1. Design of monitoring networks for rivers in Austria
Karin Deutsch & Franz Wagner
Federal Ministry for Agricultural, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Vienna

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Surveillance Monitoring/type 1
Implementation Austria:
 31 Surveillance Monitoring sites ( km²/2.500 km²)
 Existing monitoring sites since 1991
 Information Exchange decision - 7 sites
 Transboundary waters
> km²
< 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 < km² if load relevant for main river

6. Surveillance Monitoring/type 1

7. 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

8. Surveillance Monitoring/type 2
Ad b) Surveillance Monitoring sites (further characterisation) – TYPE 2
Criteria for sites selection:
 more detailed description
 catchment area > 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. Operational Monitoring/1
Operational Monitoring – Implementation in Austria
 Establish status of those water bodies identified as being at risk
Start surface waters > 100 km²
Start 2010 surface waters 10 – 100 km²
Selection of relevant waterbodies for :
 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

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

16. 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)

17. 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 ( )
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

18. 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 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

19. 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

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

21. Hydromorphology Monitoring

22. Hydromorphology Monitoring
hydromorphological pressures:
morphological alterations

23. Hydromorphology Monitoring
hydromorphological pressures:
morphological alterations
residual flow

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

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

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

27. Hydromorphology Monitoring
Facts:
570 WB > 100 km² basic delineation
total lengh: 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 km² (work in progress)

28. Hydromorphology Monitoring
Risk analysis 2005:

29. Hydromorphology Monitoring
Risk analysis 2005: Hydromorphology Risk 2 + 3

30. Hydromorphology Monitoring
Indicative power of quality elements:

31. 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 (?)

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Hydromorphology Monitoring
Step 1) Grouping of water bodies.

36. 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...)

37. Hydromorphology Monitoring
Step 2) Standardised programmes for Groups

38. 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 %

39. 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

40. 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)

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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?

45. 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“

46. Thank you for attention !!