Design of monitoring networks for rivers in Austria Karin Deutsch & Franz Wagner Federal Ministry for Agricultural, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Vienna karin.deutsch@lebensministerium.at Franz.wagner@baw.at

Austrian surface water monitoring network Austrian national surface water monitoring network since 1991 285 fixed sites site selection – main purpose monitoring chemical pollution 2003 integration of selected reference sites Adaption WFD Definition Surveillance Monitoring - few fixed sites Operative Monitoring based Risk Analysis Art 5 WFD Operative Monitoring network – flexible not fixed Emphasis: Monitoring Hydromorphological Pressure

Austria Surveillance Monitoring/1 Surveillance Monitoring - Austria 3 Types (difference parameterset/frequencies): a) Surveillance Monitoring sites (WFD) – type1 b) Surveillance Monitoring sites (further characterisation) - type 2  Basic permanent network c) Reference sites – type 3

Surveillance Monitoring/type 1 Ad a) Surveillance Monitoring sites (WFD) – TYPE 1 Criteria for sites selection following minimum criteria WFD: Information Exchange decision 77/797 Significant bodies of water cross the boundary: Catchment area > 2500 km² Rate of water flow is significant within the river basin district

Surveillance Monitoring/type 1 Implementation Austria:  31 Surveillance Monitoring sites (75.000 km²/2.500 km²)  Existing monitoring sites since 1991  Information Exchange decision - 7 sites  Transboundary waters > 2.500 km² < 2.500 km² anthropogenic pressure from Austria  Catchment area > 2500 km² - number of sampling sites nearly according to catchement area/2.500 km², exeption Danube  Subcatchment area < 2.500 km² if load relevant for main river

Surveillance Monitoring/type 1

Surveillance Monitoring/type 1 Parameters/Frequency: 1 Year Chemistry:  general physical parameters (e.g. nutrients, BSB5) monthly  ~ 85 specific pollutants (Priority substances, Daughter Directive 76/464, relevant specific pollutants for Austria) monthly Biology:  Makrozoobenthos  Phytobenthos  Fish  Makrophytes

Surveillance Monitoring/type 2 Ad b) Surveillance Monitoring sites (further characterisation) – TYPE 2 Criteria for sites selection:  more detailed description  catchment area > 1.000 km²  selected waterbodies with typical usage (eg.agricultural usage, winter tourism centers)  39 Surveillance Monitoring sites Type 2  only existing monitoring sites with data since 1991

Basic River Monitoring Network  31 Surveillance Monitoring Sites type 1  39 Surveillance Monitoring Sites type 2 Basic River Monitoring Network Continuous longtime documentation of relevant waterbodies load estimation (e.g. Phosphor-Load – Black Sea) Overview dominant pressures and impacts

Basic River Monitoring Network Surveillance Monitoring Site - Type 1 Surveillance Monitoring Site - Type 2

Basic River Monitoring Network Parameters/Frequency: Chemistry:  general physical parameters (nutrients, BSB5, temp., pH..) monthly (some every 2 weeks) – permanently  Metals – monthly every 3 years Biology:  Makrozoobenthos (1 every 3 years)  Phytobenthos (1 every 3 years)  Fish (1 every 6 years) 2007

Surveillance Monitoring/type 3 Ad c) Reference sites – TYPE 3  Assessment of long term changes in natural conditions Criteria for sites selection:  Reference sites  5 sites Type 3  Existing monitoring sites since 2003

Surveillance Monitoring/type 3 Parameters/Frequency: Chemistry:  general physical parameters (nutrients, BSB5, temp., pH..) 1 year monthly – every 6 years Biology:  Makrozoobenthos (1 every 6 years)  Phytobenthos (1 every 6 years)  Fish (1 every 6 years)

Operational Monitoring/1 Operational Monitoring – Implementation in Austria  Establish status of those water bodies identified as being at risk Start 2007-2008 surface waters > 100 km² Start 2010 surface waters 10 – 100 km² Selection of relevant waterbodies for 2007-2008:  Based on Risk Analysis Art 5 WFD  Includes all waterbodies > 100 km² - at risk(3) or - possible at risk (2) Selection of the relevant parameter based on risk-analysis

Results Risk Analysis 2004 – River > 100 km² 940 waterbodies, medium length: 12 km 56% 13% 4%

Operational Monitoring/Chemical Pollution Chemical Pollution WB > 100 km² 198 waterbodies with risk or possibly at risk:  126 WB risk: general physico-chemical parameters including saprobic biology  43 WB risk general physico-chemical parameters including saprobic biology and specific chemical pollutants  29 WB risk: specific chemical pollutants (origin mainly point sources)

Selection of sampling site – chemical pollution General guidlines for monitoring chemical pollution: Every waterbody at risk or possible at risk needs at least 1 monitoring site Grouping diffuse pollution - only successive waterbodies Use of existing date (2005-2006) Localisation of the monitoring site within the waterbody usually at the end of the waterbody, except for: the last pollutant lies in the top/middle of the waterbody – site is situated near to pollutant Additional significant tributary stream downstream the last point source – site before inflow

Operational Monitoring/Chemical Pollution Selection monitoring site chemical pollution 1. Selection waterbodies at risk or possibly at risk 2. Checkup existing representative monitoring site within waterbody and the relevant parameters are measured 2005-2006 with WFD compliant methods  waterbody need no further monitoring 3. Checking if successive waterbodies are influenced by the same diffuse source pressures  monitoring site is located in the last waterbody of the group 4. Installation of new monitoring site  101 waterbodies with risk or or possibly at risk are monitored 2007-2008

Operational Monitoring/Chemical Pollution Parameters/Frequencies: 1. WB with Risk General physical chemical parameters: Monitoring over 2 years a) General physical parameters – monthly b) Indicative biological parameter: Makrozoobenthos – 1/year Phytobenthos – 1/year 2. WB with Risk Specific pollutants including Priority Substances: Monitoring over 1 year b) Specific pollutant responsible for risk

Operative Monitoring/ Specific Pollutants Specific Pollutants – risk or possible risk nachgewiesene Überschreitung mögliche signifikante Beeinträchtigung Gemeinschaftsrechtlich geregelte Stoffe Sonstige Stoffe

Hydromorphology Monitoring

Hydromorphology Monitoring hydromorphological pressures: morphological alterations

Hydromorphology Monitoring hydromorphological pressures: morphological alterations residual flow

Hydromorphology Monitoring hydromorphological pressures: morphological alterations residual flow hydro-peaking

Hydromorphology Monitoring hydromorphological pressures: morphological alterations residual flow hydro-peaking impoundment

Hydromorphology Monitoring hydromorphological pressures: morphological alterations residual flow hydro-peaking impoundment discontinuity

Hydromorphology Monitoring Facts: 570 WB > 100 km² basic delineation total lengh: 12.000 km average length: 20 km max. length: 288 km risk analysis: 940 WB detailed delineation average length: 12 km max. length: 135 km 74 % risk hydromorphology 2500 WB 10-100 km² (work in progress)

Hydromorphology Monitoring Risk analysis 2005:

Hydromorphology Monitoring Risk analysis 2005: Hydromorphology Risk 2 + 3

Hydromorphology Monitoring Indicative power of quality elements:

Hydromorphology Monitoring Indicative power of quality elements: Fish = most indicative quality element in most cases: fish sampling (additional BQEs???) sampling programme: 2 x morphology of stream bottom: MZB Impoundment: MZB - trivial correlation (?)

Hydromorphology Monitoring The 5 STEP procedure for the selection of sampling sites: Step 1) Grouping of water bodies. Step 2) Standardised programmes for Groups Step 3) Determine No of WB per Group Step 4) Select representative WB within the Group. Step 5) exact number and location sampling sites Check for mismatches between design assumptions and cost estimates → a) o.k. b) restart, refine

Hydromorphology Monitoring The 5 STEP procedure for the selection of sampling sites: Procedure in the national guidance paper (Fleischmann 2006) green: general rules yellow: Decision by technical/local experts supported by general rules

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 1) Grouping of water bodies. risk analysis: pressures and combinations of pressures 28 combinations out of 32 possible combinations 5 dominant combinations : cover 60% of risk typology: similar natural conditions with regard to the relevant BQE  fish typology combine pressure combinations and typology  groups

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 1) Grouping of water bodies.

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 2) Standardised programmes for Groups number of sampling sites for each pressure location of sampling sites in the water body discussion process: scientific experts experts from local authorities and government  more than 1 sampling site per water body table = guideline for decisions deviation due to expert knowledge possible in a pre-determined range (project: min / max approach...)

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 2) Standardised programmes for Groups

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 3) Determine No of WB per Group theoretical maximum cost TMC: all WBs at risk will be monitored according to the standardised programmes available budget AB design factor = DF = AB/TMC [%] DF is the proportion of WB at risk that can be monitored (for each group) ... about 25 - 35%

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 4) Select representative WB within the Group criteria and recommendations where established reasonable selection of representative cases by experts ot the local authorities on-site experience and knowledge ranking of all WBs to keep selection process flexible 1 = WBs within DF that should be monitored 2 and 3: lower priority

Hydromorphology Monitoring Step 5) exact number and location sampling sites for WB with priority 1 (Step 4) based on standardised programmes (Step 2) = guidelines, supplemented by expert judgement by experts ot the local authorities Check for mismatches Changes in number of sampling sites → design factor back to Step 3)

Hydromorphology Monitoring work is in progress 700 WB with risk some 300 sampling sites (within 3 yrs) in reality: decrease of number of sites / costs: already availaible data on-site situation often more simple than theoretical calculations

Hydromorphology Monitoring Theory: standardised programmes 2 WB discontinuity: 2 sites 1 WB with hydropeaking 2 sites 3 WB with residual flow: 2x3 = 6 sites Together: 10 sites Reality: additional expert judgement Needed: 5 sites

Further steps Monitoring next challenge: representativeness of sites for WB ecolocical resolution finer than WBs unlimited division of WBs not possible result: different ecological status in one WB Austria: „assessment rules“ fixed in law (?) example: morphological alterations

Further steps Monitoring next challenge: representativeness of sites for WB ecolocical resolution finer than WBs unlimited division of WBs not possible result: different ecological status in one WB Austria: „assessment rules“ fixed in law (?) example: morphological alterations how much has to be altered? > 25 % habitat loss ? example „bridge = bad ecological status“ (???) Discussion: How are other member states dealing with this problem?

National guidance paper „Monitoring“ Many thanks to: N. Fleischmann & Team: Project „ WFD compliant Monitoring. Redesign and Harmonisation of the Austrian Monitoring Network“ National guidance paper „Monitoring“

Thank you for attention !!