic activities: a concerted organization of the area would be defined based on
seeking a maximum convergence of stakes (Pigay et al., 1994). The multi-purpose objective is sometimes called
the Espace de Bon Fonctionnement (EBF) or good functioning space . The EBF is a territorial concept since the
Conferencias
51
plenarias
functionalities of the river and its margins are directly related to the socio-economic uses of the flood plain. Those
superposed functionalities could provide a wider social acceptance of river mobility.
5.2. Disequilibrium in sediment balance: what space scale for coping with recently destabilized rivers?
Pigay et al. (2005) recommend applying the erodible corridor concept when the shifting process is active along a
significant zone which can be expected to remain stable for several decades, and which is insufficiently developed to
conflict strongly with other management goals. They consider that a cost-benefit analysis should be done to
evaluate the suitability of bank erosion. However, the authors point out the risk of underestimating negative
aspects: unquantified benefits may lead to the erroneous adoption of bank protection as the management
strategy. The authors restrict the discussion to senescent montane and piedmont rivers, which convey less
sediment due to changes at the watershed scale, and which require increased supply.
The Drme river is a good example of recent river disorders (bed incision due to excess gravel harvesting since the
1960s, reforestation of watershed inducing decrease of bed load input, and forest encroachment on the sides of the
braided active tract due to the lack of bed load remobilization). The practical management proposals were as
follows:
- Forbidding gravel extraction,

- Enhancing the capacity to transmit gravel from upstream through the controlled dredging of flood channels
across the gravel bars,
- Destabilizing some tributary torrents to increase the input of bed load into the river trunk.
-
These proposals were the basis of the Drme River SAGE (Development and Management Water Scheme), the first
in France (1995). The general concept underpinning this policy was to maintain the historical functioning of a
braided mountain river, the archetype of the Mediterranean landscape.
5.3. What is the significance of the reference state (EEC Water directive) in changing river landscapes
The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000) suggests restoring rivers with respect to a reference state,
which is supposed to refer to a natural or to a pre-disturbance state. This goal is widely considered as theoretical and
impossible to reach. Following Dufour and Pigay (2009), past conditions should not be used as references because
no former historical state can be justified in preference to another (i.e. a more natural one), since most systems
were already human influenced at all prior known states. The reference state moved from a static to a functioning
one, for instance to the relation between biologic elements and hydromorphologic conditions. In this respect,
riparian forests have been documented as key communities for the evaluation of hydromorphologic alterations in
large rivers (Hughes et al., 2001 ; Van Looy et al., 2008). Then it was considered that the ecosystems follow a non-
linear trajectory depending on fluctuations induced by natural and human factors throughout history. The concept
of non-linear trajectory is not recent since the adjustment of river belts was identified in the 1960s and allowed us to
define the concept of fluvial metamorphosis. For instance, the Platte river, USA, changed several times from braided
th
to a single thread channel during the 20 century in response to climate change (alternating periods of drought and
floods which characterize the Western Plains), and change of land occupation (Schumm, 1968).
The reference state for the mobility space is therefore impossible to determine when considering this type of
mobility. The climate-driven succession of different types of functional belts during the Holocene (braided and
meander belts) explains the complexity of the floodplain heritage along the Rhne river (Bravard et al., 2008). What
is a river corridor? The loss of generative processes at the reach scale along a large river induces the loss of aging
functional units and functional sets. Time relates not only the construction-destruction or aging of functional sets, it
also relates the construction-destruction of functional spaces shaped by different and successive fluvial patterns
alternating over the floodplain. The notion of times refers to the period required to reverse fluvial patterns. The
th th
Rhne river flood plain was shaped by meander pattern between the 4 century BC and the 15 century AD, before
the fluvial metamorphosis of the Little Ice Age, which did not affect the whole river length. The influx of coarse
sediment and the induced encroachment of the LIA braided belt shaped a discontinuum of patterns, with still
unaffected sinuous patterns, different types of active braided pattern and recent relict fluvial landforms shaped by
the shifting of the newly braided belt (Bravard, 2010). It is important to underline that the historical genetic
approach is useful to describe the taxonomy of land units across flood plain corridors. We propose that palaeo-
Conferencias
52
plenarias
landforms and their ecological units are inserted inside complex genetic zones able to shift from one pattern to
another during the Holocene period, and able to preserve a strong geomorphologic and biologic diversity. Protecting
palaeo-landforms pertaining to past functional spaces should be part of the environmental policy, as it is being
implemented with the new Upper Rhne National reserve.
The reference state then has a contingent significance. A brief case study will illustrate the question of the reference
state when dealing with river mobility in the Western Alps: The Drme river and its tributaries have changed from
braiding (a pattern developed during the LIA) to a modern landscape (see 5.2, this paper), mainly characterised by
decreased erosion of slopes, gravel input, and bed load fluxes. These changes have been mainly related to changes
in land use triggered by state reforestation, and by the loss of population and decrease of cattle breeding since the
th th
late 19 century. The process of fluvial metamorphosis is still going on after having reached its peak in the mid-20
century (Libault and Pgay, 2002). However recent research has proved that this history has been more complex
than previously admitted, and that a supposed continuous trend must be changed into sharp fluctuations during the
th
19 century. These mountains were fragile (marls and limestone), and were almost bare land. Instead of a
th
permanent braided river landscape during the 19 c., we have found evidence of alternated periods of
aggradation/braiding, and of contraction/incision of channels in the Bez basin draining the eastern Die mountains.
The first type of processes has been related to an efficient coupling of slopes and channels during periods when
rainfall displayed high magnitude and frequency, while the second was linked to the decoupling of slopes and
channels. Runoff was not sufficient to erode the slopes, but water discharge could transport bed load, thus shaping a
deeper and narrower channel. The timing of the final change from braiding to unique channel may be dated earlier
than the colonization of slopes by vegetation. We deduced that climate change has been more important than land
occupation in this history. So if channel behaviour could change without any influence of land cover (early and mid-
th
19 c.), then climate change and almost complete colonization by forests combined to produce a complete and long
term metamorphosis. This case study shows that reference state is impossible to determine in this type of
mountain. Tests undertaken to trigger erosion on restricted slope zones have been unable to deliver enough
sediment to compensate for a huge sediment deficit.
6. Some ongoing implementations and projects of restoration
6.1. The French river whose mobility is an official or proposed policy
Figure 1. The main potentially mobile French rivers, with ongoing actions. By courtesy of the Fdration des Conservatoires
d'espaces naturels, 2010
Conferencias
53
plenarias
The Federation of the Conservatoires des Espaces Naturels (FCEN) is involved in river mobility notably through the
Allier project. Moreover the FCEN and the Plan Loire Grandeur Nature have subsidised a study for launching a
European network of mobility space (Wenger, 2010), and made a list of the ongoing initiatives on French territory
(figure 1).
6.2. Selection of case studies with main objectives
6.2.1. Maintaining biodiversity: the Allier River and the Doubs-Loue confluence. The Conservatory of Auvergne Spaces
and Landscapes, regional bird life organisations, and the Conservatory of Allier Sites manage an area in which 170 ha
have been bought so far along an 8 km reach, or in which land is rented to land owners so that nature or meadows
take the place of intensive agriculture. Erosion of banks is a natural process which can continue and provide for a
buffer zone between the river and the cultivated lands (Wenger, 2010). Another example is the Doubs-Loup
confluence which has preserved most of its ecological interest in a zone where wandering is still active. Since 2006,
the removal of dykes has begun to restore and increase mobility as much as possible (Ministry of Environment and
Sane-Doubs Public Institution).
6.2.2. Restoring sediment balance and maintaining biodiversity: the Ain river. The studies performed for the lower
Ain River SAGE have underlined the importance of river incision downstream from a chain of dams. The river exports
40 000 m3.y-1 to the Rhne while the upstream input has been cancelled by the dams. The deficit is important.
Eighty percent of the inputs to the river take their origin from bank erosion. It is the reason why the Ain SAGE
recommends a mobility space to control river incision, and tests the refilling of the river with gravel extracted from
the river margins, as well as the reworking of gravel bars thanks to the Life Nature programme.
6.2.3. Restoring biodiversity, controlling floods, and maintaining water quality for downstream cities (Nancy): the
Wild Moselle river . A 15 km reach of this river has been classified as a priority wetland of the Rhine-Meuse
SDAGE (1996), a Natura 2000 site (1998), and a regional Natural Reserve (2006). The mobility zone was delimitated
in 1999 and refined in 2009 to prevent any gravel harvesting. Restoring the flood way and mobility in order to
reduce the detrimental effects of large floods is considered as an alternative target in the Aude basin, despite
contested recent decisions (Arnaud-Fassetta and Faure, 2008).
6.2.4. Reducing the cost of bank protection and complying with official directives (SDAGE, EEC): the Adour River. In
2005, it was decided to adopt a new river policy along a 55 km reach of the Adour despite the presence of intensive
production of irrigated corn. The project was approved by the state in 2008, and its implementation was begun in
2009. The protection of banks against lateral erosion is no longer permitted inside the mobility space where land has
been purchased.
6.3. The Rhne river case: widening the impacted by-passed sections
The initial motivation of this project (2003) was to reduce the increasing level of floods in the river reaches by-
passed by the CNR hydroelectric canals. This detrimental trend was due to the deposition of sand and silt on the
former active tract, to the result of ancient embankments (1860-1940). The flood way was constricting and had to be
restored. Also the smoothing of the alluvial plain, the offsetting and aging of functional sets, as well as the loss of
any regeneration had to be taken into account, in order to restore landforms and habitats for pioneering species
(Salix), and Populus. Since 2006, this project has been part of the Rhne Master Plan and it complements the 10
Years Restoration Plan launched in 1997, which includes the dredging of side arms (Bravard, 2006), the increase of
minimum discharge in the old Rhne channel, and positive measures for migratory species. After completion of
the scientific study of feasibility (Montlimar reach), the Rhne Master Plan supported a study to implement a
Directory scheme (2009-2012). The first experimental works have been successfully performed in the Donzre by-
passed reach (Bravard et al., 2008; Collilieux et al., 2011) and are expected to extend to other by-passed reaches
(see part 7, this paper).
7. Discussion: emerging limits and constraints to the implementation of river mobility policies
Is river mobility policy, which is really unstable, socially acceptable? We list below the main questions arising from
these policies:
Conferencias
54
plenarias
- The question of security is of prime importance for riparian communities which have adapted to changed
conditions. Reloading incised channels induces the construction of gravel bars, which are supposed to
increase the level of floods and increase vulnerability of riparian communities. Large floods may put into
question the feasibility of mobility space practices. For instance, the policy applied in the Drme river valley
was conceived and applied in the 1990s. When severe floods occurred in the early 2000s (2002 in
particular), the relevance of the SAGE policy was questioned by politicians and a segment of the population.
Some correcting interventions were granted, which contradicted official policy.
- The question of the cultural value of river banks is quickly emerging. River shifting may affect testimony of
past occupation along channels, such as productive structures (mills, fisheries), crossing devices (fords,
ancient bridges), even dykes, which are considered as a patrimony to be protected. In the Rhne valley,
low longitudinal dykes built in the Page-de-Roussillon by-passed reach in the 1920s destroyed the
landscape according to a novel of the time; their partial removal is considered as a loss of cultural value by a
local association. The question of the social acceptance is currently widely admitted and deserves
consideration at the territorial scale. It is then necessary to analyse the river conditions, to explain and to
convince the actors and stake holders to guarantee the best chances of success (Bourdin et al., in press).
- Along the Rhne river, the removal of dykes is sometimes considered as a threat for habitats (former arms,
alluvial forests), and for the associated fauna and flora. It must be proved that the benefits of lateral
erosion and rejuvenation of ecological units will surpass the destruction of the existing patrimony. Clearly
restoration of fluvial dynamics may conflict with a more static view of ecology. On the upper Rhne, the
removal of a dyke, although accepted by the communities in the early 1990s, was cancelled because some
scientists preferred the conservation of oligotrophic habitats (related to groundwater) to the restoration of
braiding which would have introduced eutrophic water into the river margins. The present policy of dyke
removal and lateral erosion may impact the scientific survey of the restoration of dead arms; this is why this
policy is not fully accepted even among the scientists themselves.
- Releasing polluted sediment through lateral erosion is of increasing importance in heavily industrialized
countries and regions. High levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) were found in the Rhne river in 2007,
to the point that fishing was forbidden. The thresholds of admissible release into the aquatic environment
are progressively lowered and may prevent controlled bank erosion. In the basin of the Rhne, they are
-3
fixed at 60 microgrammes.m , instead of 680 in the current operations of dredging in the rest of France. In
-3
fact, they should be lowered to 20 microgrammes.m , a value which should preserve a low content of PCB
in fish. This low value has required the improvement of detection methods. Also it is necessary to perform
3
one analysis per 10,000 m of sediment, [which is costly at the scale of a large river (the preliminary studies
-2 -3
for the next operation in the Rhne river have a cost of about 35 euros.m or 15 euros.m . Other
substances such as pesticides, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons are analyzed.
- At last, an important question to consider is what is the real policy at the local level once the studies have
been realized. Many project managers call mobility space a floodable area, or potential lateral wetlands.
This is especially true when they do not wish any mobility (when the land owners are hostile to erosion of
their fields), or when the river is not naturally mobile (which is logical). In some valleys, where landowners
are powerful, even the prefecture may be hostile to lateral erosion and to the removal of bank protections
(case of the Allier River). Also ordering such kinds of studies, the Syndicats de rivires try to escape the
designation degraded river that the Ministry of Environment is considering because it could be
detrimental to their image. And lastly, this type of study simply provides information without any
recommendation for a sound implementation by river technicians in the field.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Laurent Bourdin, Guy Collilieux, Pascal Danneels, Jean-Nol Gautier, Stphanie Hudin, Christophe
Moiroud, Charles Monneret, Clment Moret-Bailly, Jean-Ren Malavoi, for fruitful discussions. He is also grateful to
Hennie Jacobs-Mann who revised the English version of the paper.
References
Agence de leau RMC (1995) Schma Directeur dAmnagement et de Gestion des eaux. Lyon.
Conferencias
55
plenarias
Arnaud-Fassetta G. ; Fort M. (2008) The integration of functional space in fluvial geomorphology, as a tool for
mitigating flood risk. Application to the left-bank tributaries of the Aude river, Mediterranean France. 4th ECRR
Conference on River Restoration, Italy, Venice, S. Servolo Island, 16-21 June 2008.
Bourdin L. ; Stroffek S. ; Bouni C. ; Narcy J.-B. ; Dufour M. (in press) Restaurer et prserver les cours deau.
Restauration hydromorphologique et territoires. Guide technique SDAGE, Agence Rhne-Mditerrane and Corse,
108 p., Lyon.
Bravard J.-P. (2006) La lne, lamnageur, lcologue et le gographe, 40 ans de gestion du Rhne. Coll. Ass. de
Gogr. Franais : Le gographe, lcologue et la prservation de la nature, janvier, 368-80.
Bravard J.-P. (2010) Discontinuities in braided patterns: Rhne River from Geneva to the Camargue delta before river
training. Geomorphology, 117, 217-33.
Bravard J.P. ; Amoros C. ; Pautou G. (1986) Impact of civil engineering works on the successions of communities in a
fluvial system. A methodological and predictive approach to a section of the Upper Rhne River, France. Oikos, 47,
92-111.
Bravard J.-P. ; Amoros C. ; Pautou G. ; Bornette G. ; Bournaud M. ; Creuz des Chatelliers M. ; Gibert J. ; Peiry J.-L. ;
Perrin J.-F. ; Tachet H. (1997) River incision in Southeastern France : morphological phenomena and ecological
impacts. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 13, 75-90.
Bravard J.-P. ; Collilieux G. ; Desmet M. ; Fruchart F. ; Motchalova O. ; Val N. (2008) Widening by-passed reaches of
the Rhone river following sediment deposition, France. Interdisciplinary studies and procedures, IVth ECRR
Conference on River Restoration, S. Servolo Island, 16-21 June, 953-964, Venice.
Bravard J.-P. ; Franc O. ; Landon N. ; Large J.-L. ; Peiry J.-L. (1990) La basse valle de lAin : tude gomorphologique.
PIREN-CNRS, Agence de lEau RMC, 113 p.
Bravard J.-P. ; Landon N. ; Pigay H. ; Peiry J.-L. (1999) Principles of engineering geomorphology for managing
channel erosion and bedload transport, examples from French rivers. Geomorphology, 31, 1-4, 291-311.
Bravard J.-P. ; Malavoi J.-R. (2010) Les carrires et lespace de libert des cours deau. In J.-C. Lefeuvre (dir.) :
Carrires, biodiversit et fonctionnement des hydrosystmes, Actes du colloque organis par lUNESCO en 2000,
Buchet-Chastel Ecologie, 97-107, Paris.
Bravard J.-P. ; Provansal M. ; Arnaud-Fassetta G. ; Chabbert S. ; Gaydou P. ; Dufour S., Richard F. ; Valleteau S. ;
Melun G. ; Passy P. (2008) Un atlas du palo-environnement de la plaine alluviale du Rhne de la frontire suisse la
mer, Collection EDYTEM, 6, Cahiers de Paloenvironnement, 101-116, Chambry.
Cacas J. ; Degoutte G. ; Dutartre A. ; Vuillot M. (1986) Amnagement de rivires. Trois tudes de cas. Ministres de
lEnvironnement et de lAgriculture, 68 p., Paris.
Collilieux G. ; Bravard J.-P. ; Moiroud C. ; Doutriaux E. (2011) The use of historical maps in the management of the
margins of the Rhne River, France. The pilot case of a restoration project, Montlimar by-passed reach. In :
Federzoni L. ; Masotti L. (eds.) : Il Paesaggio dei Technici. Attualit delle cartografia historica per il governo delle
acque. Coll. Bologna, Cremona 2008, Ed. Marsilio, 191-203, Venezia.
Dinger F. ; Fischesser B. (1982) LEtude dimpact des amnagements de cours deau. CEMAGREF, Saint-Martin
dHres.
Direction Rgionale de lEquipement Auvergne (1981-84) Schma damnagement des eaux de lAllier. Mission
dlgue de bassin Loire-Bretagne, 101 p., Clermont-Ferrand.
Arnaud-Fassetta G. ; Fort M. (2008) The integration of functional space in fluvial geomorphology, as a tool for
mitigating flood risk. application to the left-bank tributaries of the Aude river, Mediterranean France. 4th ECRR
Conference on River Restoration, S. Servolo Island, 16-21 June 2008, Venice.
Guinard C. (1981) Protection des zones humides des cours deau berges friables. LAllier - la Loire Extension
tous les cours deau similaires. In colloque: Lcologie et lamnagement de la Loire, Fdration Rgionale des
Associations de Protection de lEnvironnement du Centre et Ministre de lEnvironnement Mission Etudes et
Recherche, Tours, Nov. 1980, 343-69.
Holleaux A.; Tendron G.; Leynaud G.; Lethier H. (1990) Rapport du groupe de travail protection des milieux
naturels. Assises de leau, Ministre dlgu lenvironnement et la prevention des risques technologiques et
naturels majeurs, 41 p., Paris.
Conferencias
56
plenarias
Hughes F.M.R. ; Adams W.M. ; Muller E. ; Nilsson C. ; Richards K.S. ; Barsoum N. ; Decamps H. ; Foussadier R. ; Girel
J. ; Guilloy H. ; Hayes A. ; Johansson M. ; Lambs L, Pautou G. ; Peiry J.-L. ; Perrow M. ; Vautier F. ; Winfield M. (2001)
The importance of different scale processes for the restoration of floodplain woodlands. Regulated Rivers: Research
and Management 17:325345
Leopold L.B. ; Wolman MG. (1957) River Channel Patterns: Braided, Meandering, and Straight, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Libault, F. ; Pigay, H. (2002) Causes of 20th century channel narrowing in mountain and piedmont rivers of
Southeastern France. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 27(4): 425-444.
Malavoi J.R. ; Bravard J.P. ; Pigay H. ; Hrouin E. ; Ramez E. (1998) Guide technique SDAGE n2 : Mthode de
dlimitation de lespace de libert des cours deau. Agence de leau RMC, 42 p., Lyon.
Malavoi ; Epteau-Horizons (1997) Etude gomorphologique et hydraulique de la Loire entre Villerest et le Bec
d'Allier. DIREN de Bassin Loire-Bretagne, Orlans.
Malavoi J.-R. ; Gautier J.-N. ; Bravard J.-P. (2002) Free space for rivers : a geodynamical concept for sustainable
management of water courses. Proceedings of the International conference on fluvial hydraulics Riverflow 2002,
Balkema Publishers, vol. 1, 507-514, Leiden.
Malavoi J.-R. ; Gautier J.-N. ; Bravard J.-P. (2003) Lespace de libert des cours deau : un concept godynamique
pour une gestion durable des cours deau. Les Etudes Ligriennes, 6, 5-11.
Malavoi J.R. ; Souchon Y. (1996) Dynamique fluviale et dynamique cologique, La Houille Blanche, 176, 6/7, 98-107.
Ministre de lEnvironnement (1985) LEntretien des cours deau. Cahiers Techniques de la Prvention des
Pollutions, n 14, Paris.
Petit S. (2006) Reconstitution de la dynamique du paysage alluvial de trois secteurs fonctionnels de la rivire allier
(1946-2000), Massif central, France . Gographie physique et Quaternaire, vol. 60, n 3, 271-287.
Pigay H. ; Landon N. ; Barge O. ; Citterio A. (1996) Contribution la dfinition dune mthode de dtermination de
lespace de libert. CNRS, Agence de leau RMC, rapport, Lyon.
Pigay H. ; Barge O. ; Bravard J.-P. ; Landon N. ; Peiry J.-L. (1996) Comment dlimiter l'espace de libert des rivires?
Congrs de la Socit Hydrotechnique de France, 24mes Journes de l'Hydraulique: L'eau, l'homme et la nature, 18-
19-20 sept., 275-284, Paris.
Pigay H. ; Dupont P. ; Bravard J.-P. (1994) The French water law : a new approach for alluvial hydrosystem
management, French alpine and perialpine stream examples. In : Marston R.A.; Hasfurther V.R. : Effects on Man
Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems, American Water Resources Association, Annual Summer Symposium, 26-
29 Juin, 371-383, Jackson Hole.
Pigay H. ; Cuaz M., Javelle E. ; Mandier P. (1997) A new approach to bank erosion management: the case of the
Galaure river, France. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13: 433448.
Pigay, H. ; Darby, S.A. ; Mosselmann, E. ; Surian, N. (2005) The erodible corridor concept: applicability and
limitations for river management. River Research and Applications 21, 773-89.
Pigay H. ; Barge O. ; Landon N. (1996) Streamway concept applied to river mobility/human use conflict
management. In First International Conference on New/Emerging Concepts for Rivers. Proceedings Rivertech 96.
International Water Resources Association, 681-688, Chicago.
Roche P.-A. ; Billen G. ; Bravard J.-P. ; Dcamps H. ; Pennequin D. ; Vindimian E. ; Wasson J.-G. (2004) Les enjeux de
recherche lis la directive-cadre europenne sur leau. Colloque sur lEau de lAcadmie des sciences, Comptes-
rendus de lAcadmie des Sciences, 337, 1-2, 243-67.
Schama S. (1995) Landscapes and Memory. Vintage, London.
Schumm S. (1969) Speculations concerning palaeohydrologic controls of terrestrial sedimentation, Geological Society
of America Bulletin, November 1968, v. 79, no. 11, 1573-1588.
Schumm S. (1977) The Fluvial System. Wiley Interscience, 338 p., New-York.
Van Looy K. ; Meire P. ; Jean-Gabriel Wasson J.-G. (2008) Including Riparian Vegetation in the Definition of
Morphologic Reference Conditions for Large Rivers: A Case Study for Europes Western Plains. Environmental
Conferencias
57
plenarias
Management 41:625639
Wenger E. (2010) Projet de rseau europen despaces de libert des cours deau. Conservatoires despaces
naturels, Plan Loire Grandeur Nature, FEDER, 23 p.
Conferencias
58
plenarias
MITIGATION, COMPENSATION AND RESTORATION OF HABITATS

IN CONSTRUCTED RIVERS NATURE-LIKE BYPASS CHANNELS
Jukka Jormola and Auri Sarvilinna
Finnish Environment Institute SYKE
Abstract
Hydropower generation is one of the main reasons for construction of rivers, preventing migration of fish. Hatching and stocking
of fish has proved to be unefficient for salmon and trout stocks in the Baltic Sea area, compared with natural reproduction. The
fish pass strategy in Finland is a sign of a shift in attitutudes to regain connectivity in the constructed rivers.
Measures to migtigate impacts for migration, spawning and reproduction are required. Nature-like bypass channels can enable
migration but they can also contain reproduction areas. Experience of habitat construction in Canada can be applied in bypass
planning. Flow and habitat modeling can be used to evaluate effect of discharges to habitats.
Requirements for fish passes and habitat compensation are needed in the premitting of powerplants. In the labeling of water
power as renewable and environmentally sound energy, fish passes, reproduction habitats, environmental minimum flows and
sediment transport should be normal demands.
Key words: Hydropower, migration, reproduction, mitigation, bypass
1. Change in the management of migrative fish in the North
Connectivity and and free passage of fauna and sediment and natural hydrological regimes are a sign of good
ecological state of watercourses. Preserving and re-gaining connectivity according to EU Water Framework Directive,
is often conflicting with the use of water as renewable energy. Waterpower generation is promoted by the
renewable Energy Directive, as the possibility for regulation according to electricity consumption is considered to be
an advanatage of hydropower.
In Finland most big rivers have been harnissed for hydropower use even if many of used to be famous as fishing
rivers of salmon and sea trout before the second world war. Until now, the main method for mitigating the impacts
to fisheries in Finland has been fish farming and stocking. This was supposed to compensate the catch for fishing in
the Baltic sea. Genetic investigations show, however, that the stockings are not efficient anymore (FGFRI 2007).
Natural juveniles have proved to be 2,8-3,3 times more viable than stocked ones, according to survival rates
(Romakkaniemi A. 2008). The few free rivers, like Tornionjoki River at the border of Finland and Sweden, produce
major salmon catch in the Baltic Sea, dispite of the abundance of the stockings, demanded in powerplant permits.
Figure 1.The few free salmon rivers (blue) produce most of the salmon catch in the
Baltic Sea, the rest are seen as potential (yellow) or as rivers with not safe
numbers of salmon (red)
Coalition Clean Baltic
Conferencias
59
plenarias
Figure 2. In the national fish pass strategy of Finland rivers with most need for fish passes were named
Ministry of Agriculture
2. Measures to re-gain connectivity and lively fish stocks
2.1 Restoration of rapids
The best option for gaining connectivity is to remove weirs and other obstacles. Thus old rapids, which were
permanently under dammed water, can be restored, taking in account juvenile production, fishing and streamwater
landscape. If there is a justified reason to maintain the dammed water level, like recreation or cultural landscape,
dams are replaced by a nature-like submerged weirs, which enable migration of fish.
Figure 3. The dam of Koskenkylnjoki River was partly removed and the old rapid was restored for sea trouts
Conferencias
60
plenarias
2.2. Mitigation of impacts of existing or new dams by fish passes
If a dam cannot be removed because of hydro power or other use, different options for fish passes must be
evaluated for mitigation of the impacts. In lowland circumstances damming of a river by one or several powerplants
can permanently change long rapid sections to lacustrine habitats. By technical fish passes migration of fish species
can be made possible, but fish which need streaming water may not find much for their reproduction between
several obstacles. By fish passes normally only one aspect of mitigation, connectivity and migration upstream is
considered.
Nature-like bypass channels are constructed of stone material and they can resemble natural brooks or rapids. They
can serve for a more comprehensive mitigation than technical fish passes. Nature- like bypasses have proved to be
suitable for several, also weak swimming fish species and invertebrates crawling in the bottom. In Finland a crayfish
and a family of mallards were caught in a monitoring by a trap (Lempinen 1999). Nature-like bypasses serve as
ecological corridors for waterbirds and mammals, which like to move along the banks of bypasses. Nature-like
bypasses are good examples of green infrastructure, which is promoted in Europe for connecting riverine and other
habitats.
Figure 4.The bypass in Siuntionjoki river has several migration routes and a lot of habitats
Nature-like fish passes are normally preferred in many European conturies as fish pass solution if sufficient space is
provided. Fishpasses of bypass type can afford possibilities also to create new spawning and reproduction habitats
for fish and other fauna.
Like with all fish pass types, the first thing to be considered with bypasses is the right location of the downstream
entrance near the turbines, to ensure attraction into the bypass. If a lot of water is available as mimum ecological
flow, it is advisable to design the bypass for big discharges to ensure attraction. The bypass in Biron, France is
designed for 5 m3/s and it has proved to have perfomance rate of 100 % for salmon in telemetry monitoring
(Larinier 2001).
Conferencias
61
plenarias
Figure 5. The bypass at Biron, Gave de Pau, France is efficient with good entrance location and 5m3/s discharge
New fish pass projects at River Rhine and its tributaries are based on nature-like solutions, combined with technical
sections and large areas of new reproduction habitats. Probably the largest fish pass construction in Europe in
Rheinfelden will be opened in 2011. The fish pass system consist of a technical fish pass near the new powerplant
and nature-like fish pass and a 800 m long reproduction channel on the other bank.
Figure 6. The Ruppoldingen fish pass in Switzerland has a migration route near the powerplant and another arm for habitats and
serves as model for the Rheinfelden bypass at the Rhine
Conferencias
62
plenarias
ICONGRESOIBRICODERESTAURACINFLUVIAL RESTAURAROS.LEN,1820 DEOCTUBRE2011

2.3Compensationoflostreproductionhabitats
2.3.1.Mitigationandcompensation
The Water Framework Directive requires in the heavily modified water bodies active measures: "...once all
mitigationmeasureshavebeentakentoensurethebestapproximationtoecologicalcontinuuminparticularwith
respect to migration of fauna and appropriate spawning and breeding grounds". This can be understood so that
there has to be possibilities for reproduction in advance but also so that all adequate measures which help
reproductionshouldberequired.Longbypasseswithspawninggravelandjuvenilerearinghabitatsrepresentsuch
measures.Iftheyaredesignedproperlyandconstructedinextensivemannerwithenoughlengthandarea,theynot
onlymitigatebutinsomeextentalsocompensatethelossoforiginalhabitatsinheavilyconstructedrivers.
In the planning of the habitats,clear goals of habitat types fordifferent streamwater species andtheir life stages
must be considered. Environmental flows, taking in account migration and reproduction should required in
powerplantpermits.Existingspawningandjuvenilebiotopesinthemainriversandtributariesmustberestored.The
possibilitiesofbypasschannelscanbeseenasadditional,butperhapscrucialmeasuresinexistingheavilymodified
riversections.
2.3.2Spawningandrearingchannels
InCanadaspawningandrearingchannelshavebeenconstuctedtoincreasereproductionofPacificsalmonspecies
fromthe1950'es,already.Thechannelsarenormallynotconstructedformigrationasfishpassesbutonlyasside
channelsofbigrivers,toattractsalmontospawninmaintainedconditionsinanaturalway.Thedischargesofthe
channelsaresimilartothefishpasses,mostlybetween1and2m3/s(LeungY.W.1994).Thechannelsareoften
severalkilometreslong,makingdenselywindingbendsinrivervalleys.
Theincubatingrateofsalmoneggsinthespawningchannelshasbeen48foldcomparedtothemainriver(RoosJ.F
1991).Thepurposehasbeentokeepthelevelsofmigratingsalmonintheriversystemanditstributariesashighas
possible.ThechannelshavebeenconstructedbythepowercompanyBritishColumbiaHydroasvoluntaryworkfor
Pacificsalmon.
Figure7.WeaverCreekspawningchannelforSockeyesalmon
Conferencias
63
plenarias
Rearing channels are modified or constructed for salmon species like Chinook or King salmon, which spend the first
2-3 years in juvenile habitats in the river like Atlantic salmon and Brown trout. The latest versions are often called
constructed side channels. Circumstances for protection and nourishment are made diverse by woody debris and
ponds for insect reproduction.
The experience of the channels for juvenile production can be used as example to be applied for European
circumstances and species. There is at least one example in Scotland, Dunglass spawning channel, in Conon river
(Janes, M.2005). It has been constructed especially for reproduction of Atlantic salmon, not as fish pass. The results
have shown high densities of salmon juveniles, 160 individuals of fry and 70 individuals of parr per 100 m2. (Mc
Kelvey, S. 2008).
Figure 8. Seton River rearing channel for Chinook salmon
3. Flow and habitat modeling
One possibility for habitat planning and evaluation is to use flow and habitat modeling. Modeling can give basis for
decision making of different fish pass and restoration options. Until now modeling is normally used in the planning
of river restoration measures but it can also be used in the planning of new bypass channels to be constructed.
Modeling was used in a general planning phase of fish passes for Oulujoki river in Finland (Jrvenp, L. et al 2010).
The flow modeling gave an overview of velocities and water depths in different gradients and with different
dicharges. By habitat modeling suitability of the bypasses for spawning and rearing of juveniles of different ages
could be evaluated. The data was based on researh of natural small rivers with Atlantic salmon and Brown trout
reproduction. Because energy loss was a concern for the power company, the effects of different discharges to the
the reproduction habitats were compared. Even small discharge 0,3 m3/s, planned for winter outside the main
migration period, gave good habitats in the model. The result of the modeling was that most of the length of
bypasses can be designed to become best quality habitat for different functions: spawning, rearing and
overwintering (Tammela et al. 2008)
Conferencias
64
plenarias
ICONGRESOIBRICODERESTAURACINFLUVIAL RESTAURAROS.LEN,1820 DEOCTUBRE2011

Figure9.ExampleofthehabitatmodelingoftheplannedMonttabypassatOulujokiRiver,showingthebestsalmonspawning
areas(green)bydischarge1m3/s
SimoTammela
TheresultsofthemodelingforOulujokiRiverhavelatelybeenutilizedinthebypassplanningofMustionjokiRiverin
Finland.HabitatsforAtlanticsalmonandfreshwaterpearlmusselwillbeincorporatedintheconstructionofnew
bypass channels to four power plants. In the first bypass plan the channel is designed to be a new interesting
elementinavaluableculturalenvironment.
4.Conclusions
Naturalreproductionofmigrativefishhasprovedtobethebestmeansofpreservingvaluablestocksandenabling
fish catch in the Baltic Sea. Connectivity scemes are needed in rivers with existing or planned hydro power use.
Restorationofrapidsbyremovingostaclesisthebestoption,butmuchcanbedoneforreproductionalsoinrivers
withpowerplants.Theresearchofnaturelikebypassesasnewcompensativereproductionhabitatsisstilllimitedin
Europe. Research isurgently needed, tobe able to fully set goals forheavily modified rivers withall potential for
migrative fish. Fish passes and reproduction habitats should be required in the labeling of hydropower as green
energyandcompensationoflosthabitatsshouldbeincludedinnewhydropowerpermits.
References
FGFRI(2007).Currentissuesinstocking.FinnishGameandFisheriesResearchInstitute.Helsinki
http://www.rktl.fi/english/fish/fish_stocking_research/current_issues_in.html
Janes, M. (2005). A new spawning channel for river Conon, Scotland. River restoration news 21, July 2005.
http://therrc.co.uk/newsletters/rrn21.pdf
Jrvenp, L., Jormola, J. & Tammela, S.(2010). Luonnonmukaisten ohitusuomien suunnittelu rakennetussa
vesistss Lohen palauttaminen Oulujokeen. (Planning of naturelike bypasses in a constructed river bringing
back salmon to River Oulujoki. In Finnish with English summary and figure texts). The Finnish Environment SY
5/2010.
www.ymparisto.fi/syke/publications
Lempinen, P.(1999). Sipoonjoen ja Mustijoen ja kalatietutkimus 1998. (Fishpass research at Rivers Sipoonjoki and
Musionjoki1998,inFinnish).Publication54oftheUusimaaRegionalEnvironmentCentre.Helsinki.
Larinier, M. (2001) Environmental issues, dams and fish migration. In: Marmulla, G.(ed.)(2001). Dams, fish and
fisheries.FAOfisheriestechnicalpaper419.Rome.
Conferencias
65
plenarias
Leung, Y.-W. (1994) Spawning channels in Pacific Canada. 1994 River Front Fish habitat and stream improvement
forum. Tokyo
McKelvey, S.(2008). Electro fishing results from the Dunglass spawning channel. Unpublished.
Romakkaniemi, A.(2008). Conservation of Atlantic salmon by supplementary stocking
of juvenile fish. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biosciences, University of Helsinki
and Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute
http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/39716/conserva.pdf?sequence=1
Roos, J.F. (1991) Restoring Fraser River salmon. The Pacific Salmon Comission. Vancouver.
Tammela,S., Jormola, J., Jrvenp, L. & Klove, B. (2008). 2D water flow and habitat modeling of a nature-like bypass
at Montta water power plant at Oulujoki. In: Proceedings of the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration, Venice-
Italy, San Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008.
www.ecrr.org/archive/conf08/pdf/proceed_all.pdf
Conferencias
66
plenarias
FLOOD PREVENTION AND RIVER RESTORATION:

ROOM FOR THE RIVER
Bart Fokkens
Presidente de European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR)
Abstract
In the last 20 years Europe suffered from many floods. Floods can have severe social, economic and environmental damage. The
combined implementation of the Water Framework and Flood Directive creates good opportunities for better flood prevention
by ecological river restoration. This asks for an integrated river basin management planning. In the Netherlands this is done with
planning and implementation of the Room for the River programme in the Lower Rhine river. And in Romania by the Lower
Danube River Green Corridor programme. Climate change is in both cases the policy driver for these new trends. Capacity
building should help to develop more holistic and integrated forms of restoration. River restoration networks with new tools and
skills will enable the restoration for future generations. While the European national governments should ensure their
international credibility by applying an ecosystem approach to manage their rivers on a basin scale.
Keywords: Flood prevention, ecological river restoration, capacity building, integrated river basin management, river restoration
networks
1. Introduction
In the last 20years Europe suffered far over 100 major damaging floods, including the catastrophic floods along the
Danube and Elbe rivers in summer 2002. Severe floods in 2005 further reinforced the need for concerted action.
Since 1998 floods in Europe have caused some 700 deaths, the displacement of about half a million people and at
least 25 billion in insured economic losses.
Figure 1. Flooding of the Lower Danube in 2006. Photo. Danube Delta National Institute / Romanian Waters, Romania
Catastrophic floods endanger lives and cause human tragedy as well as heavy economic losses. Floods are natural
phenomena but through the right measures we can reduce their likelihood and limit their impacts. In addition to
economic and social damage, floods can have severe environmental consequences, for example when installations
holding large quantities of toxic chemicals are inundated or wetland areas destroyed. The coming decades are likely
to see a higher flood risk in Europe and greater economic damage.
Conferencias
67
plenarias
2. Flood risk management
In addition to the WFD, the Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (EC,
2007c) requires that EU Member States assess risk of flooding for all water courses and coast lines, map the extent
of floods and assets and humans at risk in these areas, and establish Flood Risk Management Plans by 2015. The
reestablishment of floodplains is supposed to be a central element in future flood risk management and in many
Member States has been taken up already in the first round of River Basin Management Planning under the WFD.
Figure 2. High water level in the river Rhine, the Netherlands. Photo. Room for the river programme, the Netherlands.
www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl
The Flood Directive entered into force on 26 November 2007. This Directive now requires Member States to assess if
all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in
these areas and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. With this Directive also
reinforces the rights of the public to access this information and to have a say in the planning process. The Directive
requires Member States to first carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011 to identify the river basins and
associated coastal areas at risk of flooding. For such zones they would then need to draw up flood risk maps by 2013
and establish flood risk management plans focused on prevention, protection and preparedness by 2015.
The Directive shall be carried out in coordination with the Water Framework Directive, notably by flood risk
management plans and river basin management plans being coordinated, and through coordination of the public
participation procedures in the preparation of these plans. All assessments, maps and plans prepared shall be made
available to the public.
Member States shall furthermore coordinate their flood risk management practices in shared river basins, including
with third counties, and shall in solidarity not undertake measures that would increase the flood risk in neighboring
countries. Member States shall in take into consideration long term developments, including climate change, as well
as sustainable land use practices in the flood risk management cycle addressed in this Directive.
Conferencias
68
plenarias
3. Ecological Restoration
There are a number guiding principles for the ecological restoration of rivers (Coops at al., 2006). First of all the
restoration of the dynamical characteristics of the river system. The restoration of the hydro-morphological
processes is an important measures to achieve this. The adapting of human needs to the natural river system is
another important factor. Throughout ages, modifications in rivers and floodplains have been initiated by man to
adapt them to human needs. Often these modifications focused on improving one function of the river, as a result of
which the potential of the river to support other functions deteriorated. Most of all the ecological function.
Today there is an increasing understanding in society about the loss of river functionality due to mono disciplinary
river management practices, and about the increased benefits of a healthy, multifunctional river system for society.
During their planning phase, river restoration projects typically use information on historical or contemporary
reference conditions to define objectives and to help the evaluation process. As such there are often no appropriate
reference systems to use.
Figure 3. Skjern river restoration project, Denmark . Photo. ECRR Addressing practitioners
Habitat connectivity in longitudinal, lateral and vertical dimensions and over time is an important guiding principle,
generally simple and practical and often taken into account the historical situation, physical, morphological and
natural in relation to human activities (Leummens et al., 2008). And aims to preserve and capitalize the remaining
natural values, in the socio-economic context of a sustainable development. Investment costs in ecological
restoration are often relatively high and not economically, but benefits in terms of natural values can poorly
expressed in money.
Initially the river restoration was guided by the Ramsar Convention for wetlands and the Convention on Biodiversity.
But in the meantime there are a number of EU Directives that are very supportive to river restoration nowadays.
Specifically the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Bird and Habitat Directive (B&HD). The Natura 2000
sites are very specific in this context. Although these directives require a minimum level with respect to the
ecological conditions, ecological river restoration is making use of these directives for the ecological restoration of
the river ecosystem as an integral part of integrated river basin management (IRBM). It might be clear that there are
considerable regional differences in the approach of river restoration, due to the different river characteristics as
well as in the past as in the present. Through the years there was a changed approach from early to new river
restoration approaches, from small, single issue projects towards more holistic integrated projects (Moss et al.,
2008).
4. Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM)
There are good examples of river restoration strategies, concepts and projects, leading to synergies between river
restoration and river management. Like the implementation of the Rhine Action Program. After severe river
pollution in 1986 (Sandoz, Switzerland) the member states of the Rhine basin started an ambitious program aiming
at the ecological rehabilitation of the river. The ecological status should improve to an extent that migratory fish
species like Atlantic salmon would be able colonize the River Rhine again. The International Commission for the
Protection of the River Rhine (ICPR) has chosen the salmon as a flag ship species for ecological rehabilitation (salmon
Conferencias
69
plenarias
2000). After a prolongation this Rhine action programme is now scheduled until 2020 and ecological rehabilitation is
integrated into the efforts of the WFD to reach the good ecological status of running waters in the Rhine basin.
At the moment quality of spawning and juvenile habitats is not yet sufficient, at least not in some parts of the Rhine
basin to sustain a natural salmon population. Dams still limit the access of adult salmon to the majority of the
potential spawning areas and juveniles have to pass hydropower plants during their downstream migration. Sluices
in the Rhine delta built to protect against see flooding hinder free migration of salmon from freshwater to the sea
and vice versa. Traditional drivers of river restoration arise from European and National legislation and policy
relating to environmental protection and nature conservation; water protection; fisheries management; flooding
and flood risk management; landscape and projects by private developers and individuals.
Figure 4. Lost room for the river since 1850. Map. Alberts, F. 2008
The majority of river restoration projects undertaken to date have generally involved non-complex land ownership
issues and are restricted in the main to single sites. Generally theses are projects primarily driven by a single piece of
legislation or policy. Recent policy shifts require a larger-scale more holistic and integrated approach to restoration.
Drivers include floods in Europe over the past decade leading to a view to the use of floodplains for natural storage
and the need to improve to water quality and morphological status.
5. Better flood prevention in the Netherland
5.1. Breaking the trend
Throughout the centuries, space for the rivers in the Netherlands has become only more limited. The rivers are
wedged between high dikes, while the level of the land behind the dikes is dropping. If a flood would occur under
these conditions, the economic and emotional damage would be huge. To give the rivers more space, the Dutch
Cabinet has created a package of measures called the Spatial Planning Key Decision Room for the River
Conferencias
70
plenarias
(Governement NL, 2006). The main objectives are flood protection by 2015 and improved overall environmental
quality in the river basin region.
The land behind the river embankments is becoming more heavily used and populated.
More homes are being built and affluence is on the rise. So a flood would have disastrous
results. High river discharges can be expected as a result of climate changes, which makes these areas even more
vulnerable.
While new dike reinforcements are an option and will reduce the risk of flooding, if a flood occurs anyway, the
effects will be even greater. So to make the Netherlands a safe, comfortable and pleasant place to live, a trend has
to be broken. The answer lies in the plan to make more room for the river. Residents of the river region had
anxious times in 1993 and 1995. The water level was extremely high and the dikes just managed to hold their own.
Extremely high river discharges will occur more frequently in the future. The decision was therefore made to find a
way for rivers to cope with greater volumes of water in a safe manner.
In 2006 the Dutch Cabinet drew up the Spatial Planning Key Decision Room for the River (SPKD) (Planologische
Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier), which has three objectives:
in 2015 the Rhine branches will safely cope with an outlet capacity of 16,000 cubic meters of water per
second;
the measures implemented to achieve the above will also improve the quality of the environment of the
river basin;
the extra space the rivers will need throughout the coming decades subsequent to expected climate
changes, will remain available. The SPKD sets out the measures the Cabinet plans to take to realise these
goals. The basic package consists primarily of measures aimed at creating more space for the river and
lowering high water levels, such as deepening the forelands of the rivers, displacing dikes further inland,
lowering of groynes in the rivers and enlarging of summer beds. Reinforcing of dikes is included only if
other measures are too expensive or inadequate.
Figure 5. The approved Room for the River plan with 40 projects along the different Rhine branches. Map. Alberts, F. 2008.
5.2. Characteristics of Room for the River programme
The operational goal for the Room for the River program is stabilizing water levels in the Rhine branches under
design conditions despite increase of design discharge of 1000 m3/sec (from 15.000 m3/sec to 16.000 m3/sec). In
this way further strengthening of dikes can be avoided. But flood prevention is not the only goal: the program also
aims for spatial quality in terms of ecological, recreational, socio-economic and cultural values. Many of these values
are hard to quantify of objectify and thus hard to balance: they are negotiable between parties at stake.
The decision making and the implementation process of the Room for the River program was done in a partnership
between national and regional authorities, with the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management as
Conferencias
71
plenarias
the final responsible authority (Alberts, 2008). The whole program has to be completed around 2015 and by that
time a strictly limited budget of 2.2 billion Euros will be spent. One specific characteristic of the program has to
highlighted. The final set of individual projects in the program is selected on technical, financial and many other
criteria. But they are also considered as first steps on a longer road towards accommodation of an increase in the
design discharge of the Rhine to 18.000 m3/sec in the second half of the 21st century. So in any case the short term
projects should be no regret or adaptable projects.
5.3. Measures
Each stretch of the Rhine branches has its own distinctive character, which is why the basic package contains unique
measures for every stretch (Government NL, 2006). From now until 2015, the following measures will be executed:
For special river stretches is the lowering of groynes and the removing of obstacles selected. These measures are
relatively cheap and easy to perform and have a significant impact on water levels.
Figure 6. Dike displacement. Photo. Room for the river programme, the Netherlands. www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl
Furthermore river forelands will be deepened and dikes will be displaced at several locations to create more room
for the river. The forelands become increasingly narrow in a westerly direction, so these measure will not be as
effective in reducing water levels. So strengthening of dikes is the preferred method for the lower Rhine, particularly
along the south side.
Wide expanses of foreland border the IJssel branche. Yet only three areas will be deepened. In the other areas,
digging activities would damage the natural habitat. At three locations, more space will be created by displacing of
dikes. A flood channel will give the river an extra course in flood conditions. Enlarging of the summer bed in the
lower course of the IJssel will allow the water to flow faster into the IJsselmeer.
In the Lower Reaches of the Rhine and Meuse rivers, the most significant measures will be the depoldering, lowering
an embankment and a foreland near an industrial estate will be deepened. The possibility of containing some of the
river water in the certain compartments at extremely high discharge levels is under investigation. A great deal of soil
will have to be transported as a result of the measures. Some of this soil can be reused, such as for other work along
the river, and some can be sold. Soil that cannot be reused will be stored in depots. Most of the soil is clean or only
slightly contaminated and can be stored in depots specified in the SPKD Room for the River. A small portion of the
soil is contaminated and will be transported to existing depots adapted for the purpose.
As said the Dutch Cabinet has earmarked more than 2.1 billion Euros for implementing the basic package of
measures. Alternative or supplementary measures could possibly be carried out at certain locations; ideas for such
measures will be worked out by other authorities and market parties. This is under the condition that the objectives
of the SPKD Room for the River are realised on time and that the parties concerned can guarantee sufficient
financing for the project.
5.4. IJsseldelta Project

rd
The River IJssel in the Netherlands is a major branch of the River Rhine, the 3 largest river of Europe. It discharges
into the Lake IJsselmeer. The IJsseldelta is a low-lying area that is threatened by floods from both the river IJssel and
Conferencias
72
plenarias
from the Lake IJsselmeer. Several major spatial developments are planned in the IJsseldelta in the coming decades.
The municipality of Kampen has planned some 4000 houses, a new railway line is being constructed at the moment
and two highways will be reconstructed in the area. Furthermore, a river bypass is foreseen as one of the
international measures to increase flood prevention along the river Rhine system. All these separate, potentially
conflicting spatial developments are coordinated in the IJsseldelta Project (Otten, A. 2008).
Figure 7. Overview of a bypass around Kampen in the downstream part of the Rhine branch named Ijssel.
Figure. Otten, A 2008
In 2005 the Province of Overijssel initiated the process of drawing a sustainable development plan for the IJsseldelta
area, with a strong focus on climate adaptation. The challenge was to combine and integrate several spatial
developments together with the construction of a so-called bypass of the river IJssel. The result is an integral plan
that is supported by more than 20 governmental and non-governmental organizations. The plan is broadly
supported by the public, because it is based upon a draft of the bypass that was made by the public . Worth
mentioning is that the bypass follows the alignment of an old sea arm that still can be seen on an historical map of
the IJsseldelta area of 1724.
Instead of building higher and stronger dikes a new strategy has been chosen: to add space to the floodplains of the
rivers. This strategy - a small revolution and a real paradigm shift in water management is being adopted within
the Dutch programme Room for the River.. Project IJsseldelta is a good exponent of this new philosophy in water
management. With the construction of the bypass some 350 hectares will be added to the floodplains of the delta of
the river IJssel. This means a break with the past, because for centuries, space has been taken from the river. The
effect of the restoration of the floodplains in the IJsseldelta is that the water levels of the river IJssel will decrease
substantially during situations of high river discharges. This contributes to the safety and resilience of the area.
6. Better flood prevention in Romania
6.1. A living river
The Danube River is the most international river basin in the world. Like all other rivers of Europe it is a river that has
been greatly influenced by human activity. Building of dams and hydropower plants, the diking of wetlands for
agriculture and flood protection, straightening of the river for navigation, and pollution have all negatively
influenced the naturalness and quality of the river and its tributaries. These changes took place over a period of 150-
200 years. Beginning in the early 1990s, however, following the collapse of the iron curtain new hope began to
emerge that the Danube and its tributaries could be protected and improved. The Danube River Protection
Convention signed by the Danube countries in 1994 committed the countries to cooperative actions to improve the
quality of the Danube.
Conferencias
73
plenarias
Figure 8. Danube river basin with Romania. Map. Danube Delta national Institute / Romanian Waters, Romania.
Since this time efforts have been undertaken in the framework of the International Commission for the Protection of
the Danube River (ICPDR) with collective actions aimed at protection and restoration of the river (Weller, 2009).
These actions have benefited from and attempted to realize some of the new thoughts that emerged in river
management. A philosophy of treating the river as a living system has begun to emerge and efforts have been made
to put into practice these thoughts. An important milestone in realizing a change of thinking, and providing inputs
for river restoration, has come from the EU WFD which came into force in December 2000. The Directive requires a
number of actions and activities that have helped realize river restoration on a broad scale within the river basin. In
particular the WFD emphasizes the river basin concept and has modified the understanding of water quality from a
chemical assessment to include biological and ecological parameters.
The understanding that hydro-morphological issues are important in assessing the quality of waters is embedded in
the text of the Directive. Within the framework of the ICPDR the Danube countries have been analysing the situation
related to water quality in the Danube river basin and have begun to develop measures for addressing problems
associated with the primary pressures negatively affecting good ecological and chemical status including hydro-
morphological alterations. The Article V report (the basin characteristics) prepared in March 2005 highlighted that
the good status of water in the Danube region would not be achieved by 2015 unless significant measure were taken
to reduce the hydro-morphological changes that have occurred as a result of building of dams, navigation, and flood
defense.
6.2. The Danube River Basin Management Plan
In the Danube river basin management Plan (DRBMP) under preparation for release in December 2009 a number of
measures are proposed to increase the longitudinal and latitudinal connectivity of rivers, including the reconnection
of floodplains (Weller, 2009). It is also clear that a number of significant actions in this regard have already been
taken in areas such as the Danube Delta, the Danube National Park in Vienna, and at a number of power plants
where fish bypasses have been build. These measures will need to be supplemented with additional actions and
continued efforts are still needed to ensure that future projects do not undermine the improvements that have
occurred. Nonetheless, the EU WFD, together with the collective actions of Danube countries in the frame of the
ICDPR, has offered hope that the ideas and principles of restoration will be realized on a broad scale in this large
Conferencias
74
plenarias
international river basin and can serve as an example worldwide of achieving progress in the protection and
restoration of a living river.
Figure 9. Flooding in the Lower Danube 2006. Photo. Danube Delta national Institute / Romanian Waters Romania.
6.3. The Lower Danube River Green Corridor
Large parts of the Upper Danube have been totally regulated, but the middle and lower Danube including Danube
Delta still preserve areas with natural features (Staras, 2009). The last part of 863 km of the Lower Danube still
preserves the longitudinal connectivity, whereas 84 % of the floodplain (out of total 514,000 ha, located mainly in
Romania) has been drained during 1960-1990 period, affecting the lateral connectivity. The Danube Delta Biosphere
Reserve (DDBR) is part of the Danube floodplain, but it has a distinct identity as one of the largest wetlands in
Europe, part of the MAB-UNESCO programme and named in the World Heritage list. DDBR hosts a great variety of
natural ecosystems despite of 17% of embankments area (out of total 580,000 ha).
Following the initiative of WWF, four riverine countries (Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine) have signed in
June 2000 a commitment declaration to implement the Lower Danube River Green Corridor (LDGC) by restoration
projects for 225,000 ha and designation of new protected areas of 160,000 ha besides existing protected areas of
775,000 ha (including Danube Delta) for nature conservation and flood prevention. Since Romania and Bulgaria have
joined EU in 2007, the process of designation of protected areas has been speeded up, including Natura 2000 sites in
the common border areas (a number of 144 sites are SCIs and 91 are SPAs). The protected areas designated by the
end of 2008 represent 80% of the total LDGC area. This achievement proved that the objective set in 2000 for nature
conservation and flood prevention was realistic.
Romania hosts along to the DRGC 19 Special Protected Areas (SPA) covering 875,000 ha and 11 Special Communities
of Interest (SCI) covering 783,000 Ha (overlapping upon 62,000 ha). Nevertheless the achievements by the end of
2008 for river restoration in the Lower Danube are small comparing to the objective set up in 2000: 46,900 ha have
been reconnected to the Danube system in the LDGC countries (14%). The main constraint is the existing agriculture
land use, but also the navigation and flood protection.
A wetland restoration program has been already started in Danube Delta as a priority objective for Biosphere
Reserve, before LDGC agreement (Staras, 2009). An area of 15,000 ha has been reverted to wetlands out of a total of
97,400 ha of polders in the Romanian part of the Danube Delta by the end of 2008, but successful projects have
been implemented in Ukraine (ex. Tataru island, Kugurlui lake) and Bulgaria (Belene island Kalimok marshes) as well.
Conferencias
75
plenarias
Figure 10. Mixed used option: yellow = agriculture, green = wetlands and bleu = floodplain. Figure. Julia Graziella, Romanian
Waters, Romania.
7. The challenge
7.1. Capacity Building

Work by the EU has shown that despite efforts over the past decade or so (in response to environmental directives)
there has been a continued deterioration of and threat to valuable habitats. This is not necessarily due to how this
legislation is implemented in EU Member States; rather it is a reflection of the difficulties of overcoming one or more
of the obstacles to implementation (RESTORE, 2011). Although there are ongoing calls for policy change, the findings
of this review indicate that there are institutional structures and learning lessons which can be transferred from one
Member State to another.
Figure 11. Scope of the RESTORE project. Figure. RESTORE, 2009
The task of restoring rivers and catchments are complex and represent some of the most difficult challenges faced
by natural resource scientists and managers today (RESTORE, 2009). The lack of science-policy integration has been
described as a missing link for the WFD (Quevauviller et al., 2005). Both scientists and policy makers have been
blamed for the inability of Society to deal adequately with the challenges posed by restoration. There are particular
factions of academia and Government Regulatory bodies who argue that we must be precautionary as there is an
Conferencias
76
plenarias
inadequate evidence base. There are others who argue that is actually the lack of political will and leadership that
acts as a barrier to progress. Whatever the root cause, it is the science-policy-operational practice interface that is of
interest in moving forward. It is arguably the lack of effective communication between these different functions that
has helped hinder the development, selection and implementation of more holistic and integrated forms of
restoration.
Several ways have been suggested for overcoming such barriers and constraints (e.g. Ryan and Jensen, 2008).
However one key mechanism is capacity building. Specifically this means communicating the existing knowledge
base to practitioners, policy makers and scientists. Expert networks can assist with the process of capacity building
and improving knowledge management. Such networks can be used to exchange information and rapidly
disseminate new findings and results which may be of interest to different types of stakeholder. It is a mechanism by
which science and robust data can be used to underpin policy development and implementation. RESTORE is a
project aimed at supporting existing and future river and floodplain restoration activities across Europe. The
RESTORE project aims to develop the tools and skills to enable the restoration of rivers for future generations
creating sustainable river environments. The project will develop a network linking policy makers, river basin
planners and a wide range of practitioners and experts across Europe. It will run for three years until September
2013.
7.2. River Restoration Networks
The European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR, www.ecrr.org), the Italian River Restoration Centre (CIRF,
www.cirf.org) and the River Restoration Centre in the UK (www.therrc.co.uk) are all well placed (RESTORE, 2011) to
assist with dissemination of science and information to key stakeholders (whether they be practitioners, policy
makers or local groups such as Civic Trusts etc). This network is proposed through this RESTORE project to build the
capacity of regional Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and to facilitate the development of partnerships. It will
play a key role in delivering information to relevant stakeholders in a timely fashion so that policy and practices on
the ground can be successfully developed.
Figure 12. European Centre for River Restoration enhancing ecological river restoration by connection people and institutions.
Figure. www.ecrr.org
8.1. Lelystad Declaration on River Restoration
8.1. 10 years European Centre for River Restoration

th
In May 2009 the European Centre for River Restoration celebrated its 10 anniversary in Lelystad, the Netherlands
with an international seminar (Fokkens, 2010). The conclusions and recommendations of this Seminar were layed
down in the lelystad Declaration on River Restoration based on ECRRs findings.
1. As a result of the expansion of river restoration projects being implemented during the last 10-15 years, an
increased learning from practice can be observed.
2. There is a progressively growing awareness and knowledge among stakeholders of the need to use new
approaches.
3. More national policies become available and/or are under implementation, while there is more attention for the
regional differences within Europe.
4. There is an increased awareness and understanding of opportunities and benefits related with river restoration
among the various stakeholder levels.
8.2. The future of River Restoration
The ECRR expressed also a number of specific observations on the future of river restoration.
Conferencias
77
plenarias
1. River restoration should target at restoring complete ecosystems and ecosystem processes, in which, as in
undisturbed nature, dynamism is a key feature, expressed as the self-sustaining capacity of river and stream
ecosystems and their capacity to respond to imposed external environmental changes. In this, regarding the four
dimensions of a river, hydro-morphological processes remain a key factor in steering ecosystem processes and
ecosystem quality;
2. River restoration should aim at tackling or contributing to solving regional impact factors, from the river to the
basin via the floodplain. Early involvement of local stakeholders and enterprises in river restoration projects is
essential to enhance the quality, financial health and so the sustainability of the project results;
3. The embedding of river restoration into an appropriate policy context is crucial to decision-making processes and
implementation practices towards reaching defined results. In Western Europe, policy such as the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) has been an effective driver although slow to makes its effect felt.
4. River restoration practices are being supportive to the implementation of various EU Directives, especially WFD,
FFH, SPA and FRD, while on the other hand the implementation obligations under the EU Directives often are a
driving force for the implementation of river restoration projects.
5. River restoration is based on an integrated ecosystem development approach. This difference creates obvious
good opportunities, but also some threats with respect to an effective joined implementation of both river
restoration measures and the EU directives.
6. The EU and related national implementation programmes can be targeted to finance river restoration, especially
when river restoration targets are formulated in line with programmes on flood defense, water quality
improvement, the Common Agricultural Programme, ecological networks, fisheries, renewable energy etc.
7. In defining ecological success criteria external changes need to be taken into account, like climate change, human
population growth, land use changes, economic development etc. Therefore, design rivers for the future with
respect to the past, with the understanding that only selected services can be realistically restored.
8. River restoration, when linked to new societal needs, is in fact a long term strategic economic investment, and
should be communicated more as such.
Figure 13. Created new side channel, the Vreugdenrijkerwaard along the River Ijssel. Photo. Room for the river programme,
www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl
8.3. Communication messages
1. The strategic objective of the ECRR is to promote the translation from research oriented local river restoration
activities to the elaboration and implementation of integrated larger-scale practical activities. As such, ECRR
activities aim at increasing the knowledge base and common understanding of expectations among scientists,
practitioners and decision-takers at the European level by means of publications, website conferences, all tailor-
made based on the recognition of the various stakeholder groups technical disciplines, policy makers, decision
makers, practitioners, funders, the large public including young people, etc.
Conferencias
78
plenarias
2. The ECRR will emphasise the link between the strategic and operational levels, by improving the knowledge base
of decision takers (awareness raising) and improving the understanding of scientists and practitioners on relevance
and complexity at the policy level. It also provides scientists and practitioners with opportunities to exchange
experiences and best practices of river restoration, based on a planning process with integrated research ad design
and adequate stakeholder involvement.
3. For its members, the ECRR serves as a representative to international and national platforms like the national
governments and the EU, at international conferences, river basin commissions, the World Water Forum, etc., where
the common view on river restoration can be furthered.
8.4. Overall recommendation
The European national governments should ensure their international credibility by

applying an ecosystem approach to manage their rivers on a basin scale, in particular the
transboundary rivers, in addition to the intgrated river basin management approach and
use the opportunities to address ecological river restoration and conservation within the
implementation plans of the EU Directives.
References
th
Alberts, F. (2008) Room for the Rivers: the story of a multiple goal and multiple actor planning process. 4 ECRR
Conference on River Restoration, Italy, Venice S. Servelo Island 16-21 June 2008
Coops, H; Geest, G. (2007) Ecological Restoration of wetlands in Europe significance for implementing the Water
Framework Directive in the Netherlands, Delft Hydraulics.
Fokkens, B. (2010) Developments in River Restoration and the European Centre for River Restoration. Seminar
report Synergies between River Restoration and River Management focusing on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites..
www.ecrr.org
Government NL. (2006) Brochure Spatial Planning Key Decision Room for the River
Leummens, H; Menke, U. (2008) Adressing practitioners. (ECRR) www.ecrr.org
Moss, T; Monstad, J. (eds.) (2008) Restoring Floodplains in Europe. Policy Contexts and Project Experiences.
International Water Association 20082008, ISBN 1843390906
Otten, A. (2010) Climate adaptation by River Restoration in the IJsseldelta. Seminar report Synergies between River
Restoration and River Management focusing on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites.. www.ecrr.org
Ryan, C.M; Jensen, S.M. (2008) Scientific, Institutional and Individual Constraints in Restoring Puget Sound Rivers.
Urban Ecology, 647-659.
Weller, P. (2010) River Restoration and the role of the EU Water Framework Directive in the Danube Basin. Seminar
report Synergies between River Restoration and River Management focusing on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites..
www.ecrr.org
Quevauviller, P; Balabanis, P; Fragakis; C; weyderet, M; Oliver, M; kaschl, A; Arnold, G; kroll, A; Galibiati, L; Zaldivar,
J.M; Bidoglio, G (2005) Science policy integration needs in support of implementation of the EU Water Framework
Directive, Environmental Science and Policy,8: 203 211.
RESTORE LIFE + Rivers Engaging, Supporting and Transferring Knowledge for Restoration in Europe. (2011) Review of
EU policy Drivers for River Restoration. www.environment-agency-gov.uk
Staras, M. (2010) River Restoration and Nature Conservation along the Lower Danube River; Delta and Green
Corridor. Seminar report Synergies between River Restoration and River Management focusing on Natura 2000 and
Ramsar sites.. www.ecrr.org
Conferencias
79
plenarias
RESTORING RIVERS IN SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES AND NORTHERN MEXICO

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PAST TO BENEFIT THE FUTURE
Mark Briggs
Ecohydrologist, Chihuahuan Desert Program, World Wildlife Fund
Abstract
The conference Restoring Rivers in the Southwestern U.S. and Northern Mexico: A Bi-national Conference on Learning from the
Past for the Benefit of the Future, brought together river practitioners, scientists, private citizens, and conservationists from
federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the southwestern United States
1
(U.S.), northern Mexico, and southeastern Australia to discuss lessons learned from their river restoration experiences. Key
conference topics included the development of viable restoration objectives, planning and implementing restoration, monitoring
results, climate change, environmental flow, native fish conservation, and restoration along trans-boundary rivers. Results are
being incorporated into an applied river restoration guidebookPlanning and Implementing River Restoration in the Southwestern
United States and Northern Mexico, An Applied Guidebook for Restoration Practitioners, which summarizes the main steps and
provide detailed information on all aspects of stream restoration processes, from planning and implementation to monitoring
and evaluation.
1. Introduction
In December 7-10, 2010, Restoring Rivers in the Southwestern U.S. and Northern Mexico: A Bi-national Conference
on Learning from the Past for the Benefit of the Future, was convened in Tucson, Arizona, U.S. The conference
brought together river practitioners, scientists, private citizens, and conservationists from federal and state
agencies, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the southwestern United States
2
(U.S.), northern Mexico, and southeastern Australia to discuss lessons learned from their river restoration
experiences. The necessity for such a conference stemmed from the continuing ecological deterioration of rivers;
increased understanding of the impacts of climate change; and the need to share information, foster collaboration,
and document what has been learned to benefit natural resource practitioners. The conference focused on dryland
3
rivers and the biotic communities they support in semi-arid and arid climates.
Human perturbations, including river impoundment, channelization, and water diversion, have compromised the
integrity of many rivers (Poff et al. 1997; Ward & Stanford 1995).
Most rivers in the western U.S. are intensely regulated for hydropower and irrigation (Poff et al. 2003). Such
regulated flows do not promote vegetation scouring, sediment deposition, and soil/nutrient cycling necessary for
native riparian vegetation recruitment and survival (Howe & Knopf 1991; Taylor et al. 1999; Stromberg et al. 2007).
Other impacts arise from overgrazing, mining, and urbanization (Follstad Shah et al. 2007). Ecosystem functions, the
quality of wildlife habitat, and ecosystem services have dramatically deteriorated across these rivers, which are
already over-allocated and increasingly subject to the exacerbating effects of climate change on water supply.
In response to the relatively recent and in some cases dramatic ecological decline of our river systems, natural
resource agencies, conservation organizations, citizens, and many other groups and individuals all over the world
2
have implemented a great diversity of river restoration initiatives. In general, the goal of these initiatives is to
provide benefit to society as well as to aquatic and riparian biota (Naiman et al. 2002; Richter et al. 2003). These
efforts face challenges of organization, scale, geography, and funding, as well as overcoming dramatic
hydroecological deterioration, often in environments that continue to be affected by the same stressor that initiated
1
For the purposes of the conference and this paper, we define restoration broadly as any attempt to improve overall river hydroecological
conditions toward a wild, natural state.
2
For the purposes of the conference and this paper, we define restoration broadly as any attempt to improve overall river hydroecological
conditions toward a wild, natural state.
3
A dryland river refers generally to any intermittent to perennial flowing body of water within an arid region, including those classified as semi-
arid, arid, or hyper-arid.
Conferencias
80
plenarias
the deterioration in the first place. River restoration projects also face gaps between short-term funding cycles and
the need for long-term planning that complements broad regional objectives. An additional challenge in the
southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico are transboundary rivers, which require an immense amount of
collaboration and good will in order to secure environmental flows, manage water quality and quantity, and
implement restoration efforts by bi-national teams.
In recent years, increasing investment in the recovery of deteriorated river ecosystems in the U.S. and Mexico has
supported the implementation of tens of restoration projects in the 1980s, to hundreds in the 1990s, to thousands
since 2000 (National River Restoration Science Synthesis [NRRSS] 2006). The restoration need and response may be
even more dramatic for dryland rivers in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, whose water resources are
buckling under the strain of high evaporation loss, regulation, and rapidly growing thirsty human populations. Along
with this increased river restoration activity, questions have been raised regarding the effectiveness, focus, and cost
of river restoration and, specifically, how to better apply lessons from past experiences for the benefit of future
restoration (Follstad Shah et al. 2007). Questions of particular importance include: What restoration strategies are
effective and ineffective? How do these lessons inform future restoration work? What main steps should
practitioners take to develop sound, viable river restoration plans? Can we improve communication between
practitioners and funders to address broad-scale objectives? How can we incorporate climate change into the
restoration equation to realize long-term goals and formulate effective tactics? These and similar questions formed
the foundation of the design of the lessons learned conference with emphasis on learning from both effective and
ineffective past restoration efforts In this paper, we briefly discuss the design of the conference and summarize the
input and lessons compiled during multiple conference sessions.
2. Conference objectives and design
With the emphasis on lessons learned, conference sessions reflected the order of steps inherent in restoration
design, beginning with formulating project goals and objectives, and implementation (Fig. 1). From there, the focus
turned to post-project implementation, which included site maintenance, monitoring, project evaluation, and
formulating next steps. Attendees split into four breakout groups of 40-50 people each to provide an atmosphere
conducive for discussing what worked, what did not work, the challenges experienced, and priorities for the future.
Figure 1. Diagram of main steps involved in river restoration planning. Boxes represent steps in the process. Circles represent
major themes that should be considered as part of the planning process. Arrows indicate the sequence of steps and feedbacks.
Where multiple steps occur more or less simultaneously, they are placed parallel to each other (adapted from Shafroth et al.
2008)
Conferencias
81
plenarias
For sessions dealing with planning, conference organizers focused on stream evaluation approaches, invasive species
control, and native fish conservation. On the second and third days of the conference, attention turned to the
emerging themes of restoring rivers in the context of climate change, quantifying and securing environmental flows,
and conducting restoration along rivers that cross international boundaries. Facilitators and note-takers documented
discussion points, and English/Spanish translators provided information to all conference participants. The end
products were notes from extensive multiple sessions, which were later summarized to elucidate key information
from the assembled practitioners and organized in the sequential order of restoration steps below.
3. Conference attendees and presentations
The conference was attended by natural resource practitioners, scientists, and conservationists representing 13
federal agencies, 3 state agencies, 15 universities, 10 private organizations, 15 NGOs, 3 county and city agencies, and
2 tribal nations from the U.S., Mexico, and Australia. Six keynote presentations were given on a range of topics that
reflected the conferences lessons-learned theme. In addition to the keynote presentations, panel and rapid-fire
presentations were given during the course of the conference.
4. Conference results
4.1. Top ten lessons learned
The top ten list below summarizes points made during the course of the conference and/or as part of post-
conference conversations and clarifications. The conference organizing committee felt these ten topics rose to the
top because they were cited more frequently or stressed in one form or another by conference participants. The
selection was based on the opinions of the selection committee after reviewing compilations of conference results.
All lessons are equally important so the order below does not reflect relative priority.
Lesson One - Stop the Bleeding Please! Effective river restoration cannot occur unless we understandand eliminate
or reduce the severity of the stressors that are driving the hydroecological decline of our rivers;
Lesson Two - Climate change is happening now. We need to understand the latest climate forecasts and potential
consequences of climate change on river hydrology as an integral part of river restoration design and
implementation;
Lesson Three - Changes in the water and sediment supply to riverscaused by dams, diversions, and other
impactshave been considerable and underlie the hydroecological deterioration of many of our rivers.
Understanding how different perturbations create either sediment deficit or sediment surplus should be an
integral part of developing a sound river restoration design;
Lesson Four - Within the geophysical constraints of the watershed we have the ability to recreate any kind of river
we want. As river experts, one of our main responsibilities is to gather the information required to develop
viable river restoration objectives that describe what we want and where we want it in a manner that
galvanizes support from public leaders and citizens;
Lesson Five - Maintaining heterogeneity of species and habitat types in our river systems is critical. Protecting or
reestablishing flood pulses is essential to meet this objective;
Lesson Six - As ecosystems change through time, so do restoration targets. Therefore, our formulation of restoration
objectives and the tactics we put forward to realize them need to be flexible and based on up-to-date
science and monitoring;
Lesson Seven - Protecting streamflow in the name of natural river ecosystems will be an increasingly important
aspect of river restoration efforts. Securing novel water sources (e.g., effluent, agricultural return flows)
and innovative strategies for securing them need to be emphasized;
Lesson Eight - River restoration programs need to be strongly supported by science. The scientific data and
knowledge will be challenged, so having a solid fact base is critical. To make progress we need to rely on the
best available information, even if there is some scientific uncertainty;
Lesson Nine - Highlight the successes. When projects are successfuleven if successes are small in scaledo not shy
away from publically highlighting your effort. Good news is always welcome, fosters good will, and can
increase support for longer-term efforts;
Lesson Ten - The 3,141-km (1,952-mi) U.S./Mexico border passes through a treasure of mountain systems, plateaus,
and rivers. Although working on border rivers can be a challenge, there is much information to take stock of
and use to expand transboundary river restoration efforts. Efforts will benefit from capitalizing on
Conferencias
82
plenarias
transboundary river restoration efforts already underway (e.g., the Colorado River Delta and Big Bend reach
of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo), involving cross border entities such as Commission of Environmental
Cooperation and IBWC/CILA in our river projects, and building on border-related agreements between the
governments of the U.S. and Mexico.
4.2. Lessons Learned from the Planning and Design Phase
Participating Agencies, Institutes, and Organizations

Arizona Land and Water Trust
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Cal Trans
Centro de Estudios Superiores del Estado de Sonora
Climate Assessment for the Southwest
Colegio de la Frontera Norte
Colorado State University
Comisin Estatal del Agua, Sonora
Comisin Estatal de Servicios Publicos de Mexicali
Comisin Internacional Limitrofe y Agua
Comisin Nacional de reas Naturales Protegidas
Cuenca Los Ojos
Desert Fishes Council
Ecesis Media Services
Ecosystem Economics
Environmental Conflict Resolution
Environmental Defense Fund
Fundacion La Puerta A. C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
Fred Phillips Consulting
Institute of the Environment
Instituto Nacinal de Ecologa
International Boundary Water Commission
Logan Simpson Design Ltd.
Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Australia
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
National Phenology Network
Natural Resource Legal Consultant
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Orange County Water District
Pima County Office of Conservation Science
Pronatura Noroeste
RECON, Inc.
Research Coordination Network Colorado River Delta
Rillito River Project
SEMARNAT
Signature Botanica LLC
Sky Island Alliance
Sonoran Institute
Southwest Climate Alliance
The Nature Conservancy
The Tamarisk Coalition
Texas A&M University
Texas State Climatologist Office
The Nature Conservancy
Tucson Audubon Society
Universidad Autnoma de Baja California
Universidad de Sonora
University of Arizona
The University of Texas at Austin
University of Wyoming
Utah State University
Weber State University
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Working for Rivers
World Wildlife Fund
Zuni Nation
Conferencias
83
plenarias
4.2.1 Determining the Overarching Restoration Goal
A project goal is a broad statement that brings the intention of the project into focus. Objectives are descriptions of
specific benchmarks, which contribute to achieving the project goal. Measuring the extent to which project
objectives are achieved shows the rate of progress toward meeting the overarching project goal. The most common
theme circulating through discussions at the conference was the importance of developing a realistic restoration
goal. Participants noted the importance of asking why a river should be restored, and even if it should be restored.
Some participants felt that simply having funding for restoration is not sufficient grounds to initiate a project. The
importance of prioritizing sites was stressed by taking into account political, legal, social, economic, and/or
environmental challenges. Participants felt that if restoration challenges proved too daunting along a river reach or
river system, funding mechanisms should be flexible enough to provide support in more promising areas. If no
agreement is reached among practitioners and stakeholders that a particular river should and could be restored,
moving forward with restoration implementation may not be wise because of the obstacles it will face.
A roadmap for setting goals for restoration emerged that is based on a firm understanding of a rivers
hydroecological condition, how conditions have changed, and the stressors that are driving a rivers deteriorating
condition. Only with such a knowledge base can practitioners understand the potential for improving river
conditions and move forward on developing a realistic restoration vision. Ultimately, the project goal statement
should articulate the vision, depicting the end product at a specific river site after objectives are met.
Conference practitioners emphasized the importance of addressing the stressors that are driving a rivers ecological
deterioration. If stressors can be eliminated or at least reduced, significant hydroecological benefits can be achieved
(Briggs 1996). If not, results of restoration work may be reduced and have only short-term viability. Valare Austin
(Cuenca Los Ojos) noted that their stream and watershed restoration work in both Arizona and Sonora has focused
on removing cattle from priority streams, and that this action alone has led to dramatic recovery. Their efforts
illustrate the value of implementing restoration at the scale of the watershed using strategies that eliminate or
reduce stressors. Austin went on to underscore the importance of installing erosion control structures such as check
dams and gabions on the upper parts of the watershed first before tackling challenges in the lowlands and
bottomlands.
Many participants appreciated that restoration goals often focus on recreating natural or wild conditionsthose
conditions existing prior to significant human interferencebut some rivers have been disturbed for over a century
and no documentation exists of their natural state, making true restoration impossible. In this vein, participants
emphasized the importance of creating a vision for a desired end-state that is based on a realistic appreciation of not
only a rivers current physical template and the stressors that are driving change, but also on the possibilities of
addressing the stressors based on the socio-political environment of the target river.
Participants noted the importance of answering a series of critical questions related to a rivers hydroecological
condition, including: What is the rivers current hydroecological condition? What was the rivers hydroecological
condition prior to the onset of significant human interference? To what extent has the rivers conditions changed
and what is its current trajectory? What are the main stressors that are driving change? How effectively will a
restoration project be able to address the stressors driving hydroecological deterioration?
All of these questions have significant bearing on determining appropriate and achievable goals. If the main stressors
can be eliminated or their impacts reduced in severity, it may be possible to return a river to near its wild state. Yet,
it was acknowledged that such a goal is often not realistic and situations are often faced where the main stressors
cannot be eliminated and only minor steps can be taken toward reestablishing a rivers former physical template.
One of our main tasks as river experts is to identify what those minor steps might look like and decide the value of
realizing them. If stressors cannot be directly addressed, there might still be value in moving forward. However, in
such situations, practitioners need to make certain that the limitations of what might be achieved are understood.
4.2.2 Developing Realistic Restoration Objectives
Participants noted that the process of developing realistic restoration objectives to achieve the overarching goal
often takes several steps, beginning with stating initial objectives, then gathering site-specific information, then
using the improved knowledge base to refine restoration objectives. The initial objective might grow out of a
question, such as whether it is possible to restore native fish populations along the river. If results of hydroecological
Conferencias
84
plenarias
assessments appear promising, the preliminary question might then become a stated objective such as: We intend to
restore native fish to this river reach by improving the habitat conditions necessary to support them and subsequently
reintroducing native fish stock.
Once an objective has been developed, additional questions emerge that, when answered, will provide more detail,
such as what the targeted native fish species are, and what habitat conditions need to be developed to support a
viable population. The project design must address restoration potential at specific sites in order to achieve tangible
results. The ability to look at river restoration as a step-wise process allows a practitioner to adapt and prioritize
work steps during the planning phase in order to develop a realistic plan.
Evaluating river conditions prior to planning is important for formulating realistic restoration objectives and provides
a baseline for comparison to future conditions that will allow restoration progress and the effectiveness of
restoration tactics to be gauged. Despite the importance of this step, it is often overlooked or minimized due to time
and funding constraints. Project objectives should address the collection of baseline information since this is key to
achieving the project goal. Kris Randall (USFWS) noted that working with federal and state agencies early in the
planning process is critical to bringing everyone to the same understanding with regard to permit needs, objectives,
personnel and material needs, and other important factors.
The parameters included in an evaluation will vary with project focus, spatial scale, funding, and data availability,
among other considerations. Conference participants stressed the value of concentrating evaluation strategies on
physical processes, focusing in particular on water and sediment runoff in the watershed. Assessment of channel
morphology, seasonal changes in depth to groundwater, groundwater salinity, and streamflow statistics (average
annual flow; seasonal variability; and discharge estimates of flows with statistical recurrence intervals of 2, 25, and
100 years; among other parameters) are important in this context.
4.2.3 Developing the Restoration Plan
Participants noted that many projects have failed or fallen short of their original goal because they did not have a
realistic restoration plan. Achieving restoration objectives will require designing appropriate restoration steps and
preparing a strategic, well-written plan to detail these steps. A strong interdisciplinary team is necessary in river
restoration because diverse expertise is required to understand how a river system functions and how restoration
and management can mitigate negative impacts. This team may include engineers, scientists, biologists, ecologists,
and caring visionaries.
Conference participants observed that river restoration projects that are successful may take years to plan and
implement. The time from conception to completion varies based on the goal and objectives, spatial scale,
complexity of issues, information gaps, the team involved, funding availability, and many other factors. Small-scale
pilot projects may take less than five years while large watershed-scale efforts can take over a decade to plan,
implement, and evaluate. Regardless of scale, for most restoration projects the time it takes to implement the
project is typically less (often considerably less) than the time required for planning and post-treatment evaluation.
Nonetheless, participants stressed the importance of placing small scale, short-term projects in the context of long-
term planning that is conducted at a watershed scale.
It is important to create a conservative project timeline that allows for adequate planning, assessing baseline
conditions, implementing work, accounting for those biological windows when restoration action and management
4
is feasible, and accounting for all post-implementation activities. Fiscal planning should allocate appropriate levels
of funding to all of these phases and anticipate unforeseen obstacles. Despite the importance of planning,
conference participants noted that many river restoration projects run out of funds immediately after the
completion of on-the-ground activities. As a result, such post-implementation activities as monitoring, evaluation,
and adaptive management are not conducted, which can compromise project results as well as opportunities to gain
from project experiences.
Pressure to complete work within a fiscal timeframe rather than an ecological timeframe was cited by participants as
a common challenge. The difficulty often lies in the challenge of first preparing a detailed planwhich requires time
4
We use the term post-implementation to refer to any activity after a treatment is implemented, including but not limited to, site-maintenance,
monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management.
Conferencias
85
plenarias
and moneythen incorporating this plan into a proposal within the time and budget constraints of a particular grant
or project that is up for bid. Long-term river restoration requires longer funding cycles than are traditionally
awarded. Acquiring sufficient funds stretched over sufficient timeframes may require partnerships or a strategy to
persuade the funder or donor to address the bigger picture. Funders need to support monitoring and evaluation,
which not only help gauge the success of individual projects but also provide critical information to the growing
overall knowledge base of river restoration as results of different projects are compiled and disseminated.
4.3 Lessons Learned from the Implementation Phase
4.3.1 Planting
Revegetation alone cannot counteract all the reasons behind site ecological deterioration, and practitioners need to
plan accordingly. For example, if revegetation efforts aim to reestablish cottonwoods in areas where these native
obligate riparian trees formerly existed, the practitioner must make certain that site conditions (water availability,
soil salinity levels, vulnerability to flood scour, etc.) are capable of supporting cottonwoods. Numerous participants
noted the importance of using locally collected plant materials grown out in an environment that reflects site
conditions. Carianne Funicelli-Campbell (Recon, Inc.) noted significant differences in mortality rates between locally
collected and grown plant materials (3.5% mortality rate) compared to plant materials supplied by commercial
wholesale nurseries (22% mortality rate). John Swett (USBOR) noted that high-density plantings (2,300 cottonwood
poles per acre) can provide some management benefits, including reducing the need to control non-native plant re-
introduction. Fred Phillips (Fred Phillips, Inc.) noted that some species simply do not germinate well in the field and
should be planted as plugs or container plants.
4.3.2 Unanticipated Obstacles
Conference attendees shared stories of logistical challenges that impeded success toward achieving restoration
objectives. Progress toward realizing project objectives can be improved by considering potential obstacles and
anticipating speed bumps along the way. Conference attendees noted the importance of reviewing legislation and
policy-related issues and securing necessary permits in advance of restoration work. A number of questions may
need to be considered as part of understanding legal bounds and identifying and working within any physical, legal,
or ecological constraints. These questions include: Are any threatened or endangered species present at the
restoration site? Are permits required to access chosen sites? Do bird migration windows need to be taken into
account in project design? Is cooperation or permission needed to work alongside or around other research groups
or outside parties?
4.3.3 Project Management and Timing
Providing guidance and support to staff, project team members, and contractors allows people to understand their
contribution to the process. Conference attendees noted that contractors are usually open to adjusting their
approach if river practitioners take the time to explain project goals and objectives. Cooperating and building
relationships with all parties involved led to a more seamless process. Practical considerations such as these are
easily overlooked, but the array of experiences shared at the conference emphasized that thoughtful planning and
management increases project efficiency and progress.
As discussed during the conference, some projects failed because their fiscal timeline did not coincide with the
biological clocks of their targeted species. Many plant and wildlife species are resilient, but if restoration is not
planned around natural processes and/or biological windows, chances for success are greatly reduced. One example
noted was the failure of cottonwood pole-planting efforts when poles were not planted at an appropriate depth to
compensate for periodic fluctuations in groundwater elevations. Efforts to establish native vegetation from seed
have failed because seed distribution did not coincide with natural seed dispersal windows. In addition to timing,
seeding success can also be improved by collecting seed from multiple plants/trees within the same region of the
restoration site to ensure both genetic diversity and adaptability.
4.3.4 Importance of Pilot Projects
Tackling river issues at a watershed scale (as opposed to being limited to a myopic focus on a particular river reach)
is key to directly addressing stressors and achieving tangible long-lasting results. However, the road to implementing
Conferencias
86
plenarias
projects at a watershed-scale can be challenging, costly, and time consuming. Given this limitation, conference
participants noted the importance of showing tangible results in the near-term. While small-scale projects provide
limited hydroecologic benefit and typically cannot address the main stressors causing hydroecological deterioration,
they can be completed quickly, are less costly than large-scale projects, provide opportunities for learning how to
improve large-scale success, and can be visited by funders and stakeholders to garner support for larger-scale
efforts.
Many experienced restoration practitioners at the conference admitted their successes can be attributed to lessons
learned their failures and many projects were indeed trial-and-error. Some projects failed because native vegetation
could not be established on high-salinity soils, which might have been avoided by flushing salts via irrigation or
treating surface soil to improve germination, establishment, or growth rates. Other projects failed because
groundwater was too deep to establish plants, common when a rivers main channel is disconnected from the
floodplain terrace. Such examples and lessons, often elucidated from small-scale projects, should be shared to
provide insights that can improve future efforts. Pilot projects provide baseline research helpful to large-scale
projects, and can rapidly provide evidence of (hopefully) positive results from successful demonstrations that can
help engage public support and stakeholder buy-in. Pilot projects may also provide key insights for meeting
personnel needs, gaining access to restoration sites, enabling maintenance, and determining equipment needs,
while paving the way for future collaborations and funding opportunities.
4.3.5 Community Involvement
Long-term, broad-scale restoration objectives often relate to both environmental conservation and meeting public
needs. Yet the community is often left out of the restoration planning and design process. With water as the central
focus in any river restoration activity, the community should be involved to some degree in every phase of the
project. River alterations such as dams and diversions are often built to assist communities by establishing water
supplies, ensuring flood protection, and irrigating crops. However, the focus today should be to educate
communities about ecosystem services and how river alterations are now pressuring water supply and quality.
Public opinion and suggestions can assist in creating restoration plans and strategies that account for multiple needs,
which can strengthen restoration goals. When a community is directly impacted by the management of restoration
sites for water supply, recreation, and aesthetics, allowing public visitation and access to the site is essential. The
public can be a valuable resource by providing volunteer labor to assist with implementation and to help monitor
and maintain the site. This builds community engagement and can save restoration funds. Involving the community
may also facilitate future restoration opportunities because the community will understand the big picture.
4.4 Lessons Learned from the Post-implementation Phase
4.4.1 Monitoring
The main focus of monitoring is to measure progress toward meeting stated project objectives. It is critical that the
cost of monitoring be built into the overall restoration project budget. To the extent possible, monitoring should be
conducted using peer-reviewed methods and might also follow survey methodologies employed during the initial
baseline assessment. Conference participants added that monitoring methods should use proven, scientifically
based methods that are transferable and produce results that will be useful to scientists and also easily
understandable to the community.
Participants voiced the need for choosing monitoring methods and strategies that both gauge progress toward
meeting objectives and document ecosystem changes over time. Because of the restoration theme, they focused
largely on monitoring approaches that evaluated biotic and abiotic parameters to document progress toward
meeting stated project objectives. For example, if a restoration project objective is to provide habitat for the
southwestern willow flycatcher, monitoring should measure the water and sediment processes, depth to soil
saturation zone, and other physical parameters critical to establishing habitat as well as monitoring the birds
themselves. Other habitat parameters may include vegetation cover, diversity, and density, and the diversity and
abundance of invertibrates. Participants noted that measuring abiotic components along with biotic components
allows a connection to be made between species, habitat, and the processes critical for maintaining long-term
stability.
Conferencias
87
plenarias
Participants also noted the importance of standardizing and documenting monitoring protocols to provide
conformity from year-to-year in the methods used to collect data as well as the time of year when monitoring
should be conducted. In all cases, monitoring data should provide a comparison between either treatment versus
control sites, or pre-treatment (baseline) versus post-treatment site conditions. Participants also noted the
importance of conducting monitoring on various scales. Standardizing monitoring approaches that link local
monitoring to large-scale monitoring programs is necessary for documenting progress toward meeting broad-scale
objectives. In this way, individual efforts can be used to understand impacts on large-scale processes and vice-versa.
Participants emphasized that protocols for measuring many bottomland biophysical parameters (e.g., near-channel
vegetation, benthic conditions, channel morphology, streamflow, among many others) are well-documented and,
when appropriate, should be used.
4.4.2 Evaluation
Thoughtful river restoration objectives provide the basis for gauging how well project results are meeting objectives.
Project participants noted three standards for measuring project success: compliance-based success, functional
success, and landscape success. Projects that are funded by federal and state agencies often have specific tasks that
need to be accomplished, so post-implementation evaluation procedures need to measure the success of
compliance with the tasks required by funders. If restoration project objectives are to restore natural processes or
create habitat, functional success can be measured by determining the extent to which hydroecologic processes
have been restored and/or target species are using the restored location. Landscape success may focus on how
restoration efforts have enhanced the site, benefited aesthetics, or improved human recreation or sporting
opportunities.
Although restoration project objectives and the rivers systems they occur in can vary significantly from one location
to the next, it is beneficial to develop standardized biophysical evaluation protocols with sufficient inherent
flexibility to allow transferability from one river system to the next. Conference participants discussed the challenge
of selecting from among the many strategies available to evaluate overall river biophysical conditions. It is a major
challenge to select an approach that is scientifically valid, provides the information required to both understand river
conditions and gauge progress toward realizing stated restoration objectives, and can be implemented within
limited budgets. A key aspect of this challenge is avoiding the blind use of cookbook/scorecard approaches that rely
too heavily on subjective assessment without sufficient data collection.
4.4.4 Adaptive Management
The underlying reason for conducting restoration is to improve river biophysical conditions toward stated goals. Of
course, river restoration implementation does not always go according to plans, nor does Mother Nature always
cooperate. An inherent quality of river systems is their hydroecological complexity and it is a given that, with every
river restoration effort, there will be both anticipated and unanticipated results. Anticipated or not, changes need to
be monitored, documented, and evaluated to determine if project objectives and/or restoration tactics need to be
modified to improve overall project success. This is the essence of adaptive managementa structured, iterative
process of optimal decision-making in the face of uncertainty (Adaptive Management, 2011). Adaptive management
requires the collection and analysis of monitoring data to understand progress toward meeting a restoration goal. As
such, adaptive management is a critical part of the restoration process, providing the opportunity to learn from our
experiences and, if necessary, to augment or change restoration tactics to more effectively meet project objectives
and/or redirect a project toward a desired trajectory. Incorporating lessons-learned through adaptive management
will improve management over time while reducing uncertainties.
4.4.5 Data Sharing
Conference participants underscored the importance of sharing river restoration data. Given the array of methods
and surveys available for monitoring and evaluating rivers, data sharing would benefit from standardizing how data
is collected and disseminated. Information from both qualitative experiences and quantitative data is useful to
others. There are numerous benefits for having in place a mechanism that allows data sharing, including improving
project coordination, learning from others experiences, reducing the likelihood of reinventing-the-wheel scenarios,
identifying additional restoration team members, and disseminating background information, among many others.
Several conference participants noted the importance of sharing reports and documents regardless of whether or
not a project achieved its objectives, with the idea that disclosing failures and information about what did not work
Conferencias
88
plenarias
was just as important as reporting what did work. From a technical standpoint, internet resources and technology
can be used to build and archive restoration databases that can be shared openly or with some restrictions.
Participants involved in transboundary river projects also noted the importance and challenges of establishing
internationally shared databases.
4.5 Emerging Themes of Environmental Flow, Climate Change, Native Fish Conservation, and Transboundary
Rivers
Four emerging themes in river restoration in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico were given special
attention at the conference. Quantifying and securing environmental flows is becoming more of a priority in semi-
arid regions affected by thirsty, growing human populations. Understanding and incorporating climate change
knowledge into the overall river restoration equation is critical for long-term viability. The rehabilitation of native
fish communities and restoration of river hydroecological processes are often complimentary, yet have often
occurred in isolation from one another. Conference discussions focused on how to better integrate these three
initiatives to achieve broader river restoration goals. The fourth emerging theme considered transboundary river
restoration. In the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, where many rivers cross or form the international
boundary, the formation of effective transboundary teams is an essential ingredient of effective river restoration.
4.5.1 Environmental Flows
Securing environmental flows to protect and restore native river ecosystems has become a priority in the U.S.,
Mexico, Australia, and many other countries. The challenge is formidable, particularly in the face of current and
future pressures placed on our dryland rivers by ever growing thirsty populations. Practitioners are challenged to
find ways to quantify the water needed to support and bring back native ecosystems, as well as to develop new and
innovative strategies to acquire the water needed to protect native river flora and fauna in the long-term.
Despite the challenges to protecting streamflow, speakers noted progress on several fronts. For example, Mauricio
del la Maza (WWF) noted that, in Mexico, nature is now considered a water user along with the typical industrial,
commercial, and domestic uses. He also noted that it is now possible to establish a water trust that would allow
purchased water to stay in the river system. Regardless of the strategy for securing water in Mexico, the government
(particularly the water management agency, CONAGUA) has to be a partner.
Joanna Bate-Nadeau (Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona) noted that the Arizona Department
of Water Resources (ADWR) has an in-stream program for beneficial uses that allows users to retain their water
rights. Although the ADWRs report reviews several strategies for quantifying environmental flow (Rieke 1991), the
use of median monthly flows is becoming commonplace. Although not ideal, such an approach may allow relatively
rapid legal establishment of an in-stream flow right, which, at the very least, protects base flow essential for long-
term viability of native flora and fauna.
However, caution was expressed about quantifying environmental flows based solely on median monthly flow.
Particularly for impounded rivers with buffered peak flows, such an approach can lead to further taming of the
natural streamflow hydrograph. Regardless of the streams condition or the environmental flow strategy employed,
David Merritt (Colorado State University) emphasized the importance of establishing clear quantifiable goals for
desired riparian characteristics.
Many water rights are being converted to in-stream flows that provide a prescribed amount of water to supplement
base flows. Harvesting stormwater runoff during wet seasons or wet years can assist in recharging shallow aquifers,
which may raise water tables and potentially increase stream flows. Watershed alliances or water trusts can be
created to pool the resources of smaller organizations that lack funds to acquire water rights. Some regions have
established water conservancy districts or developed management plans to address water quantity and water
quality concerns. The City of Tucson is conducting a pilot project where money saved on water utility bills is donated
to conserve water for the environment. Regardless of the approach to securing flow for environmental purposes,
understanding where water is available and who owns the rights is essential.
Other strategies should be pursued in tandem so restoration progress can still be made even if securing in-stream
flow rights is delayed or fails completely. Lindsay White (Murray-Darling Basin Management Authority) stressed the
importance of identifying political windows of opportunity (e.g., non-election periods, times of above-average
Conferencias
89
plenarias
precipitation when water management may not be less volatile) that may allow progressive water policies to be
considered more openly and freely. David Yardas (National Fish and Wildlife Foundation) noted the importance of
looking for new and innovative strategies for securing environmental flow. Water transaction program are an
example of such innovative programs that might expand opportunities for fund leveraging , collaboration, and flow
restoration success in watersheds of the Southwest U.S. and Northern Mexico.
4.5.2 Climate Change
Climate change is happening right now and is altering temperature and precipitation characteristics all over the
world. In the Southwest, temperature rises of 5 to 6 C are predicted, which will transition more snowfall to rainfall
in the high elevations (USBOR 2011). A shift to higher winter runoff and lower spring runoff will complicate
allocations for agricultural water demands. Warmer temperatures and flow modifications may exacerbate stresses
on native fish, potentially shifting geographic ranges, and increasing likelihood for endangered species issues (USBOR
2011). Of great concern is how this will impact water availability for future restoration sites and how to design and
implement climate change adaptation within restoration planning and implementation efforts.
Realistic restoration objectives need to take into account climate change impacts that will exacerbate competition
between human and environmental water needs. Few publications focus on climate change effects on a basins
water balance, yet this may be the most beneficial application of hydro-climatology in support of long-term water
resources management and planning (Serrat-Capdevila et al. 2007).
The climate change session was divided into two parts: climate services and climate adaptation. The climate service
panel reviewed programs that can help river restoration practitioners incorporate climate knowledge into their
restoration programs. Janet Bair (USFWS) presented an overview of the U.S. Department of Interiors (USDOI)
Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), which aim to link science and
management to deal with large-scale conservation issues such as climate change. Potential CSC and LCC partners
include federal and state agencies, local government agencies, Native American tribes, existing regional conservation
partnerships, NGOs, colleges and universities, and a variety of other public and private groups.
The panel on climate services included: Jonathon Overpeck (Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona),
who provided an overview of the newly established Southwest CSC, which includes several host universities,
including University of Arizona; University of California, Davis; University of California, Los Angeles; Desert Research
Institute; University of Colorado, Boulder; and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. DeWayne Cecil (NOAA) reviewed
the climate services NOAAs western region provides. National climate services that are already underway include
the establishment of an Interagency Task Force that includes White House, Commission of Environmental Quality,
NOAA, and others; the establishment of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which conducted a national
assessment in 2009 and has another planned for 2013; and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA).
Dan Ferguson (CLIMAS, University of Arizona) highlighted services provided by NOAAs Regional Integrated Sciences
and Assessments (RISA) program, which include 11 geographically based teams across the U.S., including CLIMAS.
Brent McRoberts (Texas Office of the State Climatologist at Texas A&M University) reviewed the roles and mission of
state climatologists, which include summarizing and disseminating weather and climate information to the user
community; demonstrating the value of climate information in the decision-making process; performing climate
impact assessments and weather event evaluations; and conducting climate research, diagnosis, and projections.
Carolyn Enquist (Science Coordinator, NPN), who provided an overview of the mission and activities of the NPN,
which brings together citizen scientists, government agencies, NGOs, educators, and students of all ages to monitor
the impacts of climate change on plants and animals in the U.S.
The climate panel then turned its attention to the formulation of climate adaptive responses to natural resource
management and restoration. Bart Wickel (Conservation Science Program, WWF) reviewed climate adaptation
responses being implemented by WWF. He described climate adaptation as a process of adjusting to and preparing
for climate change impacts with the aim of minimizing risks (e.g., natural hazards, food security, etc.) and building
resiliency in government, business, local communities, ecosystems, and other impacted sectors. In essence,
adaptation buys time to reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change today. Opportunities included a
societal focus on water as a key issue; strengthening of links between natural resource conservation, economics, and
human development (e.g., food, water, and energy security); taking advantage of a wealth of tools, data products,
and solutions already in place by the water science community; and heightened awareness of the importance of
freshwater ecosystems.
Conferencias
90
plenarias
Tom Minckley (University of Wyoming) reviewed the importance of understanding past hydrological conditions in
formulating effective management responses to a future characterized by a rapidly changing climate. Brian Powell
(Pima County Office of Conservation Science) reviewed the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) as a local
example of an adaptation response to climate change.
4.5.3 Native Fish Conservation
Fish are often indicators of ecosystem health, so protecting and conserving aquatic species will benefit the riparian
system as a whole. One of the objectives of the river restoration conference was to strengthen ties between the
riparian and channel river restoration community and the organizations and people who are focused on the
conservation and restoration of native fish populations. The overlap between the two is considerable, yet initiatives
often operate on separate paths that do not effectively communicate with one another.
Restoring native fish habitat requires the re-establishment of natural patterns of floods and sediment transport and
ongoing restoration of hydrologic and ecological processes. Challenges exist when priorities differ between native
fish conservation and recreational fishing. Some agencies are funded by public users and respond to the
communitys desire for recreational fishing. Damming has converted many southwestern rivers into hybrid lake and
river ecosystems. Most regulated rivers can no longer sustain native fish populations because stream flow, turbidity,
temperature, and sediment transport, among others, cannot be managed to mimic the natural conditions necessary
for seasonal migration and spawning. Introduced and/or non-native fish species often thrive in altered river
conditions, giving them a competitive advantage over native species. Native fish conservation may benefit from
prioritizing efforts on particular rivers and specific reaches of rivers that have an increased potential for long-term
restoration success.
It is critical to keep monitoring efforts going after the completion of on-the-ground efforts and to be proactive in
addressing undesirable results. Chris Hoagstrom (Weber State University) noted that we cannot stem the decline of
native fish populations unless we focus on identifying and reducing the impact of the main stressors driving the
hydroecological decline of our rivers. Simply reintroducing native fish back into rivers where they have been
extirpated without addressing the main reasons why the fish species declined in the first place is not likely to
succeed.
4.5.4 Transboundary River Conservation
The U.S. and Mexico share many river miles on the Rio Grande, Colorado River, Santa Cruz River and San Pedro River.
Both nations are interested in the conservation and protection of these dryland rivers. Water quality and quantity
are concerns during international talks and in water agreements and transboundary cooperation and collaboration
are of the utmost importance when trying to ensure healthy riparian ecosystems upstream and downstream along
the rivers. Challenges in cross-border work may include political, social, cultural, language, training, and
technological obstacles. It is necessary to address differences in national and regional policy and goals when
planning river restoration along shared borders. Water falls under the federal domain in Mexico so the government
is a required partner for any restoration project affecting Mexican waters.
Ten years of experience in bi-national restoration team work on the Colorado River Delta have garnered many
lessons for practitioners. Obtaining agency buy-in to support conservation plans and obtain necessary resources was
essential. By quantifying water needs, practitioners could work with realistic expectations when planning restoration
activities. The riverside communities were the ultimate stakeholders of the Delta, so involving the community was
essential for long-term success. Showing progress in demonstrations and projects in the near-term helped maintain
momentum and support, garnering backing by agencies and the public for long-term efforts.
Aimee Roberson (USFWS) noted that forming an effective bi-national team is not possible through meetings alone.
Collaborative projects are needed to truly foster team building, confidence, and trust. In addition to grassroots bi-
national collaborative processes, recognition and involvement at the highest government level is also needed.
Gilbert Anaya (IBWC) and Francisco Bernal (CILA) noted that IBWC and CILA can provide a variety of services in
support of transboundary collaborative work, including fostering transparency between U.S. and Mexican teams,
enhancing technical/scientific dialogue, developing long-term objectives, conducting cross-training, and providing a
mechanism for effective data exchange.
Conferencias
91
plenarias
Jennifer Pitt (EDF), who has been working for over a decade on developing a transboundary environmental flow
program for the Colorado River Delta, emphasized the importance of fostering agency buy-in to the overall aims of
the conservation program as well as the need to work closely with the main water users. Water users need to
understand the importance of the goals as well as the lack of threat posed by the objectives of the environmental
flow program and conservation activities. Osvel Hinojosa (Pronatura Noroeste) noted the importance of showing
tangible progress in the short-term while long-term bi-national environmental flow initiatives are being worked out.
In this respect, he cited the importance of pilot revegetation projects being carried out along the Rio Hardy in the
Delta as an example of efforts that provide tangible evidence of progress.
4.6 Conclusions
All rivers in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico have experienced some degree of ecological deterioration
over the last century. Efforts to restore rivers across this region have increased exponentially over the last 25 years.
However, little documentation exists to describe or validate best management practices for realizing restoration
project objectives. Recognizing the array of river restoration projects across these regions, a conference was
convened to gather information from river practitioners with various levels of experience and knowledge. We
stimulated discussions about past experiences and future challenges for river restoration efforts. We provided a
platform to share information and documented lessons learned from past experiences for the benefit of future
efforts.
Dams and water diversions along most western rivers complicate efforts to manage rivers to sustain conditions
conducive for healthy riparian ecosystems. Although significant ecological restoration can only occur if a rivers
hydrologic processes can be restored, it is also necessary to work within a rivers current physical template.
Knowledge of past and present conditions on any river system is required to target main stressors, evaluate a rivers
restoration potential, and formulate realistic restoration objectives. Furthermore, future climate change
uncertainties complicate long-term river restoration and should be considered during the planning stage. Moving
forward, partnerships and collaborations within the restoration community are required to prepare for the
challenges that lie ahead and to understand what types of river restoration can feasibly be accomplished.
Incorporating the results from the conference and drawing on the expertise of key restoration experts, an applied
river restoration guidebook is being developed with the preliminary title: Planning and Implementing River
Restoration in the Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico, An Applied Guidebook for Restoration
Practitioners. The guidebook will summarize the main steps and provide detailed information on all aspects of
stream restoration processes, from planning and implementation to monitoring and evaluation. In addition, chapters
will address such special issues as climate change, quantifying and securing environmental flow, native fish
conservation, invasive plants, and the development of restoration plans for rivers that cross political boundaries. The
focus will be on dryland rivers in arid and semi-arid regions, but the guidebook will serve as a useful reference for
planning river restoration in more mesic climates as well.
Acknowledgements
The Lessons Learned conference was made possible by the generous support from the Research Coordination
Network of the Colorado River Delta, Instituto Nacinal de Ecologia, National Park Service, NOAA Sectoral
Applications Research Program, and Pronatural Noroeste. I also want to express my appreciation to several other
agencies and organizations that also supported the conference via small grants and in-kind services, including the
Center for Biology and Society at Arizona State University, Desert Fish Council, Ecosystem Economics, RECON Inc.,
Sonoran Institute, Tamarisk Coalition, and Weber State University. Our great appreciation to the Congreso Iberico
for the opportunity to present our results in Leon, Spain.
References
Adaptive Management. 20 March (2011) 3:08 UTC. In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Encyclopediaon-line. Availablefrom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_management.Internet.Retrieved29July2011.
Briggs, M.K. (1996) Riparian ecosystem recovery in arid lands: strategies and references. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Arizona, 159pp.
Conferencias
92
plenarias
Brinson, M.M. (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report
WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Condon, A. K., Spindler, P.H., Paretti, N.V., and Robinson, A.T. (2010) Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Little
Colorado River Watershed, Arizona, 2007. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Open file report 10-04, 50
p.
Follstad Shah, J. J., Dahm, C.N., Gloss, S.P., and Bernhardt, E.S. (2007) River and riparian restoration in the
Southwest: Results from the National River Restoration Science SynthesisProject. Restoration Ecology 15(3):550-562.
Glennon, R.J. (2009) Unquenchable: Americas water crisis and what to do about it. Island Press Washington D. C.
Greenwood-Smith, S.L. (2002) The use of rapid environmental assessment techniques to monitor the health of
Australian rivers. Water Science and Technology. 45(11): 155-160.
Howe, W.H. and Knopf, F.L. (1991) On the imminent decline of Rio Grande cottonwoods in central New Mexico.
Southwestern Naturalist 36:218-224.
Karr, J.R. (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries (Bethesda) 6:21-27.
McIntyre, C.L., McCoy, A.L., and Zugmeyer, C.A. (2009) A Living River: charting the health of the Upper Santa Cruz
River. Sonoran Institute, Open file report 2008, 24 p.
Naiman, R.J., Bunn, S.E., Nilsson, C., Petts, G.E., Pinay, G. and Thompson, L.C. (2002) Legitimizing fluvial ecosystems
as users of water: an overview. Environmental Management 30:455467.
NRRSS (National River Restoration Science Synthesis) (2006) River restoration in our nation: a scientific synthesis to
inform policy, grassroots actions, and future research. http://nrrss.nbii.gov/info/statistics.html
Poff, N.L., Allan, J.D., Bain, M.B., Karr, J.R., Prestegaard, K.L., Richter, B.D., Sparks, R.E., and Stromberg, J.C. (1997)
The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.
Poff, N. L., Allan, J.D., Palmer, M.A., Hart, D.D., Richter,B.D., Arthington, A.H., Meyer, J.L., Rogers, K.H. and Stanford,
J.A. (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment 1(6):298-306.
Richter, B.D., Matthews, R., Harrison, D.L. and Wigington, R. (2003) Ecologically sustainable water management:
managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13:206224.
Rieke R. (1991) A guide to filing applications for in-stream flow water rights in Arizona. Arizona Department of Water
Resources, Open file report December, 1991, 52 p.
Serrat-Capdevila, A., Valdes, J.B., Gonzlez Prez, J., Baird, K., Mata, L.J., and Maddock, T. (2007) Modeling climate
change impactsand uncertaintyon the hydrology of a riparian system: The San Pedro Basin (Arizona/Sonora).
Journal of Hydrology 347:48-66.
Shafroth, P.B., Beauchamp, V.B., M.K. Briggs, K. Lair, M.L. Scott and Sher, A.A. (2008) Planning Riparian Restoration
in the Context of Tamarix Control in Western North AmericaRestoration Ecology 16 (1):97-112.
Stromberg, J. C., Beauchamp, V. B., Dixon, M. D., Lite, S. J., and C. Paradzick (2007) Importance of low-flow and high-
flow characteristics to restoration of riparian vegetation along rivers in arid southwestern United States. Freshwater
Biology 52:651-679.
Taylor, J. P., Wester, D. B., Smith, L. M. (1999) Soil disturbance, flood management, and woody riparian plant
establishment in the Rio Grande floodplain. Wetlands 19:372-382.
USBOR (United States Bureau of Reclamation) (2001) SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c) Reclamation Climate
Change and Water, Report to Congress.
Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J.A. (1995)The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain rivers.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10(2-4):159-168.
Warner, R. E. and Hendrix, K.M. (1984) California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1035 pp.
Conferencias
93
plenarias
RESTAURACIN FLUVIAL EN NORUEGA

EXPERIENCIAS Y EJEMPLOS
Anders Iversen
Lder del Proyecto Manejo Integrado del Agua .Direccin Nacional de la Naturaleza en Noruega
Abstract
Este texto da un panorama de experiencias y ejemplos de restauracin fluvial en Noruega, un pas con clima fro y abundancia de
agua. Los proyectos de restauracin generalmente tratan de corregir los impactos negativos sobre los ecosistemas por
modificaciones anteriores: centrales hidroelctricas, modificaciones construidas para prevenir contra inundaciones, zonas de
agricultura con drenaje y zonas urbanas. En suma, la experiencia en Noruega sugiere que se debe combinar la idea de
restauracin integral y ecolgica con un alto nivel de participacin local para tener un apoyo de entusiasmo local, aprovechando
las ventanas de oportunidad que se abren.
1. Noruega datos bsicos
Noruega es un pas situado al extremo norte de Europa con una poblacin de casi 5 millones de habitantes y una
2 C
superficie de 324 000 km . El clima es fro con temperaturas medias de 15 en verano, entre junio y agosto, y
C
bajando a -5 de promedio durante los inviernos, de diciembre a febrero. El clima tiene gran variabilidad entre el sur
y el norte del pas, ya que tiene una longitud linear de 1 750 km. El clima tambin tiene diferencias distintas entre la
costa y las montaas con cimas hasta 2 470 metros de altura. Una caracterstica tpica de Noruega es la costa, con
sus numerosos fiordos, los cuales son brazos del mar entrando hasta 200 kilmetros en los valles entre las
montaas costeras.
Noruega tiene abundancia de agua. Los niveles de precipitacin varan entre 2250 mm al ao en la costa atlntica, y
550 mm al ao en las zonas interiores del pas. La escasez de agua es una problemtica desconocida. Durante el
invierno casi todo el pas se encuentra cubierto por nieve, y existen 1624 glaciares permanentes cubriendo un total
2
de 2 600 km . Se estima que todos los ros y arroyos llegan a un total de 490 000 km, con los ros excediendo un flujo
2
de 1 m /segundo representando 39 000 km. Existe un total de 455 000 lagos, cubriendo una superficie de 17 000
2 2
km , entre ellos hay 400 lagos con una superficie que excede los 5 km .
2. Restauracin fluvial en Noruega introduccin
Noruega tiene un convenio con la UE con la obligacin de implementar la Directiva de Marco sobre el agua, con sus
objetivos generales de prevenir el deterioro, proteger y mejorar el estado de los ecosistemas acuticos. Esto ha dado
un nuevo impulso a los esfuerzos de restauracin fluvial en el pas. Los impactos negativos ms frecuentes sobre las
aguas en Noruega son de centrales hidroelctricas, lluvia cida, contaminacin proveniente de agricultura y
viviendas dispersas, especies invasivas, y contaminacin proveniente de zonas urbanas y sus estaciones para limpiar
desages. Existen tambin varias modificaciones construidas para prevenir contra inundaciones y zonas de
agricultura con drenaje con un impacto muy negativo sobre el ecosistema.
Los objetivos de restauracin fluvial varan de proyecto a proyecto. Muchas veces se trata de corregir los errores
hechos con modificaciones anteriores. Las metas incluyen reestablecer los ecosistemas y su biodiversidad, mejorar la
calidad del agua y las condiciones para recreacin, pesca y turismo, y adems, se quiere prevenir inundaciones y
erosin.
Hay diferentes proporciones (o alcances) de los proyectos de restauracin fluvial. En los proyectos pequeos se trata
de rehabilitacin local con rocas, hojas, umbrales y zonas para desove. Los proyectos intermedios incluyen medidas
para abrir obstculos, reestablecer vegetacin, reabrir tramos cerrados, limpiar sedimentos contaminados y
reposicionar medidas contra inundaciones. Muchos proyectos tambin incluyen mejorar el acceso para el pblico
con senderos y sitios para la pesca o para natacin. Los proyectos ms grandes de restauracin total de tramos
Conferencias
94
plenarias
largos de los ros pueden intuir el reestablecimiento del ro natural con sus procesos hidrolgicos y ecolgicos,
asegurando un nivel mnimo de flujo, y dando suficiente espacio al ro para permitirle desarrollarse naturalmente.
Preferiblemente se logra restaurar el ro hasta una situacin que no necesita mantenimiento, pero logra auto-
soportarse a travs de los procesos de la naturaleza.
3. Ejemplos de restauracin fluvial
3.1. Hidroenerga
Noruega es el ms grande productor de hidroenerga en Europa, con una produccin de 125 TWh anualmente.
Existen 1340 centrales hidroelctricas, con 333 de estas excediendo 10 MW de capacidad instalada. Las
modificaciones han tenido un impacto ambiental en 70 % de los sistemas hidrogrficos, 17 % de longitud de los ros,
y 30 % del rea de los lagos. Adems, 15 de las 20 cataratas ms altas han desaparecido. El efecto ms grave para los
ecosistemas es disminucin o desaparicin del agua fluyente y variaciones rpidas en los niveles de agua en el ro.
Los efectos se sienten tanto para los peces, aves, plantas e insectos, como para los que utilizan la zona para
recreacin o turismo.
Las medidas tipitas para atenuar estos impactos negativos son medidas para rehabilitar el ecosistema impactado. La
lnea base es asegurar una continuidad ecolgica con un nivel mnimo de flujo, abrir obstculos y construir pasos y
escalas para peces. La remodelacin local es importante para asegurar hbitats aptos para desove y para
supervivencia de los peces jvenes, especialmente refugios para las situaciones en las que hay poca agua. Para
especies de alta importancia, como el salmn atlntico salvaje, hay programas de reintroduccin.
3.2. Medidas contra inundaciones
Tradicionalmente, hasta los aos 1980, las medidas contra inundaciones abarcaban cerrar los ros entre murallas,
cambiando los ros a canales rectos con flujo de alta velocidad y un impacto negativo grave al ecosistema. En
situaciones de inundaciones fuertes esto ha causado daos graves aguas abajo, por la velocidad del agua. Hemos
entendido la importancia y el valor de los ros naturales con sus meandros, humedales y zonas aptas para inundacin
con regularidad. Los proyectos de restauracin de las modificaciones anteriores incluyen reabrir los meandros,
reabrir el acceso para el agua a humedales y otras zonas para inundacin frecuente.
La nueva manera de pensar medidas preventivas contra inundaciones se combina muy bien con el objetivo de
restaurar ecosistemas acuticos y humedales. Este es un tipo de sinerga la que debe ser aprovechada en muchos
pases.
3.3. Agricultura
Las actividades agrcolas causan dos impactos ecolgicos en Noruega. Por el alto nivel de precipitacin han sido
necesarios sistemas de drenaje y muchos arroyos han desaparecido. Al mismo tiempo, el uso de fertilizantes causa
contaminacin de nutrientes en los ros en muchas zonas agrcolas.
Las medidas de rehabilitacin contra contaminacin incluyen zonas de vegetacin en los bordillos y estanques para
sedimentacin y limpieza biolgica. Estas son medidas baratas y aplicables. La restauracin de las modificaciones
para drenaje son ms costosas y representan desafos tcnicos. Actualmente hay una ventana de oportunidad en
este asunto en Noruega, ya que muchos de los sistemas de drenaje estn en un estado que necesitan inversin para
renovarlos y reemplazarlos. Los mejores proyectos efectuados combinan el reabrir el arroyo con las medidas de
rehabilitacin para combatir contaminacin.
3.4. Ros urbanos
En las zonas urbanas tambin fue una tradicin encerrar los ros para ganar tierra para viviendas e industria.
Actualmente, la gente es ms consciente de su calidad de vida, y quieren zonas verdes, parques, flores, ros y
arroyos en su vecindad. En las tres ciudades ms grandes en Noruega (Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim) ya existen planes
para reabrir y restaurar los ros. Unos pocos ya han sido efectuados con xito.
El problema ms grande es el costo inmenso de los proyectos. Una experiencia aprendida de los proyectos exitosos
es que se tienen que aprovechar las ventanas de oportunidad. Es decir, que se tiene que estar atento sobre planes
municipales espaciales para reestructurar sectores enteros de la ciudad, o planes para nuevas infraestructura como
Conferencias
95
plenarias
carreteras, vas de ferrocarril, etc. Estos son proyectos de gran inversin, y cuando se logra hacer restauracin fluvial
una parte de la planificacin espacial puede ser un costo extra aceptable, especialmente cuando se evala el valor
agregado que un ro puede dar al resultado final para el sector.
4.1. Lo aprendido
4.1. Puntos clave
Entre las experiencias aprendidas resaltan dos puntos claves: participacin para tener un apoyo de entusiasmo local,
y la necesidad de estar atento para poder aprovechar las ventanas de oportunidad. Cuando se planifica un proyecto
de restauracin, es importante facilitar la participacin y cooperacin local, invitando la gente a dar sus opiniones, e
involucrndolas en la seleccin de soluciones. Esto va a dar una base local de entusiasmo, dedicacin y compromisos
que impulsan el xito del proyecto. Especialmente en las zonas urbanas, la voz de la gente ha tenido gran
importancia. Una herramienta buena es llegar a los nios y jvenes en las escuelas, invitando a las escuelas a pasear,
dndoles material educativo sobre temas del ro y del agua y proporcionarles proyectos para los alumnos. En algunas
ciudades de Noruega hay un sistema donde las escuelas pueden ser padrinos de un ro, con el compromiso de
cuidar, limpiar y mantenerlo.
4.2 Proyectos de restauracin
Para que un proyecto de restauracin tenga credibilidad es imprescindible liderarlo con claridad y conocer las
limitaciones legales, tcnicas y econmicas. Para la toma de decisiones se necesita conocimiento cientfico del
ecosistema, pero tambin los conocimientos locales e histricos de la gente local. Entre las soluciones y medidas se
deben buscar las que van a auto-soportarse a travs de los procesos de la naturaleza, sin necesitar mantenimiento
costoso.
4.3 Restauracin integral
Para llegar a los mejores resultados, se tiene que pensar siempre en una manera integral para todo el sistema
hidrogrfico, basado en un entendimiento del ecosistema. Un objetivo bsico es dar suficiente espacio al ro para
que los procesos hidrolgicos naturales puedan desarrollarse. El otro objetivo bsico es dar vida al ro, tanto con
flujo de agua como con continuidad ecolgica.
En suma, la experiencia en Noruega sugiere que se debe combinar la idea de restauracin integral y ecolgica con un
alto nivel de participacin local, aprovechando las ventanas de oportunidad cuando se abren.
Agradecimientos a las fuentes de informacin y ejemplos:

Los ejemplos y las experiencias presentados han sido contribuidos por:
- La Direccin Nacional de la Naturaleza (DN)
- La Direccin Nacional de los Recursos de Agua y Energa (NVE)
- El Instituto para Invesitigaciones en Agricultura y Medio Ambiente (Bioforsk)
- El Municipio de Trondheim (Trondheim kommune).
- El Municipio de Trondheim (Trondheim kommune).
- El Foro para Los Ros en Oslo (Oslo Elveforum)
- La asesora NaturRestaurering.
Conferencias
96
plenarias

Restaurar Rios PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Restaurar Rios PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ICONGRESOIBRICODERESTAURACINFLUVIAL

LA ESTRATEGIA NACIONAL DE RESTAURACIN DE ROS

Jess Yage Crdova

Subdirector General de Gestin Integrada del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico

4. Diagnstico de los ros en Espaa

- Necesidad de una mejora de la coordinacin entre administraciones, coincidiendo en la necesidad de

- Importancia de la agricultura y la urbanizacin como principales presiones de los ros espaoles,

5. Definicin de lneas de trabajo

5.1. Modificaciones en la legislacin vigente

Ya en 2010, durante el proceso de transposicin de la Directiva de Inundaciones, enmarcado en el Real Decreto

5.2. Formacin y educacin ambiental

5.3. Proteccin y conservacin

5.3.1. Reservas naturales fluviales

Con esta Red de Reservas se pretenden alcanzar los siguientes objetivos:

- Mantenimiento de un nmero amplio de tramos fluviales que sean representativos de la diversidad

5.3.2. Prevencin de los daos por inundaciones

2. Desarrollo de los Mapas de Peligrosidad y Riesgo de Inundacin. Fase en la que se debe

Comparacin del diferencial (B-C) acumulados (Con proyecto) y (Sin proyecto)

B-C_desc_Acumu (Sin Proyecto) B-C_desc_Acumu (Con Proyecto) Dif_ (ConProyecto)-(Sin Proyecto)

5.3.3. Sistema Nacional de Cartografa de Zonas Inundables (SNCZI)

Tabla 2. Longitud de cauces contratada para su cartografa

5.3.4. Situacin actual de la implantacin de la Directiva 2007/60/CE por Demarcaciones Hidrogrficas

5.3.5. Programa de actuaciones para la conservacin del Dominio Pblico Hidrulico

Figura 4. La restauracin de ros genera puestos de trabajo. CH Cantbrico, 2009

Figura 5 Localizacin geogrfica de los proyectos incluidos en el Programa de Restauracin y Rehabilitacin

Figura 6 . Tipologas de actuaciones y el porcentaje de proyectos de la ENRR que las incluyen

34,1 60,4 87,9 25,3

Como objetivos concretos tiene:

- Sensibilizar sobre los valores socio-ambientales de los ecosistemas fluviales.

- Promover la participacin ciudadana a travs de grupos y entidades de voluntariado para el conocimiento,

- Fomentar la coordinacin entre todos los agentes

Tabla 3 Datos de las convocatorias 2007 a 2011

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

- Tareas de limpieza y retirada de basuras y malezas de los cursos fluviales

- Mejora del hbitat para favorecer la regeneracin natural de especies nativas

- Control de especies invasoras y deteccin de causas de su expansin

- Adecuacin de infraestructuras para el uso y disfrute de los ros

- Tareas de sealizacin, documentacin y puesta en valor de paisajes fluviales

- Restauracin de pequeas infraestructuras del patrimonio cultural, y recuperacin de costumbres

- Vigilancia ambiental, informacin de denuncias e infracciones y deteccin de nuevas presiones e impactos

- Realizacin de encuestas sobre distintas problemticas en torno a los ros

Tambin se est desarrollando un programa de seguimiento y evaluacin de todo lo realizado, fomentado la

LA ESTRATEGIA NACIONAL DE RESTAURACIN DE ROS EN LA CUENCA DEL DUERO

Ignacio Rodrguez Muoz

Figura 1. Tramo transfronterizo del ro Duero corriendo libre

Figura 2. Ortofotos comparativas de 1956-2006 de un tramo del ro rbigo

3. Medidas relacionadas con la planificacin

4. Medidas relacionadas con la gestin o administracin

5. Proyectos y actuaciones especficas de restauracin de ros

La tipologa de actuaciones es relativamente sencilla:

- Recuperacin de la continuidad longitudinal

SUBPROGRAMA 3. Recuperacin y mejora de la continuidad longitudinal de nuestros ros

SUBPROGRAMA 4. Recuperacin y mejora de la conexin lateral de nuestros ros

Motas eliminadas: 41.500 m.l.

Figura 3. Eliminacin de azud en el Cea

- defensas, incluidas las biotecnias

RESTAURACIN FLUVIAL: PRINCIPIOS, DIFICULTADES Y PROPUESTAS.

Alfredo Ollero Ojeda

1. Introduccin: el gran reto de recuperar sistemas naturales

Figura 1. Encauzamiento en Herrera de los Navarros (Zaragoza). Foto: Daniel Ballarn

3. Restauracin utpica o rehabilitacin realista?

4. Principios y dificultades de la restauracin fluvial

Es urgente y necesario desarrollar normativas y establecer procedimientos pblicos de tutela de la restauracin y de