DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Stream Environmental Assessment Systems in Korea: Focus on the Biological Aspect

우리나라 하천 환경 평가체계의 분석: 생물분야를 중심으로

  • Chun, Seong Hoon (Department of Landscape Architecture, Gachon University) ;
  • Kim, Chae Baek (Gardens and Education Division, Korea National Arboretum) ;
  • Kim, Woo Ram (Department of Hydro Science and Engineering, Korea institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology) ;
  • Park, Sang Gil (Department of Landscape Architecture, Gachon University) ;
  • Chae, Soo Kwon (Department of Environmental Health and Safety, Eulji University)
  • 전승훈 (가천대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 김채백 (국립수목원 전시교육과) ;
  • 김우람 (한국건설기술연구원 수자원 하천연구소) ;
  • 박상길 (가천대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 채수권 (을지대학교 보건환경안전학과)
  • Received : 2015.05.21
  • Accepted : 2015.06.23
  • Published : 2015.06.30

Abstract

This study was carried out to assess problems related to legislative regulations and guidelines concerning some biological assessment systems applied to stream corridor in Korea. We comparatively reviewed the law of stream corridors and the guidelines for master plan concerned, and the law of water quality and health assessment criteria for the aquatic ecosystem concerned. Stream environments were not managed effectively due to the absence of detail regulations and the criteria for stream assessment. A biological assessment system was not equivalently integrated within the management of water resources in process implementation of projects resulting from the dualistic management system for stream corridors in Korea. The current biological assessment system was reflected to mainly physical habitats or only oriented to some aquatic species correlated with water quality. This system was also recognized as part of environment impact assessment based on an intensive survey method of most biological taxa. Conclusively rapid and quantitative assessment techniques based on advanced organisms, such as vegetation, fish and birds, etc. should be urgently provided for considering as representative indicators of stream conditions in Korea.

본 연구는 우리나라 하천수계의 하천환경 관리를 위해 적용되고 있는 생물학적 평가체계를 법제도적 기준과 실행계획 측면에서 검토 분석하여 문제점을 도출하기 위하여 수행되었다. 하천법과 하천사업의 계획 설계과정의 관련 지침, 수질 및 수 생태계 보전법과 수 생태계 건강성 평가 기준을 중점적으로 비교 검토하였다. 무엇보다 하천환경평가 관련 법제도적 근거가 미흡하고 관련 기준과 지침이 구체적이지 못하여 하천환경 관리의 실효성이 확보되지 못하고 있는 것으로 판단되었다. 또한 국토교통부와 환경부로 이원화된 하천수계 관리체계를 반영하듯 생물 분야의 평가항목과 기준이 수자원 관리와의 통합적 수준에 이르지 못한 채 두 부서의 사업추진 과정에서 단편적으로 고려되고 있었다. 특히 생물 중심의 평가항목과 기준은 물리구조적 서식환경 또는 수질과 연관된 수생생물에 국한되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 대다수 생물에 대한 정밀 조사를 필요로 하는 환경영향평가의 과정으로 고려되는 수준이었다. 결론적으로 하천수계를 대표할 수 있고 비교적 변동성이 적은 식생, 어류, 조류 등 고등생물을 지표화한 신속하면서도 공간 정보화된 정량적 평가기법이 마련되어야 할 것으로 판단되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Belletti, B., Rinaldi, M., Buijse, D, Gurnell, A.M. and Mosselman, E. 2014. A review of assessment methods for river hydromorpholgy. Environmental Earth Sciences 73: 2079-2100.
  2. Bolgrien, W., Anrgadi, R., Schweiger, W. and Kelly, R. 2005. Contemplating the assessment of great river ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 103: 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-1009-x
  3. Cho, Y.H. 1997. Development of an Evaluation Method of Stream Naturalness for Ecological Restoration of Stream Corridors. Ph.D. Dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. (in Korean)
  4. Chun, S.H., Kim, W.R., Kim, C.B. and Chae, S.K. 2015. A study on vegetational indicator and criteria for assessment of stream condition, Journal of Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation 15: 301-312. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2015.15.2.301
  5. Chun, S.H., Park, S.G. and Chae, S.K. 2014. Review of some advanced stream environmental assessment systems, Journal of Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation 14: 355-362. (in Korean) https://doi.org/10.9798/KOSHAM.2014.14.2.355
  6. EC. 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. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1-73.
  7. Kamp, U., Binder, W. and Holzl, K. 2007. River habitat monitoring and assessment in Germany. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 127: 209-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-9274-x
  8. KWRA. 2009. River Design Criteria & Explanation. Korea Water Resource Association, Seoul, Korea. (in Korean)
  9. MCT. 2004. Development of Techniques for Naturefriendly River Improvement. Ministry of Construction & Transportation. Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  10. MLTMA. 2002. Guideline for Nature-friendly Management of Stream Corridor. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  11. MLTMA. 2006. Manual for River Corridor Survey and Monitoring. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  12. MLTMA. 2008. Guideline for Setting up of Master plan for Comprehensive Flooding control based on Watershed & Stream Corridor. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  13. MLTMA. 2009a. Criteria and Explanation for Design of Stream Corridor. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  14. MLTMA. 2009b. Integrated Guideline for Nature-friendly Management of Stream Corridor. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  15. MOE. 2011. Report on Survey & Assessment for Health Conditions of Aquatic Ecosystem. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  16. MOE. 2012. Study on Application & Development of Assessment Technique for Naturalness of Stream Corridor. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  17. MOE. 2013. Study on Assessment for the Health Conditions of Riparian Vegetation. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  18. MOE. 2014. Guideline for Task Procedure of Eco-stream Restoration Projects. Ministry of Environment, Sejong, Korea. (in Korean)
  19. Norris, R.H. and Thomas, M.C. 1999. What is river health? Freshwater Biology 41: 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00425.x
  20. Parsons, M. and Norris, R. 2004. Development of a standardised approach to habitat assessment in Australia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 98: 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMAS.0000038182.03176.97
  21. Parsons, M., Thomas, M. and Norris, R. 2001. Australian River Assessment System: AusRivAs Physical Assessment Protocol. Monitoring River Health Initiative Technical Report: Report Number 22. University of Canberra and Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
  22. Sudaryanti, S., Trihadingrum, Y., Rosmanida, P.S.U., Supriyanti, H. and Yuliyanti, L. 1999. A trial of the Australian river bioassessment method in the Brantas River, East Java. Proceedings of International Conference on Water Quality & Waste Treatment, 19-22 October 1988. Lombok, Indonesia.
  23. Verdonschot, P.F.M. 2000. Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable catchment management. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 389-412. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017094905369

Cited by

  1. Challenges and Prospects of Stream Restoration vol.2, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.17820/eri.2015.2.2.105
  2. 광릉숲 내 봉선사천의 저서성 대형무척추동물의 군집 특성 및 생물학적 하천평가 vol.31, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.13047/kjee.2017.31.6.508
  3. 국가 하천환경관리 체계의 검토와 고찰 vol.26, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2017.26.6.431
  4. 남한 지역 고해상도 기후지도 작성을 위한 공간화 기법 연구 vol.27, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14249/eia.2018.27.5.447
  5. 낙동강 수생태계 먹이망 구조 분석: 안정동위원소 비 기반의 정량적 생태정보를 이용한 영양단계 시공간 분포 경향 파악 vol.52, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.11614/ksl.2019.52.1.050
  6. 하천환경 자연도의 평가지표 및 기준 연구 - 생물적 특성을 중심으로 vol.52, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3741/jkwra.2019.52.s-2.765
  7. 생태하천조성사업 예정지인 신당천(경상북도 경주시)의 관속식물상 vol.22, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2019.22.6.41