Water monitoring assessment

Water Quality LV/2005-IB/EN/01Final Meeting 26 June 2007

Water monitoring assessment

2


Questions related to monitoring water quality

What is the water quality status?

What are the ecosystems at risk ?

What are the trends ?

What are the consequences of land use/cover changes on water quality?

What are the fluxes of matter and pollutants ?

3


Spatial representation

4


Surface water

Hydrology

Groundwater

Climate monitoringnetwork

spatio-temporal representativeness

Keep the long-term series

Re-enforce the connections between monitoring networks

5


Water discharge monitoring assessment

6


Catchment surface (km2)versus

Specific run-off (l/s/km2)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Daugaval/s/k

m2

km2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5000 10000km2

l/s/k

m2

Large variability in small catchments

7



Average discharge (m3/s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

y = 0.0072r2 = 0.9198

Dis

cha

rge

(m

3 /s)

km2

0

100

300

500

700

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

y = 0.008xr2 = 0.998

km2

Dis

cha

rge

(m

3 /s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

y = 0.0075xr2 = 0.672

km2

Dis

cha

rge

(m

3 /s) Prediction decreases

in small catchments

8



max discharge / min discharge

0ma

x d

isch

arg

e /

min

dis

cha

rge

0

50

100

150

200

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000km2

0

50

100

150

200

0 5000 10000ma

x d

isch

arg

e /

min

dis

cha

rge

km2

Svete - Uzini

Amata - MelturiDurbe - Cirava

Barta - Dukupji

9


Water quality monitoring assessment

Existing network

10


Forest

(%)

Agriculture

(%)

Wetland

(%)

Lakes

(%)

Pop. Density

(inh / km2)

Mean 43 48 2.2 5.4 28

SE 15 17 4.5 7.7 40

Median 40 49 0.9 2.3 15

Min 19 0 0 0 3

Max 83 76 33 47 221

Existing water quality monitoring in LatviaCatchment land-cover

11



% of forest

0

20

40

60

80

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

?

km2

% F

ore

st

0

20

40

60

80

0 500 1000 1500 2000km2

% F

ore

st

Existing water quality monitoring network

12



% of agriculture

?

0

20

40

60

80

0 500 1000 1500 2000km2

% o

f A

gric

ultu

re

0

20

40

60

80

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

% o

f A

gric

ultu

re

km2


13


% Forestversus

% agriculture

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

11 37

4

6

112

189149136

148436

% Forest

% A

gric

ultu

re

% Agricultureversus

% wetland

0

10

20

30

40

0 20 40 60 80 100

% W

etla

nd

% Agriculture

227

37

6172

% Agricultureversus

% lakes0

10

20

30

40

50

0 20 40 60 80 100% Agriculture

% L

ake

11

6

4

3 58


14


% of Agriculture versus

density of population

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 20 40 60 80 100% Agriculture

Inh

/ k

m2



0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Inh

/ k

m2

km2

% of Forest versus


0

50

100

150

200

250

0 20 40 60 80 100

Inh

/ k

m2

% forest


15


Water quality monitoring assessmentProposed network

16


Temporal representation

Biogeochemical monitoring

Proposed water quality monitoring in LatviaSampling effort

Nutrients (N & P) & Basic indicators (O2 – pH, conductivity, SM)

1172 analyses

17



Nutrients (N & P) & Basic indicators (O2 – pH, conductivity, SM)

Total of analyses Nb of sites with

Monthly sampling

Nb of sites with

Seasonal sampling

Daugava 552 5 123

Lielupe 208 9 25

Venta 260 7 44

Gauja 152 3 29

128

34

51

32

24524 2211172

30 50560

14 12216

15 20260

8 15156

80

26

35

23

16467 971192

Choose the best spatio-temporal framework for water quality monitoring

Water quality monitoring

18


Sampling at low water in summerin winter

Sampling at high water during snowmeltin autumn

1 - Easy to planify

2 - Meaningfull in terms of representativeness of low flow (baseflow) conditions

3 - Provides realistic values to calculate nutrient fluxes

Proposal for nutrients and basic indicators

67 sites with monthly sampling instead of 24including low and high water seasonal sampling

97 sites with seasonal sampling instead of 221

Purchase autonomous automatic samplers

Measure Dissolved Organic Carbon

19



Major ions (K – Na – Mg – Ca – HCO3 – SO4 – Hardness – Cl)

Total of analyses

per year

Nb of sites with

Monthly sampling

Nb of sites with

Seasonal sampling

Daugava 12 1 0

Lielupe 24 2 0

Venta 12 1 0

Gauja 12 1 0

20


Proposed water quality monitoring in LatviaMinor ions (Cd – Pb – Hg – Ni – Cu – Zn – As – Cr)

Total of analyses Nb of sites withMonthly

sampling

Nb of sites withSeasonal sampling

Daugava 28 (Pb – Hg – Ni – Zn)24 (Cu)12 (As)10 (Cr)

0 4 (every 2 months)1 (every 4 months)

Lielupe 38 (Pb)34 (Cd – Hg – Ni – Cu)

30 (Zn)12 (As – Cr)


Venta 50 (Pb – Hg - Cu)46 (Cd – Ni - Cu)

20 (Cr)6 (As)


Gauja 26 (Cd)22 (Pb – Hg – Ni – Cu –

Zn)16 (As)4 (Cr)


21


Proposed water quality monitoring in LatviaOrganic pollutants (naphtas, pesticides, phenols)

Total of analyses Nb of sites withMonthly sampling

Nb of sites withSeasonal sampling

Daugava 24 (Naphtas)2 (pesticides)10 (phenols)

000

4 (every 2 months)2 (once a year)

1 (every 2 months)1 (every 4 months)

Lielupe 18 (Naphtas)5 (pesticides)16 (phenols)

000


3 (every 2 months)1 (every 4 months)

Venta 36 (Naphtas)2 (pesticides)6 (phenols)

000


1 (every 2 months)

Gauja 12 (Naphtas)1 (pesticides)0 (phenols)

000


Documents

Water monitoring assessment