Determination of the Most Suitable Assessment Methods of River Hydromorphology for Turkey

Year 2018, , 110 - 148, 11.07.2018

Serhat Fatih Kılınç

https://doi.org/10.31807/tjwsm.322489

Abstract

The
physical structures and the habitat qualities of any rivers and degradation in rivers
have become important elements of hydromorphological assessment because of recognising
the influences of these variables in biotic structure that led to the
development of more comprehensive assessments of rivers, including river
habitat structure within the quality assessment. Accordingly, numerous hydromorphological assessment methods have been developed worldwide
including Europe after the Water Framework Directive came into force. Turkey,
as a European Union candidate country, has started to implement the Directive
and has made some progress. In this context, Turkey needs to develop a national
hydromorphological assessment method compliant with the. Two of Multi Criteria
Decision Making (methods, which are Analytical Hierarchy Process and Simple
Additive Weighting were applied to find the most suitable hydromorphological
assessment method for Turkey. For this aim, we reviewed 25 non-European methods
and 19 European methods, and determined the Slovenian method and the South
African method as the most convenient ones.

Keywords

hydromorphological-assessment, Multi Criteria Decision Making Method

References

• Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L. and Fay, J. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. FRESHWATER BIOLOGY. 37(1), pp.149-161.
• Allan, J.D. and Johnson, L.B. 1997. Catchment-scale analysis of aquatic ecosystems. FRESHWATER BIOLOGY. 37(1), pp.107-111.
• Armitage, P.D., Lattmann, K., Kneebone, N. and Harris, I. 2001. Bank profile and structure as determinants of macroinvertebrate assemblages-seasonal changes and management. REGULATED RIVERS-RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT. 17(4-5), pp.543-556.
• Barqu´n, J., Fern´andez, D., Alvarez-Cabria, M. and Pe˜nas, F. 2011. Riparian quality and habitat heterogeneity assessment in Cantabrian rivers. Limnetica. 30(2), pp.329-346
• Beisel, J.-N., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Thomas, S. and Moreteau, J.-C. 1998. Stream community structure in relation to spatial variation: the influence of mesohabitat characteristics. Hydrobiologia. 389(1), pp.73-88.
• Belletti, B., Rinaldi, M., Buijse, A.D., Gurnell, A.M. and Mosselman, E. 2015. A review of assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environmental Earth Sciences. 73(5), pp.2079-2100.
• Benda, L., Miller, D. and Barquín, J. 2011. Creating a catchment perspective for river restoration. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions. 8(2), pp.2929-2973.
• Bizzi, S., Demarchi, L., Grabowski, R.C., Weissteiner, C.J. and Van de Bund, W. 2016. The use of remote sensing to characterise hydromorphological properties of European rivers. Aquatic Sciences. 78(1), pp.57-70.
• Black, A.R., Rowan, J.S., Duck, R.W., Bragg, O.M. and Clelland, B.E. 2005. DHRAM: a method for classifying river flow regime alterations for the EC Water Framework Directive. AQUATIC CONSERVATION-MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS. 15(5), pp.427-446.
• Boon, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H. and Raven, P.J. 2010. Developing standard approaches for recording and assessing river hydromorphology: the role of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 20(S1), pp.S55-S61.
• Brierley, G.J. and Fryirs, K.A. 2005. Geomorphology and river management: applications of the river styles framework. Malden, Mass;Oxford;: Blackwell Publishing.
• Buffagni, A., Armanini, D.G. and Erba, S. 2009. Does the lentic-lotic character of rivers affect invertebrate metrics used in the assessment of ecological quality? JOURNAL OF LIMNOLOGY. 68(1), pp.92-105.
• Buffagni, A., Erba, S. and Armanini, D.G. 2010. The lentic–lotic character of Mediterranean rivers and its importance to aquatic invertebrate communities. Aquatic Sciences. 72(1), pp.45-60.
• Buffagni, A. and Kemp, J.L. 2002. Looking beyond the shores of the United Kingdom: addenda for the application of River Habitat Survey in Southern European rivers. Journal of Limnology. 61(2), pp.199-214.
• Carbonneau, P., Fonstad, M.A., Marcus, W.A. and Dugdale, S.J. 2012. Making riverscapes real. GEOMORPHOLOGY. 137(1), pp.74-86.
• Chandesris, A., Malavoi, J.R., Mengin, N., Wasson, J.G. and Souchon, Y. 2009. Hydromorphology auditing: a generalized framework at a nation scale to view streams and rivers in their landscape context. In: The 7th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, 9 January Chile. HAL, p.9.
• Chave, P.A. 2001. The EU water framework directive: an introduction. London: IWA.
• Clean Water Service. 2000. Tualatin River Basin Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) - Watersheds 2000 Field Methods, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection; Department of Environmental Programs - Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. [Accessed 15 August]. Available from: https://www.cleanwaterservices.org/media/1461/rapid-stream-assessment-technique.pdf
• Davies, N.M., Norris, R.H. and Thoms, M.C. 2000. Prediction and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics. FRESHWATER BIOLOGY. 45(3), pp.343-369.
• DSI. 2015. Devlet Su Isleri 2015 Yili Faaliyet Raporu. State Hyraulic Works Annual Report (2015). Ankara, Turkey: Devlet Su Isleri Genel Mudurlugu.
• Elosegi, A., Díez, J. and Mutz, M. 2010. Effects of hydromorphological integrity on biodiversity and functioning of river ecosystems. Hydrobiologia. 657(1), pp.199-215.
• EN 14614. 2004. BS EN 14614:2004, BS 6068-5.36:2004: Water quality. Guidance standard for assessing the hydromorphological features of rivers. British Standards Institute. Available from: http://leeds.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV1LS8NAEB6koogHtSpWq8zFm0ljdttkexGiUQ-i0hZ78BCyeWBB09JYpAf
• EN 15843. 2010. BS EN 15843:2010: Water quality. Guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of river hydromorphology. British Standards Institute. Available from: http://leeds.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3dS8NADA8yQcQHv3E6JS8-tqu70_b2IlQ3fRCVbbgHH0qv1
• ENVECO, S.A., Deltares, Ambiente, s.c., SYKE and S.A., S. 2015. National Programme for Turkey 2009 under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. Technical Assistance for Capacity Building on Water Quality Monitoring. Handbook of monitoring in the Büyük Menderes River Basin. Final. [Accessed 15 August 2016]. Available from: http://www.suyonetimi.gov.tr/Libraries/su/TAWQM_20150414_Handbook_EN_3.sflb.ashx
• Erba, S., Buffagni, A., Holmes, N., O’Hare, M., Scarlett, P. and Stenico, A. 2006. Preliminary testing of River Habitat Survey features for the aims of the WFD hydro-morphological assessment: an overview from the STAR Project. Hydrobiologia. 566(1), pp.281-296.
• ETC. 2012. Hydromorphological alterations and pressures in Europe river, lakes, transitional and coastal waters:Thematic Assessment for EEA Water 2012 Report. Prague.
• European Comission. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy.
• Feld, C.K. 2004. Identification and measure of hydromorphological degradation in Central European lowland streams. Hydrobiologia. 516(1), pp.69-90.
• Fernández, D., Barquín, J. and Raven, P. 2011. A review of river habitat characterisation methods: indices vs. characterisation protocols. Limnetica. 30(2), pp.0217-0234.
• Ferreira, J., Padua, J., Hughes, S.J., Cortes, R.M., Varandas, S., Holmes, N. and Raven, P. 2011. Adapting and adopting River Habitat Survey: Problems and solutions for fluvial hydromorphological assessment in Portugal. Limnetica. 30(2), pp.263-272.
• Fissell, C.A., Liss, W.J., Warren, C.E. and Hurley, M.D. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management. 10(2), pp.199-214.
• Fryirs, K., Arthington, A. and Grove, J. 2008. Principles of river condition assessment. In: Brierley G, F.K. ed. River futures. An integrative scientific approach to river repair. Washington: Society for Ecological Restoration International, Island Press, pp. 100–124.
• FLUVIUS. 2012. Hydromorphological Status and Dam Projects Report. 2012. Vienna: Floodplain Ecology and River Basin Managemen (FLUVIUS).
• Gibert, J., Dole-Olivier, M.-J., Marmonier, P. and Vervier, P. 1990. Surface water-groundwater ecotones. . In: J., N.R. and ´camps, H.D. eds. The ecology and management of aquatic-terrestrial ecotones. . Carnforth, UK: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Paris and Parthenon, pp.199–226.
• Giller, P.S. and Malmqvist, B. 1998. The biology of streams and rivers. Oxford;New York;: Oxford University Press.
• Gilvear, D.J., Davids, C. and Tyler, A.N. 2004. The use of remotely sensed data to detect channel hydromorphology; River Tummel, Scotland. River Research and Applications. 20(7), pp.795-811.
• Gob, F., Bilodeau, C., Thommeret, N., Belliard, J., Albert, M.-B., Tamisier, V., Baudoin, J.-M. and Kreutzenberger, K. 2014. A tool for the characterisation of the hydromorphology of rivers in line with the application of the European Water Framework Directive in France (CARHYCE). Geomorphologie-Relief Processus Environnement. (1), pp.57-72.
• Gore, J.A., Nestler, J.M. and Layzer, J.B. 1989. Instream flow predictions and management options for biota affected by peaking-power hydroelectric operations. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 3(1/4), pp.35-48.
• Gurnell, A.M., Rinaldi, M., Belletti, B., Bizzi, S., Blamauer, B., Braca, G., Buijse, A.D., Bussettini, M., Camenen, B., Comiti, F., Demarchi, L., García de Jalón, D.,
• González del Tánago, M., Grabowski, R.C., Gunn, I.D.M., Habersack, H., Hendriks, D., Henshaw, A.J., Klösch, M., Lastoria, B., Latapie, A., Marcinkowski, P.,
• Martínez-Fernández, V., Mosselman, E., Mountford, J.O., Nardi, L., Okruszko, T., O’Hare, M.T., Palma, M., Percopo, C., Surian, N., van de Bund, W., Weissteiner,
• C. and Ziliani, L. 2016. A multi-scale hierarchical framework for developing understanding of river behaviour to support river management. Aquatic Sciences. 78(1), pp.1-16.
• Harding, J.S., University of Canterbury, B.S.S. and Sciences, U.o.C.B. 2009. Stream Habitat Assessment Protocols for Wadeable Rivers and Streams in New Zealand. University of Canterbury - School of Biological Sciences.
• Heeren, D.M., Mittelstet, A.R., Fox, G.A. and Storm, D.E. 2010. Assessing Streambank Stability of Oklahoma Ozark Streams with Rapid Geomorphic Assessments. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011. pp.3907-3916.
• Hrvatske Vode. 2013. Guideline for Hydromorphological Monitoring and Assessment Rivers in Croatia. [Accessed 10 August 2016]. Available from: http://www.voda.hr/sites/default/files/projekti/2014/meander-1.pdf
• Ilnicki, P., Górecki, K., Grzybowski, M., Krzemińska, A., Lewandowski, P. and Sojka, M. 2010. Principles of hydromorphological surveys of Polish rivers. Journal of Water and Land Development. 14(1), pp.3-13.
• Kail, J., Jähnig, S. and Daniel, H. 2009. Relation between fl oodplain land use and river hydromorphology on different spatial scales –a case study from two lower-mountain catchments in Germany. Fundamental and Applied LimnologyArchiv für Hydrobiologie. 174/1, pp.63-73.
• Kamp, U., Binder, W. and Hölzl, K. 2007. River habitat monitoring and assessment in Germany. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 127(1), pp.209-226.
• Kibaroglu, A. and Tigrek, Ş. 2011. Strategic Role of Water Resources for Turkey. In: Kibaroglu, A., et al. eds. Turkey's Water Policy: National Frameworks and International Cooperation. Heidelberg ; New York: Springer, pp.27-42.
• Kleynhans, C., Louw, M. and Graham, M. 2008. Module G: EcoClassification and EcoStatus determination in River EcoClassification: Index of Habitat Integrity (Section 1, Technical manual) Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
• Kleynhans, C., Louw, M., Thirion, C., Rossouw, N. and Rowntree, K. 2005. River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus determination (Version 1). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Report.
• Kleynhans, C.J. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity status of the Luvuvhu River (Limpopo system, South Africa). Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery. 5(1), pp.41-54.
• Kleynhans, C.J., Mackenzie, J. and Louw, M.D. 2007. Module F: Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. WRC Report No. [Accessed 28 July 2016]. Available from: https://www.dwa.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/eco/ecostatus/modulef_vegrai/modulef_vegrai.pdf
• Kondolf, G.M., Montgomery, D., Piégay, H. and Schmitt, L. 2003. Geomorphic classifications of rivers and streams. In: Kondolf, G.M. and Piégay, H. eds. Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology. . Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
• Ladson, A.R., White, L.J., Doolan, J.A., Finlayson, B.L., Hart, B.T., Lake, P.S. and Tilleard, J.W. 1999. Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. FRESHWATER BIOLOGY. 41(2), pp.453-468.
• Langhammer, J. 2008. Applicability of hydromorphological monitoring data to locate flood risk reduction measures: Blanice River basin, Czech Republic. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 152(1), pp.379-392.
• Lehotský, M. and Grešková, A. 2007. Fluvial geomorphological approach to river assessment–methodology and procedure. Geografický časopis. 59(2), pp.107-129.
• Lorenz, A., Hering, D., Feld, C.K. and Rolauffs, P. 2004. A new method for assessing the impact of hydromorphological degradation on the macroinvertebrate fauna of five German stream types. Hydrobiologia. 516(1), pp.107-127.
• Malcolm, I.A., Soulsby, C., Youngson, A.F. and Hannah, D.M. 2005. Catchment‐scale controls on groundwater–surface water interactions in the hyporheic zone: implications for salmon embryo survival. River Research and Applications. 21(9), pp.977-989.
• Marcus, W.A. and Fonstad, M.A. 2010. Remote sensing of rivers: the emergence of a subdiscipline in the river sciences. EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS. 35(15), pp.1867-1872.
• Matthaei, C.D. and Townsend, C.R. 2000. Long-Term Effects of Local Disturbance History on Mobile Stream Invertebrates. Oecologia. 125(1), pp.119-126.
• Mc Ginnity, P., Mills, P., Roche, W. and Müller, M. 2005. A desk study to determine a methodology for the monitoring of the ‘morphological conditions’ of Irish Rivers. Final report. Environmental RTDI Programme 2000–2006. Central Fisheries Board—Compass Informatics—EPA.
• MDEP, M.D.o.E.P. 2009. A CITIZEN’S GUIDE to Basic Watershed, Habitat, and Geomorphology Surveys in Stream and River Watersheds — Volume IManual. Volume I and II (and Appendices). Maine Stream Team Program of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. [Accessed 22 July 2016]. Available from: http://www.geo.brown.edu/research/Hydrology/FTP_site_5099-05/Maine_water_survey_manual_v1_mainbody.pdf
• Moroglu, M. and Yazgan, M.S. 2008. Implementation of EU Water Framework Directive in Turkey. Desalination. 226(1), pp.271-278.
• Munn, A., Prat, N., Sol, C., Bonada, N. and Rieradevall, M. 2003. A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 13(2), pp.147-163.
• Murphy, M. and Toland, M. 2012. River hydromorphology assessment technique (RHAT). Training guide. Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Department of the Environment, Version 2012.
• NERI and SHMI. 2004. Establishment of the Protocol on Monitoring and Assessment of the Hydromorphological Elements. Twinning light Project No. TLP 01 – 29.
• Newson, M.D., Harper, D.M., Padmore, C.L., Kemp, J.L. and Vogel, B. 1998. A cost-effective approach for linking habitats, flow types and species requirements. AQUATIC CONSERVATION-MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS. 8(4), pp.431-446.
• Newson, M.D. and Newson, C.L. 2000. Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to basin-scale challenges. Progress in Physical Geography. 24(2), pp.195-217.
• Odemis, B. and Evrendilek, F. 2007. Monitoring Water Quality and Quantity of National Watersheds in Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 133(1), pp.215-229.
• Orr, H.G., Large, A.R.G., Newson, M.D. and Walsh, C.L. 2008. A predictive typology for characterising hydromorphology. Geomorphology. 100(1), pp.32-40.
• Paillex, A., Castella, E. and Carron, G. 2007. Aquatic macroinvertebrate response along a gradient of lateral connectivity in river floodplain channels. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 26(4), pp.779-796.
• Palmer, M., Allan, J.D., Meyer, J. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century: Data and experiential future efforts. RESTORATION ECOLOGY. 15(3), pp.472-481.
• Parsons, M., Thoms, M.C. and Norris, R.H. 2004. Development of a Standardised Approach to River Habitat Assessment in Australia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 98(1), pp.109-130.
• Petkovska, V. and Urbanič, G. 2015. The links between morphological parameters and benthic invertebrate assemblages, and general implications for hydromorphological river management. Ecohydrology. 8(1), pp.67-82.
• 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(11), pp.769-784.
• Rankin, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI):Rationale,methods, and application. Ecological Assessment Section, Devision of Water Quality Planning & Assessment. Columbus, Ohio. . [Accessed 22 August 2016]. Available from: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/Portals/35/documents/QHEI_1989.pdf
• Raven, P.J., Fox, P., Everard, M., Holmes, N.T.H. and Dawson, F.H. 1997. River Habitat Survey: A new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In: Resh, V.H. ed. Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Edinburg: The Stationery Office, pp.381-552.
• Raven, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Charrier, P., Dawson, F.H., Naura, M. and Boon, P.J. 2002. Towards a harmonized approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: a qualitative comparison of three survey methods. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 12(4), pp.405-424.
• Raven, P.J. 1998. River Habitat Quality the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man. 1998. Environment Agency
• Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Powell, J. and Braun, D.P. 1996. A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems. Conservation Biology. 10(4), pp.1163-1174.
• Rinaldi, M., Belletti, B., Van de Bund, W., Bertoldi, W., Gurnell, A., Buijse, T. and Mosselman, E. 2013b. Review on eco-hydromorphological methods. Deliverable 1.1, REFORM (REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment Management), Project funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme (2007–2013), Topic ENV.2011.2.1.2-1 hydromorphology and ecological objectives of WFD, Grant Agreement 282656.
• Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F. and Bussettini, M. 2011. Guidebook for the evaluation of stream morphological conditions by the Morphological Quality Index (IQM). Version 1.
• Rinaldi, M., Surian, N., Comiti, F. and Bussettini, M. 2013. A method for the assessment and analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italian streams: The Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Geomorphology. 180-181, pp.96-108.
• Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena. 22(3), pp.169-199.
• Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. NewYork, USA: McGraw-Hill.
• Sandin, L. and Johnson, R.K. 2004. Local, landscape and regional factors structuring benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Swedish streams. Landscape Ecology. 19(5), pp.501-514.
• Scheifhacken, N., Haase, U., Radu, G.L., Kozovyi, R. and Berendonk, T.U. 2012. How to assess hydromorphology? A comparison of Ukrainian and German approaches. Environment Earth Science (65), pp.1483–1499.
• Sípek, V., Matousková, M. and Dvorák, M. 2010. Comparative analysis of selected hydromorphological assessment methods. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 169(1-4), pp.309-319.
• Somerville, D.E. and Pruitt, B.A. 2004. Physical Stream Assessment: A Review of Selected Protocols for Use in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division (Order No. 3W-0503-NATX). . Washington,US.
• Sözen, S., Avcioglu, E., Ozabali, A., Görgun, E. and Orhon, D. 2003. European Union Water Policy-Tasks for Implementing "Water Framework Directive" in Pre-accession Countries. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A. 38(8), pp.1401-1410.
• Starr, R.R. 2009. Stream Assessment Protocol Anne Arundel County Maryland. Stream Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office. [Accessed 25 July 2016]. Available from: https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/pdf/1new%20stream%20reports/s09-01.pdf
• Sumer, V. and Muluk, C. 2011. Challenges for Turkey to Implement the EU Water Framework Directive. In: Kramer, A., et al. eds. Turkey's Water Policy: National Frameworks and International Cooperation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.43-67.
• Szoszkiewicz, K., Buffagni, A., Davy-Bowker, J., Lesny, J., Chojnicki, B.H., Zbierska, J., Staniszewski, R. and Zgola, T. 2006. Occurrence and variability of River Habitat Survey features across Europe and the consequences for data collection and evaluation. Hydrobiologia. 566(1), pp.267-280.
• Tabacchi, E., Correll, D.L., Hauer, R., Pinay, G., Planty-Tabacchi, A.M. and Wissmar, R.C. 1998. Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. FRESHWATER BIOLOGY. 40(3), pp.497-516.
• Tavzes, B. and Urbanic, G. 2009. New indices for assessment of hydromorphological alteration of rivers and their evaluation with benthic invertebrate communities; Alpine case study. Review of Hydrobiology. 2, pp.133-161.
• Tavzes, B. and Urbanič, G. 2009. New indices for assessment of hydromorphological alteration of rivers and their evaluation with benthic invertebrate communities; Alpine case study. Review of Hydrobiology. 2, pp.133-161.
• The British Geographer. 2012. River Landform. [Online]. [Accessed 22 July 2016]. Available from: http://thebritishgeographer.weebly.com/river-landforms.html
• Tockner, K., Uehlinger, U. and Robinson, C.T. 2009. Rivers of Europe. Amsterdam;London;: Elsevier/Academic Press.
• Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Boston, Mass;Dordrecht;: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Tzeng, G.-H. and Huang, J.-J. 2011. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• UKTAG. 2008. UK environmental standards and conditions (phase 1)—final report. Vol. SR1-2006.
• Ulrich, S.F. 2014. An Extended Method for Continuous Hydromorphological Assessment Applied in the Joint Danube Survey 3, 2013. ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA. pp.123-127.
• Unal, Y.S., Deniz, A., Toros, H. and Incecik, S. 2012. Temporal and spatial patterns of precipitation variability for annual, wet, and dry seasons in Turkey. International Journal of Climatology. 32(3), pp.392-405.
• Urbanič, G. 2014. Hydromorphological degradation impact on benthic invertebrates in large rivers in Slovenia. Hydrobiologia. 729(1), pp.191-207.
• Urbanic, G. and Toman, M.J. 2007. Influence of environmental variables on stream caddis larvae in three Slovenian ecoregions: Alps, Dinaric Western Balkans and Pannonian Lowland. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF HYDROBIOLOGY. 92(4-5), pp.582-602.
• USDA, U.S.D.o.A. 2009. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Version 2. National Biology Handbook Subpart B—Conservation Planning. [Accessed 25 August 2016]. Available from: www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA.../download?cid...ext=pdf
• USEPA, U.E.P.A. 2013. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013/14 : Field operations manual wadable . EPA‐841‐B‐12‐009b. Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. [Accessed 20 August 2016]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/nrsa1314_fom_wadeable_version1_20130501.pdf
• Valero, E., Álvarez, X. and Picos, J. 2015. An assessment of river habitat quality as an indicator of conservation status. A case study in the Northwest of Spain. Ecological Indicators. 57, pp.131-138.
• Vaughan, I.P., Diamond, M., Gurnell, A.M., Hall, K.A., Jenkins, A., Milner, N.J., Naylor, L.A., Sear, D.A., Woodward, G. and Ormerod, S.J. 2009. Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management. AQUATIC CONSERVATION-MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS. 19(1), pp.113-125.
• Ward , T.A., K.W., T. and E.R., A. 2003. Visual Assessment of Riparian Health. . ANR Publication Rangeland Monitoring Series. University of California. 8089, p19.
• Watershed Professionals Network. 1999. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. . [Accessed 22 August 2016]. Available from: https://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/docs/pubs/or_wsassess_manuals.aspx
• Weiß, A., Matouskova, M. and Matschullat, J. 2008. Hydromorphological assessment within the EU-Water Framework Directive—trans-boundary cooperation and application to different water basins. Hydrobiologia. 603(1), pp.53-72.
• White, D.S. 1993. Perspectives on Defining and Delineating Hyporheic Zones. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 12(1), pp.61-69.
• Wilhelm, J.G.O., Allan, J.D., Wessell, K.J., Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W. 2005. Habitat Assessment of Non-Wadeable Rivers in Michigan. Environmental Management. 36(4), pp.592-609.
• Xia, T., Zhu, W., Xin, P. and Li, L. 2010. Assessment of urban stream morphology: an integrated index and modelling system. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 167(1-4), pp.447-460.
• Z̤arghāmī, M. and Szidarovszky, F. 2011. Multicriteria analysis: applications to water and environment management. Berlin;London;: Springe