WP2 Expert meeting on "Water quality assessment in Gauja/Koiva RBD"
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WP2 Expert meeting on
“Water quality assessment in Gauja/Koiva RBD”
4-5 February, 2013
Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development
(Peldu street 25, Riga, Latvia)
Kristina Veidemane (BEF-Latvia) opened the meeting and introduced with objectives, agenda and
expected outcomes of the meeting.
Objectives of the meeting:
• to review on the process and experience in sampling and analyses;
• to present and reflect the results of the chemical water quality assessment on the Estonian
part of the basin;
• to present and reflect on the results of the assessment of the hazardous substances in water
bodies in Latvia;
• to review and discuss the results with regard to ecological status assessment on fish,
phytoplankton, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates in transboundary water bodies of
Gauja/Koiva basin;
• to discuss the harmonisation potentials for the water quality objectives/class boundaries;
• to introduce and discuss on an approach to present the water quality assessment results to
general public (web portal, brochure)
Overview on the process in collection and analysing the data of the transboundary surface waters
quality
Ms. Agnija Skuja and Mr. Ivars Druvietis from the Institute of Biology of the University of Latvia
and Mr. Ingmar Ott and Mr. Peter Pall from Estonian University of Life Sciences introduced with
sampling and analysing processes in both countries. Main results are:
• In both countries samples were collected for analysing water chemistry, hydromorphology,
phytobenthos, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish fauna in rivers and in lakes
(except fish fauna in lakes in Latvia).
• In Estonia all samples have been analysed and water status assessed while in Latvia analyses
are still in process.
• Results of overall estimated ecological status in water bodies shows, that in lakes in Estonia:
o hydromorphology is better than overall estimated status of water quality
o macroinvertebrates are better than overall estimated status of water quality
o macrophytes are worse than overall estimated status of water quality
o water abiotic properties and phytoplankton has diverse results comparing to overall
estimated status of water quality
1
o only one lake has poor ecological status, others have good or moderate ecological
status.
• Results of estimated overall water status from different elements (except water chemistry)
shows, that in rivers:
o Good water ecological status are in 11 water bodies, moderate in 9 water bodies,
while bad in 4 water bodies
o In all 4 water bodies, which have bad ecological status, the main reason is bad
ecological status of fish fauna (3 water bodies) and macroinvertebrates (1 water
body).
• Joint sampling exercises were carried out in 4 rivers in 8 sites for sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates and in 3 rivers in 6 sites for sampling phytobenthos and macrophytes.
• Joint sampling exercises were carried out also in 3 lakes. During joint fieldwork, samples
were collected for analysing water properties, hydromorphology, phytoplankton,
macroinvertebrates and macrophytes.
Overview on the results of the chemical quality
Ms. Kristina Veidemane introduced with the results of the assessment of chemical quality in
Estonian rivers and the monitoring of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) , according to the
presentation prepared by Karin Pachel from Tallinn University of Technology. Main results are:
• according to the Estonian classification system, the status of rivers is good or very good;
• emissions from the outlets of not reconstructed WWTP are higher and has more effect on
the concentrations of BOD5 then on Ptot and Ntot
Ms. Rita Poikāne (Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology) presented the results of the assessment of
the chemical quality by hazardous substances (HS) in rivers and lakes of Latvia. Main results are:
• reference water bodies have to be reconsidered, because, for example, according to the
results of HS chemical analyses in the reference water body Juveris lake HS concentrations
are very high. Accordingly, Juvers lake cannot be used as a reference water body in future.
• Concentrations of analysed HS in water are low and fit in environmental quality standards
(EQS), while concentrations in biota are high.
• Observed HS concentrations in lakes were higher than in rivers, the most polluted lakes are:
o Dunezers lake –observed higher concentrations of dioxins / furans and dioxins like
PCB in perch and relatively higher concentrations of 4-nonylphenol in sediments
(1630 ug/kg); 4-n-Octylphenol (11 ug/kg dm); 4-tert-Octylphenol (106 ug/kg dm),
PAH; Hg (0.56 mg/kg), Zn (156 mg/kg) and Cu (12 mg/kg).
o Juveris lake –higher concentrations of dioxins / furans and dioxine like PCB and
Hexachlorobenzene observed in perch.
o Lielezers lake –higher concentrations of Penta BDE, Octa BDE, HBCDD observed in
perch and relatively higher concentrations of HBCDD (440 pg/g) in sediments.
o Trikatas lake –higher concentrations of Octa BDE observed in perch and relatively
higher concentrations of Penta BDE (105 pg/g), Octa BDE (36 pg/g) in sediments.
2o Alauksts lake - relatively higher concentrations of HBCDD 545 (pg/g), Cd (1.4 mg/kg),
Pb (56 ug/kg) in sediments.
o Burtnieks lake –high concentrations of the mercury observed in perch (even higher
than in the Salaca River estuary and relatively higher concentrations of 4-
nonylphenol in sediments.
o In the Gauja River at the border with Estonia, - the highest concentration of mercury
observed in Unio tumidus.
Groundwater bodies mapping
Olgerts Aleksans (Riga Technical University, Environmental Modelling Centre) introduced the
project partners with a hydrogeological model for drinking groundwater management and
environmental health, which also included modelling of the Gauja river basin groundwater bodies.
Main modelling and calculations possibilities:
• Areas of groundwater bodies in the Gauja/Koiva river basin;
• Flow rates and directions of groundwater;
• Flow through different aquitardes in mm per year;
• Calculations of ground water balance of Latvian territory;
• Calculation of discharges and infiltration amounts from each water body.
Discussions and agreements within 5 expert working groups
Main objectives of the discussions in the working groups were to review and discuss the results in
regard to ecological status assessment on water abiotic properties, fish, phytoplankton,
macrophytes and macroinvertebrates in the transboundary water bodies of the Gauja/Koiva basin,
as well as to discuss the harmonisation potential for the water quality objectives/ecological class
boundaries.
Agreements from the macrophytes WG
With the purpose of harmonisation of the ecological status assessment methodology, Latvian
experts will overtake the methods used in Estonia.
• Intercalibration is already carried out.
Agreements from the phytoplankton WG
With the purpose of harmonisation of the ecological status assessment methodology, Latvian
experts will overtake the methods used in Estonia.
• To develop a common strategy towards harmonised monitoring in the Gauja/Koiva river
basin, following issues were agreed:
o Continuous intercalibration is needed. Two experts have to analyse the same
sample.
o Parallel sampling in one time in transboundary surface water bodies.
o Common sampling method still has to be developed.
3o Common estimation method of overall ecological status has also still to be
developed.
Agreements from the phytobentos WG
Since sampling and assessment methods are used the same in Estonian and Latvia, harmonisation
and intercalibration are carried out, no additional agreements are needed at the moment.
Agreements from the macroinvertebrates WG
Since sampling and assessment methods are used the same in Estonian and Latvia, harmonisation
and intercalibration are carried out, no additional agreements are needed at the moment.
Agreements from the fish WG
• Used sampling methods and gears have to be compared between Estonian and Latvian fish
experts.
• Assessment results have to be exchanged and Latvian data sent to Estonian experts.
Estonian experts will analyse them.
• Latvian experts will overtake Estonian assessment methods.
• Draft of common recommendations for monitoring harmonisation in the Gauja/Koiva river
basin will be ready by the end of March.
Agreements from the WG on chemicals
It is difficult to compare and discuss the results of chemical quality assessments between the
countries because of the delay of chemical assessments in Latvia. However, the experts agreed on
the following points to harmonise chemical quality assessment in the Gauja/Koiva river basin :
• For HS assessments in biota, first priority for sampling is fish, second – bivalves (Macoma
balthica).
• For HS assessments in sediments and water, samples have to be taken in the Gauja/Koiva
next to border.
• The existing reference surface water bodies have to be reconsidered.
• For chemical quality status estimation, experts have to harmonise calculation methods, for
example in Estonia in assessment of chemical quality status in lakes Ntot data are taken into
calculations only from vegetation period while in Latvia from all year.
• Experts have to reconsider and harmonise methodology of ecological status estimation, to
avoid situations when bad result is based on one bad result of one parameter.
The participants were introduced with national monitoring systems in Latvia by Anete Šturma from
Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre and Irja Truuma from the Ministry of the
Environment of Estonia. After introduction it was agreed that the monitoring systems will be
compared within expert groups, and in frame of this project recommendations for harmonised
monitoring system will be developed.
4Disseminating water quality assessment results to public: web portal and brochure
Mara Melnbarde (Baltic Environmental Forum) presented the ideas of a Gauja / Koiva interactive
map within the project web-site. Main discussions and agreements:
• Below the map should be described what biological and chemical parameters are.
• Red or green colours should better not be used when showing the status of a water body to
avoid associations with the WFD.
• It was decided not to include values of parameters in pop-up window. Data will be available
by downloading a corresponding excel file.
Ilze Kalvane (Baltic Environmental Forum) presented the ideas for water quality brochure in the
Gauja/Koiva River basin district. Main discussions and agreements:
• Because of missing research in frame of this project, lacking water quality data for the river
basin district water quality map will be taken from Latvian Environment, Geology and
Meteorology Centre. References of the data sources will be indicated.
• Water quality on the map will be shown by colouring stretches in appropriate colours used
in the WFD and RBD management plans. The territory of water bodies will be coloured in a
transparent appropriate colour.
• Elaboration of bioindicator species for each water quality class is not always possible,
because water bodies are very different. It was agreed to not elaborate a manual for the
public how to estimate water quality class from indicator species, while main visible
indicator species have to be described and showed in photos.
• Information of groundwater modelling results has to be included in the brochure.
5You can also read
