• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Guadalete river 2013 final report week 1
 

Guadalete river 2013 final report week 1

on

  • 1,110 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,110
Views on SlideShare
403
Embed Views
707

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

2 Embeds 707

http://fs.iamadelta.eu 705
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Guadalete river 2013 final report week 1 Guadalete river 2013 final report week 1 Document Transcript

    • Report type: Research Report Author: Bachelor of Water Management –Year 4 Course: River Basin Management Date of publication: September 2013 Location: Cadiz, Spain Version number: 2.0 System Analysis of the Guadalete River Basin Ecological system assessment of the river and its environment
    • II System Analysis of the Guadalete River Basin Ecological system assessment of the river and its environment What is the State of Guadalete River Basin? This state is defined by the chemical, biological, hydrological and geomorphological properties of the river basin, as well as the involvement and influence of stakeholders Report type: Research Report Author: Bachelor of Water Management –Year 4 Course: River Basin Management Date of publication: September 2013 Location: Region of Cadiz, Spain Version number: 2.0
    • III Preface The EU IP (intensive programmes) project RAMIP (River Delta System Analysis and Management in Practice) has brought 48 students and 15 staffs together from 4 different universities to learn from each other various environment and risk disciplines aiming to integrate them in a specific field case study and apply these techniques and concepts for the river system analysis and management plans. The studies are done from biological, chemical, hydrological, geomorphological aspects that assess, discuss and analyze the situation of Guadalete River. The stakeholders from the river basin are interviewed for further information. The field week and analysis was conducted from Saturday 14/9 – Friday 20/9. In this report the results of the first week are presented and analyzed. In the second week the focus lies on vision and scenario building and measures to improve the actual state of the Guadalete River basin. The students and staff of four different Universities are responsible for the project: HZ University of Applied Sciences (The Netherlands), Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences (Finland), Ferrara University (Italy) and Cadiz University (Spain). The project is made possible by the financial contribution of the EU Lifelong Learning Programs
    • IV Summary A water system analysis was conducted in the Guadalete River Basin where the aspects of geomorphology, hydrology, chemistry and biology are taken into consideration. The geomorphological state of the river basin was assessed using IDRIAM system where the MQI is determined for each sampling spot. 50% of the MQI values were excellent. The geomorphologic state of the entire river basin is good with only poor areas where manmade structures are situated. The global slope of the river basin is 0.0056 for the upper river basin, 0.0019 for the middle and 0.0006 for the lower river basin. The hydrological assessment was conducted using two method; the OTT Qliner ultrasonic current profiler downstream and measuring line, pole and "flipper" upstream. The flow rate gradually increases from 5.3 m3/L at the Zahara outflow to 6 m3/L at the Bornos reservoir inflow. The dams regulate the water flow. After the Arcos dam the flow rate was 5.9 m3/L and gradually increases again to 11.3 m3/L at El Torno. A Sobek model was built. The hydrology of the Guadalete is entirely controlled through human engineering and is therefore an anthropologic system. The chemical assessment was conducting along the river course with in field measurements and laboratory analysis. The Hach-Lange spectrophotometer was used for the chemical analysis. The oxygen concentrations, pH levels were stable. The total nitrogen level only exceeded the EU standard for surface water (2.2 mg/L) after the WWTP of Jerez with a value of 8.29 mg/L. The total phosphorus level exceeded the EU standard for surface water (0.15 mg/L) at several sampling points. The highest being Villamartín with 0.486 mg/L and 0.345 mg/L after the WWTP of Jerez. The effluent water of the WWTP also exceeded the EU standards for effluent water for total phosphorus (1.0 mg/L) and total nitrogen (10 mg/L) with total phosphorus concentration of 1.5 mg/L and total nitrogen level of 46.60 mg/L. The Bornos Lake was stratified with no Oxygen at the bottom at the sampling point. The overall chemical state of the river is good with only point pollutions at Villamartín and especially after the WWTP of Jerez. The biological assessment was conducted using the saprobic index and biotic index. The biological state progressively decreases heading downstream, particularly after the WWTP of Jerez. Macrophytes indicate that the river is a nutrient and carbon rich environment. Certain macrophytes species discovered at three different locations indicate a nutrient poor environment. In addition, the stakeholders of the river basin were interviewed. Communication between stakeholders is poor and conflicts are common. Lack of community awareness increases pollution and illegal landfills were found. The attitude towards the river is negative and law enforcement is low.
    • V Table of Abbreviations EU IP European Intensive Program IDRIAM Stream hydro-morphological evaluation, analysis and monitoring system DGPS Differential Global Positioning System GPS Global Positioning System SW South West MQI Morphological Quality Index MAI d50,85 Discharge at 50%, 84% v Steady flow velocity Q Flow rate Qbd Flow rate of bank full discharge A Surface area Abd Area of bank full discharge SOBEK Software program for hydraulic modelling OTT Qliner Instrument for hydraulic measurments WWTP Waste water treatment plant
    • VI List of Authors Barbara Ansaloni / Francesco Cassari Francesco / Enrico Duo / Tommaso Furlani / Serena Miazzi / Alessandra Casari / Dorella Maruccia Anna Vasileva / Olga Gerasimenko / Eila Jenny Anneli Mylllylä / Bhawani Regmi / Sanchit Bista / Bipin Dulal María Rocio Ramos / Maria Aranda Garcia / Alexandre Martinez Schonemann / Laura Cadiz Berrera / Pablo Matin Binder / Gozalbes Carlos Garcia Lieke Beezemer / Eric Martinus Bisslik / Rebecca Naomi ter Borg / René Bouwmeester / Dirk Theodoor Henricus Bremmers / Rita Sofia Cardoso Vaina de Lemos / Tianyi Hu / Maarten Fritz / Godfried Gijsbert franciscus Kersten / Niek Wouter Koelen / Jevgenijs Kuzmins / Iris van der Laan / Joshi Lenferink / Arthur Ricardo van Pampus / Jelle Pieters / Gerardus Cornelis Nicolaas van der Pluijm / Laura Schneegans / Johannes Schoordijk / Martin Stefan Skaznik / Maria Orhideea Tatar / Forrest Tyler van Uchelen / Artis Vansovics / David Verschoor / Mengxiao Wang / Rudolf Wilhelmus Johannes Weterings / Marco Wiemer / Jerre Binne Doeke Wiersma / Nadine Maria Willems / Tianwen Xia
    • VII List of Figures Figure 1: Gaudalete River Basin ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 Figure 2: Elevation Measurements __________________________________________________________________________11 Figure 5: Metal gran size determinator _____________________________________________________________________12 Figure 6: Different grain sizes sorted by phi ________________________________________________________________13 Figure 7: Sieves in different grain sizes______________________________________________________________________13 Figure 8: Hjulstrom graph (http://dlgb.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/hjulstrom_curve_task.jpg )_____16 Figure 9: Layout of the sampling points aong the Guadalete river ________________________________________25 Figure 10: OTT QLiner method.______________________________________________________________________________26 Figure 11: Illutration of the Qliner method measurement _________________________________________________27 Figure 12: Example cross-section including wet and dry section. Of point 20_____________________________28 Figure 13: Side view of the SOBEK model ___________________________________________________________________31 Figure 14: Influence of the tidal weir________________________________________________________________________31 Figure 15: Velocity at point 110 _____________________________________________________________________________32 Figure 16: Velocity at point 120 _____________________________________________________________________________33 Figure 17: Precipitation map Rio Guadalete River Basin (Source: Presentation Javier Gracia). _________34 Figure 18: Main aquifers in the Guadalete River Basin (Source: Presentation Javier Gracia). ___________35 Figure 19: Map of the sampling points from the inlet of Zahara till Puerto de Santa Maria._____________39 Figure 20: Biological assessments provide information on the cumulative effects on aquatic communities from multiple stressors. (USEPA, 2003).______________________________________________________51 Figure 21: Main feedback relations within the ecosystem structure. (Adapted from Scheffer et al, 1993) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________52 Figure 22: Map showing the location of sampling points. __________________________________________________54 Figure 23: Identification of the Sampling area in each of the sampling points. ___________________________57 Figure 24: Graphical representation of the Saprobic Index results along the River Guadalete. Color Legend: Green: β-mesosaprobic; Yellow: α-mesosaprobic. __________________________________________________________60 Figure 25: Example of two poor nutrient environment indicators found during the fieldwork. Right panel: Lithospermum officinale. Left panel: Montia fontana_______________________________________________61 Figure 26: Result map after applying the Biotic Index in sampling points.________________________________67 Figure 27: Macroinvertebrates found in the Guadalete basin. a) Ecdyonurus; b) Physella acuta; c) Hydropsychidae; d) Procambarus clarki. ___________________________________________________________________68 Figure 28: Land use of the Guadalete river basin region with the river highlighted in blue______________75 Figure 29: Cause and effect diagram ________________________________________________________________________85 Figure 30: DPSIR Analysis____________________________________________________________________________________87
    • VIII List of Graphs Graph 1: Morphological quality index of the Guadalete river ______________________________________________14 Graph 2: Grain size distribution _____________________________________________________________________________16 Graph 3: Velocity and grain size comparaison______________________________________________________________17 Graph 4: Point 10 – Cross Section ___________________________________________________________________________18 Graph 5: Point 20 – Cross Section ___________________________________________________________________________18 Graph 6: Point 30 – Cross Section ___________________________________________________________________________19 Graph 7: Point 60 – Cross Section ___________________________________________________________________________19 Graph 8: Point 80 – Cross Section ___________________________________________________________________________20 Graph 9: Banfull Discharge of the Guadalete river _________________________________________________________21 Graph 10: Global Slope of the Guadalete river ______________________________________________________________21 Graph 11: Elevation of the Guadalete river _________________________________________________________________22 Graph 12: Local slope of the Guadalete river basin_________________________________________________________22 Graph 13: measured velocities and calculated flow rates __________________________________________________30 Graph 14: Oxygen Concentration ____________________________________________________________________________42 Graph 15: pH of the Guadalete river_________________________________________________________________________43 Graph 16: Conductivity of the Guadalete river______________________________________________________________44 Graph 17: Nitrogen levels in the Guadalete river ___________________________________________________________45 Graph 19: Stratification of the temperature in Bornos reservoir __________________________________________47 Graph 20: Stratification of the oxygen in Bornos reservoir ________________________________________________47 Graph 21: Stratification of the pH in Bornos reservoir _____________________________________________________48 List of Tables Table 1: Morphological Quality Index classes_______________________________________________________________10 Table 2: Overview of the quality class appointed, by using the IDRIAM form _____________________________14 Table 3: Overview of the measurement points ______________________________________________________________15 Table 4: Measured velocities and calculated flow rates ____________________________________________________29 Table 5: Main aquifers in the Guadalete River Basin (Source: Lopez Geta, 2005)_________________________35 Table 6: table of the sampling points from the inlet of Zahara till Puerto de Santa Maria. ______________40 Table 7: Codification of sampling points and a short description__________________________________________54 Table 8: Grades assigned to different taxa according to its presence-absence in the water-body. (Extracted from De Pauw and Vannevel, 1991) ____________________________________________________________56 Table 9: Biochemical values used to classify the systems. Derived from Hamm (1969), Lange-Bertalot (1978, 1979) and Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986-1991) ____________________________________________59 Table 10: Macrophyte species found on each sampling point. First two rows shows geographic coordinates and sample point code respectively. ___________________________________________________________62 Table 11: Environmental needs for different macrophyte found in the sampling points._________________64 Table 12: Detail of the taxa found on sampling point 20. __________________________________________________66 Table 13: Detail of the taxa found on sampling point 90. __________________________________________________67 Table 14: Family list of macroinvertebrates found in the river Guadalete ________________________________69 Table 15: Comparison between Ebro occurring species and the ones found in the Guadalete River autochthonous and invasive species. (Extracted from Oscoz, 2009) _______________________________________70 Table 16: Stakeholders and their water use ________________________________________________________________77 Table 17: Influence of individual stakeholders, - 1 = very low / 2 = low / 3 = medium / 4 = high / 5 = very high ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________80 Table 18: Ecological issues concerning the Guadalete river basin _________________________________________89
    • 9 Table of Contents Preface........................................................................................................................................III Summary.................................................................................................................................... IV Table of Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................V List of Authors.......................................................................................................................... VI List of Figures..........................................................................................................................VII List of Graphs ........................................................................................................................VIII List of Tables .........................................................................................................................VIII 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Assignment.................................................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Aim & Goals ...........................................................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Research Questions:...........................................................................................................................3 2. Research Design ...................................................................................................................4 2.1 Area ..................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Organizations:...............................................................................................................................5 2.3 Fields of Interest..........................................................................................................................5 2.3.1 Geomorphology ...................................................................................................................................5 2.3.2 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................................6 2.3.3 Chemistry...............................................................................................................................................7 2.3.4 Biology.....................................................................................................................................................8 2.3.5 Stakeholders..........................................................................................................................................8 4. Geomorphology ....................................................................................................................9 4.1. Aim and research questions...................................................................................................9 4.2 Materials.........................................................................................................................................9 4.3 Methods........................................................................................................................................ 10 4.3.1 IDRIAM evaluation forms .............................................................................................................10 4.3.2 Cross sections....................................................................................................................................10 4.3.3 Slopes....................................................................................................................................................11 4.3.4 Sediments............................................................................................................................................12 4.4 Results and Discussions......................................................................................................... 13 4.4.1 IDRIAM evaluation forms .............................................................................................................13 4.4.2 Sediment samples............................................................................................................................14 4.4.3 Cross-sections....................................................................................................................................18 4.4.5 Bank full discharge..........................................................................................................................20 4.4.6 Slope......................................................................................................................................................21 4.4.7 General discussion...........................................................................................................................22 4.5 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 24 5. Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 25
    • 10 5.1 Materials and methods........................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Results and discussion ........................................................................................................... 28 5.2.1 Groundwater......................................................................................................................................34 5.2.2 Measurement accuracy issues....................................................................................................36 5.2.3 Other discussion points.................................................................................................................37 5.2.4 Tidal influence...................................................................................................................................37 5.2.5 Weather................................................................................................................................................37 5.3 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 38 6. Chemistry............................................................................................................................. 39 6.1. Methods and Material............................................................................................................ 39 6.2 Results & Discussion ............................................................................................................... 42 6.2.1 Oxygen..................................................................................................................................................42 6.2.2 pH ...........................................................................................................................................................43 6.2.3 Conductivity.......................................................................................................................................44 6.2.4 Nitrogen...............................................................................................................................................45 6.2.5 Phosphorus.........................................................................................................................................46 6.2.6 Lake stratification in Bornos reservoir...................................................................................47 6.3 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 49 6.4 Comparison................................................................................................................................. 49 6.4.1 Conductivity.......................................................................................................................................49 6.4.2 Ammonium.........................................................................................................................................49 6.4.3 Nitrate...................................................................................................................................................50 6.4.4 Nitrite....................................................................................................................................................50 6.4.5 Orthophosphate................................................................................................................................50 7. Biology .................................................................................................................................. 51 7.1 Materials & Methods ............................................................................................................... 51 7.1.1 State of the Art...................................................................................................................................52 7.1.2 Object....................................................................................................................................................53 7.1.3 Justification sampling points.......................................................................................................53 7.1.4 Biotic index methodology.............................................................................................................55 7.1.5 Macrophytes.......................................................................................................................................56 7.1.6 Phytoplankton...................................................................................................................................57 7.1.7 Saprobic index...................................................................................................................................58 7.2 Results.......................................................................................................................................... 60 7.2.1 Saprobix Index ..................................................................................................................................60 7.2.2 Macrophytes.......................................................................................................................................61 7.2.3 Macro invertebrates........................................................................................................................65 7.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 73 7.4 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 73 8. Stakeholders....................................................................................................................... 74 8.1 Methods........................................................................................................................................ 74 8.1.1 DPSIR-framework............................................................................................................................76 8.2 Result & Discussion ................................................................................................................. 77 8.2.1 Water Use............................................................................................................................................77 8.2.2 Evaluation of Stakeholders ..........................................................................................................80 8.2.3 Main Stakeholders...........................................................................................................................82 8.3 Interviews and interpretation............................................................................................. 85 8.4 DPSIR analysis ........................................................................................................................... 87
    • 11 8.5 Conflict and Problems............................................................................................................. 89 8.6 Conclusion................................................................................................................................... 93 9. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 94 10. Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 99 11. Reference list .................................................................................................................100 12. Appendix..........................................................................................................................103 Appendix I: IDRIAM form............................................................................................................103 Appendix II: Grain size distribution .......................................................................................110 Appendix III: Slope values..........................................................................................................112 Appendix IV: Grain size classificatio.......................................................................................113 Appendix V: Materials Chemistry ............................................................................................114 Appendix VI:Complete lists of macroinvetebrate found on each sampling point..115 Appendix VII: Interview water purification plant .............................................................122 Appendix VIII: Waste Water Treatment Plant ....................................................................123 Appendix IX: Interview about tourism and coastal management................................125 Appendix X: Interview Ecology action group.......................................................................127 Appendix XI: Interview................................................................................................................129 1st Speaker Environmental Department......................................................................................... 129 2nd Speaker Surface and Ground water Quality Department................................................. 130 3rd Speaker Regional Government Department of Land Use ................................................. 132
    • 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The Guadalete River is a river in Spain, located in the region of Andalucía and originates from the ‘Sierra de la Grazalema’ at the height of 1000 meters above the sea level and highest peak of 1600 meters above sea level. The river has a total length of 172 km and flows into the Atlantic Ocean at the bay of Cadiz on the Puerto de Santa Maria where it discharges about 600 hm3 per year. Along the course of the river there are three reservoirs; Zahara reservoir, Bornos reservoir and Arcos de la Frontera reservoir. The last 16 kilometres of the river is an estuary influenced by oceanic tides which are obstructed by a weir at El Portal. Agriculture is practiced in the majority of the mid-lower river basin and there are also natural protected areas around the Grazalema mountain range where the Zahara reservoir is located and at the estuary near the coast close to Puerto de Santa Maria (Javier Garcia presentation). The climate is moderately subtropical with dry summers and mild winters. The influence of the sea affects the area’s weather, avoiding extreme temperatures and with soft oscillations between winter and summer. However, the summer has a relatively high temperature and low precipitation in the summer causes the area to suffer droughts, which results in high uptake of the water for multiple purposes (www.juntadeandalucia.es 1 ). The majority of the precipitation falls on the mountainous area around Grazalema where clouds are forced upwards and the water vapour condenses allowing precipitation to take place with an annual precipitation of about 2000 to 2500 millimetres per year. On the lower part of the river basin there is significantly lower precipitation with an annual precipitation of about 500 to 700 millimetres a year (Javier Garcia presentation). During short periods of heavy rainfall, the dry soil can be easily flushed away with runoff water into the surface water, which might result in an increase in sediments and higher concentrations of nitrogen from soil fertilizers and the presence of toxins from pesticides (Deputacion de Granada). During the summer months the population of the area nearly triples when tourists show up to enjoy their summer vacation. This sometimes creates water shortages for those two months. In addition, the increase of the population also creates more wastewater of such capacity that the waste water treatment plants cannot handle the amount. 1 http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/temas/medio-ambiente/clima/clima-andalucia.html
    • 2 1.2 Assignment More and more pressure is put on water systems, especially in delta areas and estuarine regions. Estuaries are often heavily used by sometimes competing functions; such as agriculture, navigation, tourism, nature and industry. The European Water Framework Directive (EWFD) has been set up to make European Union member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies by 2015. River Delta System Analysis and Management in Practice (RAMIP) focuses on multidisciplinary and integrated field survey and workshops and on practical and theoretical application of the principle of river basin management according to the EWFD applied in the Spanish Guadalete river delta. RAMIP’s objective is to facilitate an international, real life and stimulating learning environment for students. Students and staff of different universities on the one hand and stakeholders and river basin authorities on the other hand will exchange experience and knowledge and share ideas leading to a better understanding of the physical and socio-economic relationships relevant for river basin management. 1.2.1 Aim & Goals This project was put together for water system analysis of the Guadalete River Basin. For all communities water is the most valuable resource and managing the problems takes integration of many different aspects. The state of the Guadalete River Basin is based on analyzing geomorphology, hydrology, chemistry, biology and the stakeholders those have impact and are independent on the river. The current state of the river needs to be analyzed for the problems and also compare with previous studies. There are also more goals that are not orientated at methodological problem solving. The students themselves have to solve problems concerning their responsibilities, ideas and interest. This goal is to gain experience in working together in ax social construct towards a solution. The program is described as IP (intensive project) in two-week time-span. The students collect and analyze data and create an idea for a future vision of Guadalete River Basin. Students can apply their theoretical knowledge for actual problem solving and adding up in experience.
    • 3 1.2.2 Research Questions: Main Question What is the State of Guadalete River Basin? This state is defined by the chemical, biological, hydrological and geomorphological properties of the river basin, as well as the involvement and influence of stakeholders Sub questions 1. What is the geomorphological quality of the Guadalete River basin from Zahara to Fabrica de Abonos? 2. What is the hydrological situation of the Guadalete River between Zahara reservoir and El Puerto de Santa Maria? 3. What is the chemical water quality of the Guadalete River between Zahara reservoir and Puerto de Santa Maria? 4. What is the biological state of the Guadalete River concerning macro- invertebrates and vegetation and what human activities have an influence? 5. What is the role of each stakeholder and how do they influence the Guadalete River basin
    • 4 2. Research Design 2.1 Area The area of the Guadalete river, see Figure 1, that was investigated for this study project stretches from the inlet of the Embalse de Zahara-el Gastor to the mouth of the river at the city of El Puerto de Santa Maria, were after running for about 172 km it enters de Bay of Cádiz. Figure 1: Gaudalete River Basin The upstream area of the river lies in an area, which is characterized by hills and steep slopes, combined with small urban areas and some agricultural land were they cultivate mainly olives. Downstream the land gradually changes into flatter areas; hills with agricultural parcels and small cities and villages near the river. At the end of the river, when it passes Jerez de la Frontera, the land turns even flatter and here you can find large planes that are mainly used for agriculture and cities. Finally, the Guadalete river basin enters the Bay of Cádiz were it flows into the North Atlantic Ocean.
    • 5 2.2 Organizations: The Guadalete River is investigated by a team of student engineers from 14 till 20 of September 2013, including a field visit of the Guadalete River on 15/9 as well as a discussion of measurement plan and also analysis and interpretation of the task on 16/9. During this period of time standardized research methods were used to extract data. In total there are 48 students of four different universities. 7 students from Ferrara University in Italy, 6 students of Metropolian Helsinki in Finland, 6 students of Cadiz University in Spain and 29 students of Hz University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. For this investigation it would be logical to use the European Water Framework Directive (EWFD) as a guideline, it has only partly been adopted here. Moreover, instead of Spanish assessment methods, Dutch assessment methods have been applied except for determining the geomorphological quality of the Guadalete River, which is an Italian method. Moreover, due to a limited period of filed study time (3 days) and preference for a maximized number of sampling points it would be more beneficial to investigate only the basic characteristics of the river system instead of a wide arrange of parameters. 2.3 Fields of Interest The Guadalete River is investigated according to five different aspects, namely: stakeholders, geomorphology, hydrology, chemistry and biology. The following paragraphs introduce the disciplines in terms of aim and motivation. Methods, results, discussion and conclusion of each discipline can be found in the subsequent chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6. 2.3.1 Geomorphology The discipline of geomorphology can be described by the geomorphological quality of the river. This includes several important factors such as:  Grain size;  Soil type;  Elevation;  Cross sections;  Suspended solids;  GIS maps including data from other groups on the right measurement locations. These measurements will be obtained in the field and in the laboratory. Depending on the location the grain size can be determined in the field or in the laboratory. Grains (gravel, rocks) bigger than -3.0 phi (8 mm) can be counted and determined in the field by executing a surface transect, were you take at least 100 samples.
    • 6 Smaller particles should be taken back to the laboratory where they will be sieved and weighted. Soil type will be determined based on size (gravel, sand, silt, clay etc.) and geological maps. The elevation will be measured with a DGPS and by hand; using jalons (poles), normal GPS and measuring tape. Local slope will be determined in the field with the help of GIS. The global slope of the river can be calculated in GIS and with several calculations. Sediments play an important role in the elemental cycling in aquatic environments. Most sediment in surface water originates from surface erosion. For the purpose of aquatic monitoring, sediments can be classified as deposited or suspended. Deposited sediment can be found on the river bed, suspended sediment can be found in the water column where it is being transported by water movements. Many suspended sediments means there is a low visibility and a low visibility will influence the algae growth and biological activity in and around the river. Therefore measurements to determine the total suspended solids (TSS) were conducted. All data will be put into GIS on the right locations, including some data from the other disciplines. 2.3.2 Hydrology This discipline describes the hydraulic and hydrological elements of the river system in terms of quantitative and qualitative aspect. Important aspects to this area of research are: flow rate (discharge), flow velocity, flow direction, tidal influence and the underwater cross sections of the river. Basic information about flow rate is collected for the Guadalete River and its tributaries. Such information can be important to resolve question not only related to hydrology but also geomorphology. The Guadalete River ends in the bay of Cadiz; therefore we assume there is at least a part of the river, which is influenced by the tide. It is important to know how far this tidal influence reaches upstream. Probably this will be till the weir south of El Portal. To test this hypothesis a measurement of the water lever right after the weir downstream is performed. The water level is measured every thirty minutes for a couple of hours. In this way, if there is indeed tidal influence, the water level will rise or decline. The hypothetical water level rise or decline will be connected to a rise or decline of the tide in the Bay of Cadiz.
    • 7 2.3.3 Chemistry This discipline describes the chemical aspects of the Guadalete river system, taking into account:  Oxygen concentration;  pH;  Conductivity;  Temperature;  N-total;  P-total;  Ammonium;  Nitrate;  Nitrite. All these factors together present the water quality and the transport of different substances in the Guadalete River. They will be obtained by field measurements and laboratory analysis. Adequate dissolved oxygen is necessary for good water quality. Oxygen is a necessary element to all forms of life. Natural stream purification processes require adequate oxygen levels in order to provide for aerobic life forms. As dissolved oxygen levels in water drop below 5.0 mg/l, aquatic life is put under stress. Oxygen levels that remain below 1-2 mg/l for a few hours can result in large fish kills. The pH is a very important indicator for the condition of the water system. The pH also indicates the presence of carbon dioxide in the water as in most water systems carbon dioxide and carbonates have a large impact on the pH. The conductivity is important because this can provide information on the tidal influence and reach into the river. Some species cannot tolerate high conductivities and will not live near the estuary region of the river. Ammonium (NH4+-N), nitrite (NO2—N) and nitrate (NO3—N) can be taken together as dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and are important nutrients in the nitrogen cycle. The nitrogen cycle consists of different important processes like nitrogen fixation, mineralization, nitrification and denitrification. The measured parameters are key elements in these processes so they can give a good insight about the nitrogen conversion into various chemical forms in the aquatic system of the Guadalete River. Ortho-phosphate (PO43—P) is an important nutrient because it is often responsible for eutrophication in ecosystems. Eutrophication means that there are too many nutrients in the water system; for example through fertilizers, irrigation or WWTP. This could lead to algae bloom and eventually to oxygen deficit. Because it is often a key element in fertilizers it can define the relationship between human activity in the region and ortho-phosphate concentrations found in the Guadalete River.
    • 8 2.3.4 Biology This discipline describes the biological aspects of the Guadalete River and surroundings. The emphasis lies on the identification of macro fauna and macrophyte species living in and around the water. Those species were chosen because they are sensitive to changes in the aquatic ecosystem and can only live under certain conditions. Based on the species that were found estimations could be made about the biological quality of the river. The data that was gathered can be connected to the other disciplines; such as chemical-, hydrological- or geological water quality. In order to perform a multi-habitat measurement sampling of the macro fauna all the different habitats should be sampled. Furthermore it is very important to take samples in the right (optimal) time of the year; when flowers are abundant; to get a proper representation of the present macro fauna. The ideal conditions for collecting macro fauna samples in a freshwater habitat is once or twice a year. The samples can be collected from March till October (in order to apply the EWFD). Samples should be collected in such a way that they represent the whole water body. Manmade constructions should be avoided, for they might disturb the sampling location and therefore also the results. 2.3.5 Stakeholders The discipline describes the impact of stakeholders along the river, taking into account: policy & legislation, water users (aquaculture, agriculture, industries and recreation), and wastewater treatment. By means of interviews with stakeholders and literature research important information is gathered which can be connected to the other field of interest in this research. It is important to know the activities of human that live near the Guadalete river influence the ecological state of the river in terms of hydrology, biology, chemistry and geomorphology. Straight forward we could say that there is some kind of influence anyway since humans are part of the ecosystem for thousands of years. However, the population of the Cadiz region has not always been as high as it is today, while the Guadalete River and its catchment area and water regime did not change in such a high rate. Most likely this results in a growing pressure on the ecological functioning of the river system. Under the discipline of stakeholders as a part of this study, we aim on identifying the human activities that are expected to have a major influence on the ecological stat of the Guadalete River.
    • 9 4. Geomorphology 4.1. Aim and research questions The geomorphology group will investigate the geomorphological quality of the Guadalete river basin. To determine the geomorphological quality IDRIAM forms were used. These forms were developed in Italy, where climate, legislation and river basins are comparable to the ones in South West Spain. In order to complete on the IDRIAM form several factors should be measured in the field or the laboratory:  Grain size;  Soil type;  Elevation;  Cross sections;  Bank-full discharge After all these measurements are carried out the results can be combined with the results from hydrology, and the hydro-geomorphological state of the Guadalete river basin can be determined. The main question that will be answered during this investigation is: What is the geomorphological situation of the Guadalete river bed from the dam at Fabrica De Abonos up to Zahara? 4.2 Materials  DGPS device  Total station + tripod  Prism  Carbon pole  Identification poles  Rope  Measuring tape  Grab sampler  Grain size identification  Plastic bags to store sediment samples  Plastic bottle to store water samples  Labels + Pens  Geomorphological survey forms
    • 10 4.3 Methods 4.3.1 IDRIAM evaluation forms To determine the geomorphological quality of the location an IDRIAM (stream hydro morphological evaluation, analysis and monitoring system) form was filled in on each location. This is a questionnaire developed in Italy that gives you a value in relation to the naturalness of the river. Because Italy and SW Spain have similar climate, river systems and policies this form can be used. Questions in different categories have to be answered; namely generality, functionality, artificiality and channel adjustments. For each question points can be earned, the more points a river scores the more it is influences by human construction, industry etc. (so not a natural river). The quality class is being calculated by subtracting the total points from 1 which leaves a score from 0 till 1. A quality class explains how much alterations have been applied to the natural geomorphological state of the river. For example, having a river in the “poor” quality class means that there were significant changes to the geomorphological state of the river. To be able to answer all the questions it was necessary to find out the grain size, length and diameter of the river cross section, d50 and discharge for example. Therefore, several other measurements need to be taken in the field. MQI Quality class 0.0 – 0.3 Very bad 0.3 – 0.5 Poor 0.5 – 0.7 Moderate or sufficient 0.7 – 0.85 Good 0.85 – 1.0 Excellent Table 1: Morphological Quality Index classes There are also questions that require historical data or aerial photographs but since these were not available in such a short period, estimations were made for these questions. For the form see Appendix I. Based on the results of the questionnaire, Morphological Quality Index (MQI) was calculated (Error! Reference source not found.). 4.3.2 Cross sections Cross sections were measured with either a DGPS or with a total station. Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) is an enhancement to Global Positioning System that provides improved location accuracy, from the 15-meter nominal GPS accuracy to about 10 cm in case of the best implementations (M.Braina,2013, C.Kee, 1991). DGPS uses a network of fixed, ground-based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by the satellite systems and the known fixed positions. These stations broadcast the difference between the measured
    • 11 satellite pseudo ranges and actual (internally computed) pseudo ranges, and receiver stations may correct their pseudo ranges by the same amount. The digital correction signal is typically broadcast locally over ground-based transmitters of shorter range. If possible the transect that was used by the hydrology measurements was identified. Then the edge of the riverbed was located on both sides and marked with a pole to make a transect extending upon the hydrology transect (if possible) to integrate the results later. Along the established transect, elevation measurements (Figure 2) were taken at points where the vertical angle of the surface changes. Small features like minor holes or piles were not taken into account, as they occurred randomly. As a principle, the geomorphology group only measured the dry part of the riverbed. Figure 2: Elevation Measurements When the DGPS was not able to connect with at least five satellites it needs to correct the signal to within 0.5m accuracy, a total station was used. The measuring method was the same; only with a total station a clear line of sight without trees or bushes is necessary from edge to edge so this is not possible on all locations. The coordinate system used during DGPS survey was UTM ED50 Zone 30N while for total station a local system has been set (X, Y, Z: 1000m, 1000m, 100m) 4.3.3 Slopes The local slope at the sampling points was measured with either a DGPS or a total station. Along the edge of the water, from roughly 50m upstream of the transect to 50m downstream of the transect, the elevation was measured. For the global slope, the terrain elevation was measured with the DGPS at sampling point -10 and 20. Other elevation measurements were taken during the surveys. Figure 3: Sediment sampling
    • 12 4.3.4 Sediments The composition of sediments was established in the field using three sampling methods: Transect Line Method, Areal Sampling and Grab Sampling. The composition of coarse sediments (> 2.5 phi, see appendix II) was established in the field. Using a measuring tape stretched along the river bed, the particle right underneath to the tape was measured every 0.5 m. Using a metal plate with cut outs (Figure 2) for the rocks in different phi sizes the grain size was determined. This was repeated several times until at least 100 grain sizes were measured along the transects, this to obtain a representative sample for the location. The results were filled out on a form, which can be used to calculate the mean grain size, d50 and soil type (sand, silt, clay or gravel) at the location. When it was not possible to make a transect line, due to obstructions like trees or water, a bulk sample was taken. A random squire was chosen, laid out with measurement tape, and all the surface substrate was taken by hand the taken to the laboratory. At point 60 the areal sampling method was used to assess the grain size distribution of coarse surface material sampled in the dry zone of the river’s cross section in a square surface of 40cmx40cm.This is also representative of the area. In the laboratory the grain size was determined with the sample plates (see Figure 4 and Figure 5) and weighted accordingly. Figure 5: Metal gran size determinator Figure 4: Grain size determinator for small sand
    • 13 Fine sediments were sampled in the field using a grab sampler. The samples were stored in labeled plastic bags and taken to the field lab. There, the factions were divided manually using sieves and weighed to establish the d50, mean grain size and soil type. Figure 6: Different grain sizes sorted by phi Figure 7: Sieves in different grain sizes 4.4 Results and Discussions 4.4.1 IDRIAM evaluation forms Results By using the IDRIAM evaluation form (see Appendix I: IDRIAM form) each sampling point could be analyzed and put into a quality class for their current geomorphological state. Each sampling point could be classed as very bad, poor, moderate, good or excellent. The results of the research can be found in Table 2.
    • 14 Graph 1: Morphological quality index of the Guadalete river Measuring point MAI MQI Quality Class -10 0.06 0.94 Excellent 0 0.03 0.97 Excellent 20 0.40 0.60 Moderate 30 0.22 0.78 Good 40 0.54 0.46 Poor 60 0.52 0.48 Poor 80 0.06 0.94 Excellent 90 0.11 0.89 Excellent 100 0.08 0.92 Excellent 110 0.54 0.46 Poor Table 2: Overview of the quality class appointed, by using the IDRIAM form Discussion As can be seen in the IDRIAM form (see Appendix I: IDRIAM from), there are some questions that require some historical information of the area. These questions are related to any alterations of the channel pattern and width since the 1950’s, but also if there is any sediment, wood or vegetation removal during the last 20 years. Since this information was not acquired, the grading of these questions has been done on the assumptions and experience of the supervisor. 4.4.2 Sediment samples Samples were taken on different locations along the Guadalete river. Because all locations were different not all measurements could be carried out on each location. Table 3 Overview of the measurements shows exactly what measurements were carried in each location. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 km downstream Morphological Quality Index
    • 15 Measuring point Day visited Time visited Coordinates Cross- section Sediment sample SS sample -10 17.09.2013 13.20 N 36.48.504 W 005.19.729 YES Transect line NO 0 20.09.2013 11.30 Not available NO Bulk sample YES 20 17.09.2013 17.00 N 36.55.271 W 005.33.259 YES Bulk sample YES 30 18.09.2013 10.15 N 36.52.192 W 005.39.025 YES Bulk sample YES 40 19.09.2013 14.20 N 36.47.400 W 005.45.758 HALF NO YES 60 18.09.2013 13.20 N 36.44.657 W 005.48.087 YES Areal sampling YES 80 18.09.2013 15.00 N 36.41.608 W 005.51.487 YES Bulk sample YES 90 18.09.2013 16.20 N 36.38.851 W 005.55.823 NO NO YES 100 19.09.2013 12.00 N 36.37.786 W 005.59.208 NO Bulk sample YES 110 19.09.2013 9.45 N 36.37.730 W 006.08.182 NO Bulk sample YES 120 19.09.2013 11.15 N 36.35.947 W 006.13.258 NO Bulk sample NO Table 3: Overview of the measurement points Results After all, the sample were collected they were analyzed in the lab to calculate the grain size composition, D10, 50, 84 and 90 and a general description of the samples. The results of this can be found in Appendix II: Grain size distribution. With these results we can set up a graph, which depicts the D50 and D84 in µm against measurement points (Graph 2).
    • 16 Graph 2: Grain size distribution Underneath, a Hjulstrom diagram is displayed (Figure 8). It shows the relation between flow velocity and sediments deposition, transport or erosion. This diagram can be used to relate the flow velocities and grain sizes, taken form the center of the river, to each other and determine which geomorphological process is occurring at the given location. The exact values for velocities can be found in the chapter of hydrology. Figure 8: Hjulstrom graph (http://dlgb.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/hjulstrom_curve_task.jpg ) 0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000 160.000 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 Grainsize(micrometer) Km downstream Grain size d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
    • 17 From point 60 and upstream, the flow velocities are relatively high (93-122 cm/s). As the Hjulstrom diagram shows, at these speeds only coarse materials remain deposited. This corresponds with the data shown in the diagram below, were grain sizes that have a d50 of 50 mm and higher. Downstream of point 80, the velocities drop, and so do the grain sizes. The velocities related to the grain size (0.07-0.08 mm d50) show that transportation of these sediment sizes can occur, but no erosion takes place. Point 80 is the odd one out; the velocity of 90 cm/s related to a d50 of only 0.08 mm indicates erosion is taking place here. This might be the explanation for the turbidity that was observed downstream from point 80, which should not occur at this time of the year (due to no rainfall and lowering river discharge). At point 80 two artificial structures were discharging a great amount of water through a pipe connected to the Guadalcacin reservoir (Perscomm, J. Benavente, 2013). This raised discharge Q at this point significantly, causing the described conditions. Graph 3: Velocity and grain size comparaison Discussion Because every measuring point was different, multiple gathering methods have been applied for the gathering of the samples. This might lead to the discussion about the accuracy of the results. However, it has been proven that the methods that were used to gather the samples will yield the same results (L.B. Leopold (1970)). Also, for some locations it was impossible to gather a soil samples due to the lack of required materials or the situation at the location. For example, it was impossible to gather a soil sample from point 40 since the sediment consisted only of boulders, which were impossible to gather with the available equipment. Point 90 failed as well due to a concrete paving and big water velocities below the bridge. 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 mm cm/s km downstream Velocity & Grain size V (cm/s) d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
    • 18 4.4.3 Cross-sections In this paragraph cross sections in point -10, 20, 30, 60 and 80 are shown. Each cross section consist of dry section measured by Geomorphology group and wet section by Hydrology group. Coordinates are given in local system for each section. In order to extrapolate a clear cross section point in XYZ coordinates has been rotated and translated to a plane system (XZ) using both Math lab and Excel. Results In this following graphs you can find all the cross sections that were measured during this field week. The coordinates on land were taken by different methods by the geomorphology group and the hydrology group took the coordinates in the water. Graph 4: Point 10 – Cross Section Graph 5: Point 20 – Cross Section 316.2 316.4 316.6 316.8 317 317.2 317.4 317.6 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 z[m] x [m] Cross Section - Point -10 (local system) 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 z[m] x [m] Cross Section - Point 20 (local system)
    • 19 Graph 6: Point 30 – Cross Section Graph 7: Point 60 – Cross Section 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 z[m] x [m] Cross Section - Point 30 (local system) 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 z[m] x[m] Cross Section - Point 60 (local system)
    • 20 Graph 8: Point 80 – Cross Section Discussion It can be seen that cross section are less than point measurement because of technology problem: lack of GPS satellite covering or heavy presence of trees for a clear total station collimation. In some cases DGPS survey has been done with a higher than 0.5 m precision. Local system can be changed in a global one only knowing at least the GPS coordinates of two points: in many cases these was not possible to measure. However, thanks to the elevation of the river bank assessed during post-analysis, it is possible to estimate the elevation of the cross section. 4.4.5 Bank full discharge As bankfull discharge is defined as the discharge that shaped the river bed, geomorphological features are strictly related to this particular discharge. Bankfull discharge is also statistically assessed as the discharge with return period of between 1.58 and 2.33 years. It is possible to assess the level of the bankfull discharge (ybd) observing geomorphological features and vegetation. For examples the change in the lateral slope of a cross section and the border between older vegetation and plants or bushes younger than 2-3 years are natural indicators of that level. That level defines the related wet area of the section (Abd). In order to assess the discharge the steady flow velocity (V) can be calculated. The approximation of steady flow velocity simplifies the method. The Manning’s coefficient can be assessed with Limerinos (1970) that relates roughness with D84. That formula is the best assessment for natural channels like Guadalete river. The Bankfull discharge (Qbd) can be calculated as Qbd=V*Abd (G.H. Dury (1961)). 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99 99.5 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 z[m] x[m] Cross Section - Point 80 (local system)
    • 21 Graph 9: Banfull Discharge of the Guadalete river 4.4.6 Slope The general slope, local slope and elevation are shown in the following graphs. Graph 10: Global Slope of the Guadalete river -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 BankfullQ(m3/s) km downstream Bankfull discharge 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 km downstream Global slope
    • 22 Graph 11: Elevation of the Guadalete river Graph 12: Local slope of the Guadalete river basin 4.4.7 General discussion During the surveys many observation related to the morphology of the area, in terms of vegetation and morphological features, were taken. These will be very important in order to assess the Hydro morphological quality of the river and for post-analysis deductions Sediment transport and the natural fluvial cycle of the Guadalete river has been disturbed by artificial, human created structures, such as dams, weirs and water catchment basins. The water discharge itself is not heavily constricted, but weirs and dams cause sedimentation in water basins upstream of them. It was observed in the field, that the river-bed downstream of these structures is covered with rocks and had a lack of fine sediment. In addition, levees were observed in several 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 mabovesealevel km downstream Elevation 0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030 0.0040 0.0050 0.0060 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 km downstream Local slope
    • 23 measurements points (mostly downstream), restricting the cross section area of bank full discharge. The natural river bed geomorphological structure does not seem to be heavily changed by human influence (besides the reservoirs), only the delta area is canalized and has artificial banks surrounded by industrial areas. One liter samples of suspended solids were taken, but not analyzed due to Guadalete’s morphological qualities. The substrate situated next to river banks is soft and bare; there is no low vegetation that could cover and hold in place soil particles with its roots. Guadalete’s catchment area is prone to rainwater and wind induced erosion, but the region of Andalusia sees significant amount of rainfall only during the winter season. Therefore, the water column should not contain any suspended soil particles, as the samples were taken at the end of summer (during the dry season) and wind erosion is negligible. It can be concluded that suspended solids found in water column are of biological nature, a pollution of human and agricultural waste. Many settlements either do not have any wastewater treatment plants or their plants are too old to meet European water quality standards. Due to this, large amount of untreated sewage is discharged in the Guadalete river. Also various pesticides and fertilizers are discharged into the river from agricultural lands. One of the most common cultures in the lowlands of the river basin is cotton, which requires large amounts of irrigation.
    • 24 4.5 Conclusion The sample locations were selected trough discussion with all the groups and they were pointed out on a map. The smallest measured cross section had a size of approx. 57 meters; the biggest measured cross section had a size of approx. 125 meters. The compositions of the sediments across the cross sections were different depending on the length the river already travelled. In the Zahara area there was coarse gravel sediments, further downstream the sediment would change into sand, mud and silt. On some measuring points it was impossible to take sediment samples due to human impact, structures would increase the velocity of the water. Some locations were located after basins, which resulted in sediment samples only consisting of boulders. Upstream the global slope of the river is 0.0056, in the middle stretch of the river the global slope is 0.0019 and the global slope at the downstream part of the river is 0.0006. This shows the global slope flattens towards the end of the river. After filling in the IDRIAM forms each measurement point gained a value for the morphological quality index (MQI). The higher the MQI value, the better the natural state of the river basin is. Lower MQI values mean that human impact is high (like engineering constructions such as dikes, weirs, substrate, agriculture, industry etc.). 50% of the MQI values were excellent. The only bad conditions were created by human impact, and not through geological processes; so in general we can conclude that the geomorphological condition of the river basin is good.
    • 25 5. Hydrology The aim of the hydrological assessment and analysis is to determine the character of the river flow and identify possible problems in the river basin. It is important to determine to what degree the flow is regulated by existing artificial structures, if or how the interaction with tidal forces is important, and the general properties and dynamics of the river throughout its course in terms of flow rate, velocities and dimensions. The acquired data can be used to develop a hydrologic model (using SOBEK) to simulate the hydrologic dynamics of the river and provide better insight. Such model will also provide the opportunity to estimate the effects of changes in the current water system. Additionally, an estimation of the amount of water diverted for irrigation is relevant. The geo-morphological and biological analyses are also conducted. This happens in collaboration with other research groups. Responsibilities are divided according to competencies, respectfully. All obtained data can be compared to findings of previous studies, implementing data on precipitation and groundwater. Figure 9: Layout of the sampling points aong the Guadalete river
    • 26 5.1 Materials and methods The target stretch of the river was divided in two parts - upstream and downstream of point 60, which is located immediately downstream of the Boros reservoir outlet. The downstream section was surveyed with the OTT Qliner ultrasonic current profiler. The sensor of the device is attached to a watertight miniature boat and is equipped with a Bluetooth transmitter. The data is transmitted to a handheld computer that plots the cross section and calculates the volumetric flow rate in real time. On site a cable has been stretched across the river, acting as a line of the cross section. (figure 2) The Qliner has been then attached to the cable and transported from one bank of the river to the other by means of a rope. The rope is then stretched from both sides to stabilise the boat and released from one side to move the boat to the next measurement vertical. Figure 10: OTT QLiner method. After installing the structure on site, velocity and depth are measured with the Qliner for each section, depending on the width of the river (usually with 1 meter distance, more for wider parts). The device starts at the point of 1.25 meters away from the river bank and then measures the depth of the water and respective velocity, saving the results into a handheld computer.
    • 27 Figure 11: Illutration of the Qliner method measurement After the first measurement, the device is then moved (see Figure 11) with a step of 1 to 4 metres (depending on location) with the thinner rope and the next measurement is then performed in the same way. This is repeated as many times as it is needed to measure the cross-section. The upstream section of the river was surveyed using less advanced techniques. The depth of this part of the river was too low to measure using the Qliner. The width of the cross-section was determined by stretching a measuring tape above the water surface. Then a levelling pole was used to determine the water depth at each step of the cross-section. Afterwards, the electromagnetic velocity meter, the “flipper” was used to measure the velocity in 3 different locations of the total width – in the middle and closer to the margins of the stream width. The values are documented on paper and the surveying continues at the next location. Alternative method of measuring velocity without the electromagnetic flipper: Using the measuring tape, a 10 meter distance is designated along the flow of the river. Then a floating object is placed onto the surface of the water and the travel time along that distance is measured to calculate velocity. A minimum of 4 said tests is conducted in order to obtain more accurate data. This method only measures the velocity of the surface of the stream, which can be converted to cross section velocity. In order to determine the flow rate Q (m3/s), two different parameters are measured on the field, velocity (v) (either indicated by the electromagnetic flipper or the alternative method) in m/s and the surface area (A) in m2 of each cross section of the river. The following calculation is applied: Q = v * A
    • 28 5.2 Results and discussion The final product of field work is the calculated volumetric flow rate in the cross section of each sample point along the river (see example in Figure 4). The values are calculated from measured values for velocity and wetted area. Below, the values for velocity and flow rate are presented in table 1. Figure 12: Example cross-section including wet and dry section. Of point 20
    • 29 Measuring point Location Coordinates Flow rate m^3/s Velocity m/s (centre of the stream) 0 Outflow of Zahara Reservoir - 5,3 1,22 10 Between Zahara and Puerto Serrano - 5,7 0,73 20 Puerto Serrano N 36.55.271 W 005.33.259 5,7 1,10 30 Inflow of Bornos Reservoir N 36.52.192 W 005.39.025 6 0,93 40 Outflow of Bornos Reservoir N 36.47.400 W 005.45.758 7 1,19 60 Outflow of Arcos Reservoir N 36.44.657 W 005.48.087 5,9 1,08 80 Juction with Majacete N 36.41.608 W 005.51.487 7,3 0,90 90 La Barca de la Florida N 36.38.851 W 005.55.823 9,5 0,41 95 PDA error (data lost) 100 El Torno N 36.37.786 W 005.59.208 11,3 0,45 105 Landfill in river - 10,5 0,17 110 Downstream tidal weir N 36.37.730 W 006.08.182 (13,3) 0,13 120 El Puerto de Santa Maria N 36.35.947 W 006.13.258 (290) Table 4: Measured velocities and calculated flow rates
    • 30 The flow rate values for River Guadalete show a gradual increase in flow towards the mouth of the river. In comparison to the findings of a group of students from the HZ University of Applied Sciences in September 2012, the flow rate has drastically increased. The most probable cause is the excessive amount of precipitation received during winter 2012/2013 in the area of the source of River Guadalete. Graph 13 displays the calculated flow rates of the River along it’s course (distance starting from first measuring point!). Graph 13: measured velocities and calculated flow rates SOBEK results A hydrologic model has been constructed using the SOBEK software package. The boundaries of the model are from point 0 to 120 inclusive. The stretch of the river that is modelled is 95 km long and has a global slope of 50 meters across that distance.
    • 31 Figure 13: Side view of the SOBEK model Figure 13 depicts the side view of the model - at the upstream boundary of the model at Arcos de la Frontera (point 0) the flow rate is set to 6 m3/s, which is consistent with the measurements taken in the field. Twenty kilometres upstream of the other boundary there is a weir that gates the influence of the tide. At the downstream boundary (point 120) a tidal cycle was simulated using data acquired from the internet. The dataset contains values of the water depth for every 10 minutes for the simulated period, which is from 17-09-2013 midnight till 21-09- 2013 midnight. Figure 14 depicts the simulation results of the tidal influence. The model shows that the hydrological impact of high tide would reach only about 5 kilometres upstream if the weir was not present. That leads us to the conclusion that the purpose of the weir is to improve water quality rather than regulating quantity, namely prevention of salt-water intrusion into the stream. Figure 14: Influence of the tidal weir
    • 32 In Figure 15: Velocity at point 110 you see that the velocity fluctuates between 0,15 m/s and 0,41 m/s due to the tidal influence. This point is situated directly downstream of the tidal weir. Figure 15: Velocity at point 110 In Figure 15: Velocity at point 120 you see that the velocity fluctuates between 0,48 m/s and -0,51 m/s due to the tidal influence. This point is situated downstream of the tidal weir at the blue bridge in Puerto Santa Maria. Every tidal cycle there enters seawater with a velocity 0,48 m/s the river basin of the Guadalete. Every tidal cycle there is an outflow of water with a velocity of 0,51 m/s. 0_s41, Velocity (m/s) TeeChart 21-09-201320-09-201319-09-201318-09-201317-09-2013 -0,14 -0,16 -0,18 -0,2 -0,22 -0,24 -0,26 -0,28 -0,3 -0,32 -0,34 -0,36 -0,38 -0,4 -0,42
    • 33 Figure 16: Velocity at point 120 As a result we have built a basic model of the current situation, which can be used to calculate different scenario’s like the input of higher discharges from the Guadalete River and the influence of taking out the tidal weir. Some kind of calibration is done by comparing the measured data at the cross sections with the data of the model at the cross sections. 0_s2, Velocity (m/s) TeeChart 21-09-201320-09-201320-09-201320-09-201320-09-201319-09-201319-09-201319-09-201319-09-201318-09-201318-09-201318-09-201318-09-201317-09-201317-09-201317-09-201317-09-2013 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 -0,1 -0,2 -0,3 -0,4 -0,5
    • 34 5.2.1 Groundwater The stream of the Guadalete River is made up of overflow of groundwater in the mountains, which is mainly recharged by precipitation during wintertime. See figure 5 below for the yearly distribution of precipitation. Figure 17: Precipitation map Rio Guadalete River Basin (Source: Presentation Javier Gracia). The river courses through 7 major aquifers in the investigated area. Because of the geographical positioning rain occurs mainly in the mountain. There are seven major aquifers feeding the Guadalete River and its tributaries. Groundwater quality is strongly related to the type of substrate, human activity and saltwater intrusion in the coastal areas. Variety in the groundwater quality brings about a classification of the aquifers. The table below shows a classification of the aquifers in terms of two most relevant characteristics for human consumption: salinity and alkalinity. Groundwater salinity in the Guadalete River Basin varies from low salinity water, suitable for any tipe of crop (C1- <750 µS/cm) to extremely high salinity, suitable only for very permeable soils and crops with high tolerance (C4 - >3000 µS/cm). In terms of alkalinity groundwater has been cathegorized as low alkalinity (S1- <10 µS/cm, suitable for any soil type and crop type, to extremely high (S4 - >29), generally inadequetfor irrigation except when salinity is low and the soils are rich in carbonates ( J.A. Lopez Geta…et al, 2005).
    • 35 Aquifer Type Input* ( ) Output** ( ) Salinity Alkalinity El Puerto Del Santa Maria Detrital*** 7.6 4 C4 S1 Jerez de la Frontera Detrital 15 2 C4 - Aluvial del Guadalete Detrital 24 9 C3 - Arcos- Bornos- Espera Detrital 7.6 4 C1 S1 Llanos de Villamartin Detrital 11.6 7.3 C1-C3 S1 Aquifer de la Sierra de Grazalema Carbonate 63.1 2.4 C1 S1 Sierras de las Cabras Carbonate 9.5 1.45 C1 S1 Table 5: Main aquifers in the Guadalete River Basin (Source: Lopez Geta, 2005) *input= rain infiltration and ground water (lateral) input **output= exploitation by pumping and springs ***detrital=in direct communication with the river Figure 18: Main aquifers in the Guadalete River Basin (Source: Presentation Javier Gracia).
    • 36 Those aquifers and the Guadalete River are in constant interaction, although the exchange of water varies over the seasons. The detrital aquifers connect directly to the river, meaning that the water is seeping in and out through pores in the substrate. Carbonate aquifers interact with the River through other (small) streams. Next to water from surface water, also groundwater is being pumped to be used as either drinking or irrigation water, whereas most irrigation water is derived from surface water. Drinking water is partly supplied by groundwater in the east (upstream) part of the River Basin and by surface water in the coastal, western part (downstream). Groundwater quality is strongly related to the type of substrate, human activity and salt water intrusion in the coastal areas. (Lopez Geta, 2005). The obtained data on volumetric flow rate in the Guadalete River does not suggest any major recharge of the aquifers by the river downstream of the reservoirs. The flow rate increases gradually with the distance from the source. Reasons for that are tributaries entering the river and also a shift towards more porous soil in the western part of the river basin, allowing more groundwater flow (lecture Javier Garcia). Dam management always has an impact on the flow rate in the river. 5.2.2 Measurement accuracy issues Due to the high depth range in some cross sections the Qliner has had difficulties plotting the correct cross section and thus determining the flow rate accurately was difficult. Some verticals had to be verified using traditional methods such as a rope with a heavy object and measuring tape. Other verticals were simply interpolated with the adjacent ones (only in shallow parts). Given that the methodology of surveying requires personnel to be present on both sides of the stream most cross sections were measured immediately downstream of a bridge. Turbulence caused by the pillars of a bridge could have slightly interfered with the measurement results. Additionally for the same reason of complexity of the measurement setup some cross sections had to be relocated from the originally agreed coordinates or cancelled altogether. Another aspect that had an effect on measurement accuracy was the arching of the cable holding the Qliner. Also the method of measuring the distance in between the cross section verticals had an accuracy range of up to 10% depending on the velocity of the current. It was impossible to measure the correct flow rate at the estuary (point 120) due to the constant strong tidal influence. Also at low tide the water was too shallow to measure with the Qliner. However, the cross section was plotted during high tide. The suspiciously high flow rate value at that point can be explained by the tidal inflow of seawater at the time of measurement. The flipper was mainly used for upstream, but although it is also a very accurate device, its extreme sensitivity resulted in error results in most of the locations. In the end, only one point could be accurately measured using the device and the following ones were measured with the least accurate method, the alternative one.
    • 37 The method introduced various weak points in measurement at once – the time and the distance measurements as well as depth measurement have approximately 10% error margin each. 5.2.3 Other discussion points Regarding the timeline of the measurements, it was conducted during 3 days (17, 18 and 19 of September), from the time period between 9 to 17 hours and the main river points were mostly measured at the first 2 days (17 and 18). The last day was left to concentrate on some of the most problematic points and measure some side sources of inflow. Initially it was decided that the hydrology assessment of the river would be made in 13 points of the river (from point 0 which is the inlet of the Zahara reservoir to point 120 which is the outlet of the river), however, some points were standing in private properties which the students had no authorization to enter, and so they were discarded. 5.2.4 Tidal influence The last point of the tidal influence is situated in El Portal, 16 km from the river mouth. Downstream from El Portal there is a weir that does not allow tidal water to advance. During those days measurements were carried out, the tidal range at Cadiz was about 3 metres. The inflowing and outflowing seawater highly affects the measured velocity and depth of the river, and therefore the flow rate. At all points influenced by the tide it is therefore difficult to determine the actual flow rate of the river. A measurement carried out during high tide (inflowing) at Point 120 yielded a flow rate of 290 m³/s, which indicates the vast influence the tide has on the water system of the river (until the weir at El Portal) (see table for results). 5.2.5 Weather According to the weather reports (weather.com) there has been 31 mm of rain starting from July, but there is still no water shortage, as the precipitation amount was enough previously during the winter and spring. Also the flow rate is greater than the flow rate according to the research of the year 2012 probably for the same reason.
    • 38 5.3 Conclusion Measurement results have led to the conclusion that the hydrology of the Guadalete River is entirely controlled through engineering at the time of the assessment, although the situation could be different during the high-rain season. River Guadalete is a rather small river not suitable for any kind of shipping. The tidal area is influencing the river Guadalete up until the weir outside of El Portal which is approx. 20 km upstream of the estuary. This part is also artificial because the ditch is kept at a depth of 5 meter so the ships can enter Puerto Santa Maria. After El Portal it looks like the river is still meandering. The flow rate in the river is not controlled by natural processes but is by the flow rate of the water reservoirs Archos, Bornos and Zahara and the height of the weir at El Portal. This state is human engineered therefore it is anthropologic.
    • 39 6. Chemistry 6.1. Methods and Material The examined area is in between the inlet of the Guadalete into the Zahara reservoir and the mouth of the river at El Puerto de Santa Maria. 26 samples were taken in the river. The stratification of the Bornos reservoir was also examined. For the chemical analysis of the Guadalete River basin two types of analysis were used: field analysis and laboratory analysis. The samples were taken at the following points: Figure 19: Map of the sampling points from the inlet of Zahara till Puerto de Santa Maria.
    • 40 point name distan ce from point 0 [km] Meas ured yes/n o Location Reason -10 -10,232 Yes Base point before Zahara reservoir Basepoint 0 0 Yes After Zahara reservoir Basepoint 15 26,522 Yes Before Puerto Serrano No WWTP at Puerto Serrano 20 28,647 Yes After Puerto Serrano No WWTP at Puerto Serrano 30 42,28 Yes Before Bornos reservoir Inflow reservoir 35 53,775 Yes At Bornos in the reservoir (also measured stratification here) No WWTP at Bornos 40 56,695 Yes After Bornos reservoir Outflow reservoir 60 64,075 Yes After Archos reservoir Outflow reservoir 70 80,167 No River from Espera coming together with Guadalete No WWTP at Espera 80 81,739 Yes Majaceite River joining Guadalete River 2 big rivers joining together 90 93,914 No La barca de la Florida Was same water as at point 95 95 101,37 2 Yes Before Tornos No WWTP at Tornos 100 107,23 9 Yes After Tornos No WWTP at Tornos 105 110,98 9 Yes Arroyo de las Cruces joining Guadalete river Large river joining 107 125,01 5 Yes Before WWTP Before WWTP 109 yes Effluent WWTP Effluent WWTP 110 129,80 5 Yes After WWTP After WWTP 111 131,88 4 yes Intertidal area Intertidal area 112 134,46 yes Intertidal area Intertidal area 113 136,07 8 yes Intertidal area Intertidal area 114 137,30 2 yes Intertidal area Intertidal area 115 137,90 9 yes Intertidal area Intertidal area 116 140,67 4 yes Intertidal area Intertidal area 120 145,00 6 yes Foot bridge el Puerto de Santa Maria Intertidal area 130 147,85 7 yes Mouth of the river Intertidal area Table 6: table of the sampling points from the inlet of Zahara till Puerto de Santa Maria.
    • 41 The samples taken in the field were done by dropping a sampling bucket from a bridge or by throwing the bucket from the riverbank and pulling it back with a rope. The field measurements were taken from within the bucket and a sample bottle was filled each time, so that it could be taken to the laboratory for further analysis. In the estuary, a boat was used and the field measurements (points 111 to 120) were taken directly from the estuary. The sample bottle was filled with no air inside to prevent any other chemical reactions during transit. When the reservoir sampling was done, the field measurements were done in the water in the water sampler, to prevent oxygen entering the water during measurements. The analysis taken in the field were:  Conductivity (in μS/cm)  Temperature (in oC)  pH  Oxygen concentration (in mg/L)  Oxygen Saturation (in %) Hach-Lange spectrophotometer was used for the chemical analysis in the laboratory. The parameters analyzed with the Hach-Lange spectrophotometer were:  Ammonium (NH4+-N)  Nitrite (NO2--N)  Nitrate (NO3--N)  Total Nitrogen (N-total)  Phosphate (PO43-)  Total Phosphorus (P-total) The materials we used in the field and lab are listed in the appendix The methods for analyzing the various chemical contents in the sample water are attached in the appendix.
    • 42 6.2 Results & Discussion 6.2.1 Oxygen Oxygen concentration in Guadalete River was fairly good in all 26 sampling points. It was clearly above the EU standard for surface water, which is minimum 5 mg/L, see Graph 14. Compared to measurements made in 2012 downstream Arcos dam (point 60), the situation has improved. In 2012, there was not enough oxygen downstream the dam (Bachelor students of Water Management in HZ, 2012). There have been more rain in the winter of 2012-13 than in previous winters, and the water level in the river is higher in 2013. This might contribute to the better oxygen situation, since water from Arcos reservoir might be released over the dam this year. Graph 14: Oxygen Concentration
    • 43 6.2.2 pH As seen in the Graph 15, the pH over the river’s course is fairly stable with difference of 0.97 between the lowest value at the point 110 and the highest value (8.67) at the point 60. In addition, in 2012, pH values were lower than this year (the minimum in 2012 was around 7, and in 2013 it was more than 7.6), as were the oxygen concentrations. As expected, pH values were following closely the O2 values: pH is lowered by high CO2 concentrations in the water, and when there is plenty of oxygen in the water, it can mean that it is not consumed by CO2 producing organisms. Graph 15: pH of the Guadalete river
    • 44 6.2.3 Conductivity Graph 16: Conductivity of the Guadalete river As seen in graph 16 the conductivity along the river’s course slowly increases, starting from 1043 μS/cm at point -10 at Zahara inlet and reaches 1326 μS/cm at point 80A. At this point, Guadalete River mixes with Majaceite River (point 80B), which has a conductivity of 729 μS/cm. Downstream of the river junction, the water dilutes to 1139 μS/cm at point 80C. The conductivity then slowly increases again, until it reaches its highest point right after the water treatment plant at point 110. After this the water flows over the tidal weir and into the estuary. At the estuary during the time of sampling, the current was still flowing downstream. At point 115 the current changed as the tide started to push back up the estuary where the conductivity increased to above 20 000 μS/cm. 2 At point 116/116B two measurements were taken, because the tide seemed to be rising on the Western side of the river more: the water was greenish, compared to gray water on the Eastern side. On the Western side the conductivity was 20 400 μS/cm and on the Eastern side 18 41 μS/cm. Also in Puerto de Santa Maria two measurements were made, with two hours’ interval. At the first measurement, conductivity was 20 100 μS/cm, while at the second time it was 34 100 μS/cm. The differences where expected, since salinity is closely related to conductivity. 2 On the sampling day, low tide was at 08:55 and the high tide at 15:09, and the measurements were made between 10 and 12:30.
    • 45 6.2.4 Nitrogen Graph 17: Nitrogen levels in the Guadalete river The main finding was that nitrogen levels after the water treatment plant in Jerez peaked, and the total nitrogen concentration exceeded the EU standard, 8.29 mg/L, when standard is maximum 2.2 mg/L. High total nitrogen concentrations were found everywhere downstream from the water treatment plant (point 110) until the river water started to change to saline due to rising tide at the time of sampling, see Graph 17 There was a sudden drop, from 8.29 mg/L to 3.16 mg/L in the concentration of total nitrogen after the tidal weir (point 111). It seems that the tide reaches all the way to the weir and dilutes the nitrogen concentrations. Especially ammonium concentrations peaked after the water treatment plant. In addition, the effluent water of the waste water treatment plant, with a total nitrogen level of 46.60 mg/L, exceeded the EU standard of effluent water for WWTP of 10 mg/L. No clear effect of agriculture or other industry than waste water treatment plant on the nitrogen concentrations was observed in this study. -10 0 15 20 30 3540 60 80A 80B 80C 95 100 105 107 115 116 120 120B -10 0 1520 30 35 40 60 80A 95 100 105 107 110 112 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 NO2 −(mgN/l) NH4 +,NO3 -,Ntot(mgN/l) Distance (km) Ammonium Nitrate Total nitrogen Standard Nitrite WWTP effluent, Ntot = 46.6 mg/l
    • 46 6.2.5 Phosphorus Total phosphorus values exceeded EU standard for surface water (<0.15 mg/L) in several places: after Villamartín (point 30), at the Bornos reservoir (35), upstream of Junta de los Rios (the junction of the rivers Guadalete and Majaceite, point 80A), and just before the water treatment plant and especially after it (107, 110). (See Graph 18) Graph 17: Nitrogen concentration of the Guadalete river. Just after the waste water treatment plant the total phosphorus concentration was more than two times the EU standard, or 0.345 mg/L. In addition the effluent water of the waste water treatment plant, with a total phosphorus concentration of 1.5 mg/L, exceeded the EU standard of effluent water for WWTP of 1.0 mg/L. The concentration dropped after the tidal weir (111), and continued to decrease downstream, where the river water was diluted by the rising sea water (at the time of sampling). Upstream of Junta de los Rios, a small stream of soapy water was observed at the time of sampling, which might explain the phosphorus concentration. It is not clear why increased phosphorus levels were not measured after Puerto Serrano (point 20) that does not have a water treatment plant, but at the next sampling point in Villamartín (point 30) the concentration of total phosphorus was 0.486 mg/l, which is more than three times the EU standard maximum. It is possible that the elevated phosphorus concentrations where temporary, but without new measurements it cannot be sure. No clear effect of agriculture or other industry than wastewater treatment plant on the phosphorus concentrations was observed in this study. -10 0 15 20 30 35 40 60 80A 80B 80C 95 100 105 107 110 111 112 113 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 -10 40 90 140 Ptot(mg/l) Distance (km) WWTP effluent, 1.5 mg/l Graph 18: Phosphorus concentration of the Guadalete river
    • 47 6.2.6 Lake stratification in Bornos reservoir Samples were taken from Bornos reservoir at a point where the reservoir was 15.5 meter deep. The samples were taken at every meter of the water column. Very clear stratification was observed. As seen in Graph 19, thermocline (a layer of sudden change in the water temperature) is somewhere between 14 and 13 meter deep. Graph 19: Stratification of the temperature in Bornos reservoir Because of the stratification, the bottom of the reservoir was completely oxygen deprived. O2 values were 0.05 mg/L or less at 12 meter’s depth and below. At 11 meter’s depth the oxygen level was already 4.37 mg/L and rose quickly to over 6 mg/L, after which the increase of O2 concentration was slower. (see Graph 20) Graph 20: Stratification of the oxygen in Bornos reservoir -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 20 21 22 23 24 25 Depth(m) T (°C) -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 0 2 4 6 8 Depth(m) O2 (mg/L)
    • 48 The pH values showed the same, layered behavior. As seen in Graph 21, there was a clear chemocline around 10 to 12 meter’s depth. Graph 21: Stratification of the pH in Bornos reservoir -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 7.20 7.40 7.60 7.80 8.00 Depth(m) pH
    • 49 6.3 Conclusion The waste water treatment plant in Jerez is the main pollution source in Guadalete River, at the time when the nutrients concentrations are measured. The effluent water of the WWTP exceeded the EU standards for effluent water of WWTP in both total Nitrogen and total Phosphate. The water quality was fairly good before the treatment plant, except for some peaks in total phosphorus concentration, which might be temporary. No clear effect of agriculture or other industry than the wastewater treatment plant on the nutrient concentrations was observed. Based on the measurements and comparisons with the earlier study, it seems that oxygen levels are better when there is more water in the river. Bornos reservoir was stratified. Based on that observation, it is possible to assume that Arcos reservoir would also be stratified, since it is a similar reservoir according to measurements taken. It might be that in dryer years, no water from the epilimnion is released but some water from the hypolimnion, which is oxygen deficient. This could contribute to low oxygen levels in 2012, but not in 2013, when some water was released from the epilimnion of the reservoir. 6.4 Comparison 6.4.1 Conductivity Conductivity was similar in most of the sampling points in 2012 and 2013. But in the estuary of Puerto de Santa Maria the conductivity in 2013 is almost double and this can be due to the tidal influence. 6.4.2 Ammonium There were nine similar sampling points in 2012 and 2013. The names of the similar points are Arcos Dam, Majaceite river, before Torno, after Torno, before Jerez, after Jerez, Jerez waste water treatment plant, Puerto de Santa María and WWTP effluent. The conditions that were different this year were: 1. 2013 experienced more rainfall than 2012. 2. Flow of the water in the river was much higher in 2013 than in 2012. Ammonium concentration in the Arcos Dam was very high last year as compared to this year result. The value can be seen in the appendix. The flow was lower and suspended solids had more time to digest and release ammonia. Ammonium concentration in the estuary in Puerto de Santa María was much higher in 2012 than in 2013. While taking samples in 2013, we had incoming tides that diluted the water, whereas it is likely that in 2012 they sampled during the outgoing tide. The ammonium concentration in other sampling points did not differ much.
    • 50 6.4.3 Nitrate The concentration of nitrate in 2012 and 2013 was similar in the above mentioned sampling points. After the Jerez WWTP the nitrate concentration is quite higher in 2013 and this could be just a fluctuation. 6.4.4 Nitrite Nitrite concentration in all sampling points in 2013 was lower than in 2012. This could be because of more flow and more aeration in the river. 6.4.5 Orthophosphate Orthophosphate concentration in Arcos Dam was significantly higher in 2012
    • 51 7. Biology 7.1 Materials & Methods The Aim of this chapter is to have a detailed study of the relation between human activity and the biology in the river Guadalete located in south of Spain. Biological assessment will be addressed by determining the occurrence of bio-indicators at several locations in order to find causal relationships between the human factors and the biological state of the river. Biology is the study of living organisms. These living organisms live in relation of their environment; all organisms demand certain aspects of their environment. Also organisms may alter their environment to make it more suitable for themselves or other organisms. Biological assessments can be used to directly measure the overall biological integrity of an aquatic community and the synergistic effects of stressors on the aquatic biota residing in a water-body where there are well-developed biological assessment programs (Figure 20, USEPA 2003). Resident biota functions as continual monitors of environmental quality, increasing the sensitivity of the assessments by providing a continuous measure of exposure to stressors and access to responses from species that cannot be reared in the laboratory. This increases the likelihood of detecting the effects of episodic events (e.g. spills, dumping, treatment plant malfunctions), toxic nonpoint source (NPS) pollution (e.g. agricultural pesticides), cumulative pollution (i.e. multiple impacts over time or continuous low-level stress), nontoxic mechanisms of impact (e.g. trophic structure changes due to nutrient enrichment), or other impacts that periodic chemical sampling might not detect. Biotic response to Impacts on the physical habitat such as sedimentation from storm water runoff and physical habitat alterations from dredging, filling, and channelization can also be detected using biological assessments. Figure 20: Biological assessments provide information on the cumulative effects on aquatic communities from multiple stressors. (USEPA, 2003).
    • 52 7.1.1 State of the Art According to the Water FrameWork Directive (2000/60/EC), an ecological assessment must be done on surface waters. The assessment proposed includes protocols for assessment of Phytoplankton, Macrophytes, phytobentos and Bentic Invertebrates already developed for rivers. In this section, these groups of organisms were used in order to determine the biological state of the system. Moreover, the importance of the different ecosystem communities is well known and can be seen in Figure 21. (Scheffer et al, 1993). Figure 21: Main feedback relations within the ecosystem structure. (Adapted from Scheffer et al, 1993) Although there are some studies that focus on the river Guadalete Basin from the biological exposure point of view (see Ecologistas en acción, 2008; Gayardo- Mayenco, 2003; HZ University of applied sciences, 2012; Ramos-Gomez et al., 2008), the present study is designed to evaluate the continuous exposure of biological communities and to quantify the biological state by applying a Biological Index based on the presence, absence of certain indicative species (De Pauw and Hydrology
    • 53 Vannevel, 1991) and also take into consideration the existing information about the ecosystem structure and its composition. 7.1.2 Object Evaluate the biological state of the river Guadalete concerning macro invertebrates, phytoplankton and vegetation and what is the influence of human activities on them? In order to obtain the necessary data to classify the Biological State of the system, every sampling point was evaluated for (see Methods for the detailed sampling design)  Presence of macro invertebrates as indicators o Construction of the Biological Index  Occurrence of macrophytes associated with certain environment conditions  Presence of Phytoplankton that evidence the saprobic state o Construction of the saprobic Index The data collected was then processed in order to build up a biological Index characterizing the biological state of the system. This criteria is a way of describing the qualities that must be present to support a desired condition in a water-body and serve as the standard against which assessment results are compared. 7.1.3 Justification sampling points There are several aspects to take into account when choosing the sampling points, mainly focusing on addressing the object of study, it has been decided to take some points near point sources and dam weir constructions that were already identified. Considering the limiting factors like reachability and time, all sampling points were chosen close to a highway, often at a bridge. Figure 22, enables to get information about the influences of human activities over the biological state of the system. The possible interference between points (e.g. the existence of a point source between the sampling locations) must be taken into account, see Table 7.
    • 54 . Table 7: Codification of sampling points and a short description Figure 22: Map showing the location of sampling points. Sampling point Nº Description Point 0 High up in the mountains, humans interference would be minimal here. Point 20 “Puerto Serrano” High up the river where maybe human interference is small, good for referential point. Point 30 Point after place Villa Martin just before the river enters the reservoir Bornos so dilution has not yet happened which would occur in the reservoir. Point 65 Point after the city Arcos de la frontera, with the influence of its waste water treatment plant. Point 79 This point is not the river Guadalete but the Majaceite, that also has a junction with the Guadalete. It is interesting to see if the mixed and the side branch have any specific results. Point 80 Point where the Majaceite and the Guadalete are completely mixed. Point 90 Point with a lot of agriculture land use Point 95 Point used for reference more downstream and agricultural usage Point 100 Also point for referential downstream and agricultural usage. Point 105 Location after the effluent of the city of Jerez. Point 117 This point is to address the biological state within the saline environment of the Guadalete river.
    • 55 7.1.4 Biotic index methodology Several steps are taken to find the biotic index for a waterway: taking water samples, identifying the different macro invertebrates, and using the biotic index tables to find the corresponding biotic index grade for the sampled waterway. Sampling the waterway is done with the use of a net with a mesh size of 1 mm. This net is then used to take a sample of the top layer of the sediment and between the aquatic vegetation in the waterway. The net can be pushed through the top sediment layer or held still against the flow of the stream while the researcher stomps the ground in quick succession to stir up the sediments, which results in the benthic organisms being pushed into the net. Then the sample in the net is spread out in a sampling tray in which the researcher removes the all macro invertebrates and adds formaldehyde is added till the specimens are dead. Then the organisms are put in alcohol for preservation until they are identified. For the identification of the macro invertebrates determination keys are used, the macro invertebrates are then identified to the family or genus. After identification, the results are used in the biotic index table: firstly, the most sensitive indicator group found in the sample is identified: in the table groups of taxa are shown numbered from 1 to 7 (with 1 being the most sensitive and 7 the most tolerant). Then the class frequency is determined: the number of different taxa in the indicator group determines what grading scale is used (Table 7) (eg.: Trichoptera is the most sensitive of the sample, and there are 2 different families in the sample [green], then the row to the right of the larger or equal to 2 is used to give the waterway a biotic index grading). Once the frequency is determined the number of total taxa in the sample is found in the top row of the table (eg.: 7 taxa [red]). Then find the intersecting points between the taxa group and the number of taxa (eg.: 7 [blue]); the number shown is the grade for the biotic index of the waterway. A 0 means the quality of the waterway is in the worst possible condition and a 10 means the waterway is in perfect condition.
    • 56 Table 8: Grades assigned to different taxa according to its presence-absence in the water-body. (Extracted from De Pauw and Vannevel, 1991) 7.1.5 Macrophytes Macrophytes give a very good idea on the mixed effects of different environmental variables the water and soil over a long time period. Sampling macrophytes provides an indication on the water quality and other related conditions in each location. In the results a table is presented (Table 8) that shows the marcophytes that indicates certain environmental conditions. The presence or absence of submersed macrophytes is also an indication for turbidity. Materials: - Identification books or websites. - Microscope - Camera
    • 57 Methods: For collecting the vegetation, a sampling design as the one showed in Figure 23 was done. Sampling collection was performed in the water and shore. Already identified specimens were not collected but were identified in situ; only unknown species were collected in plastic bags and were taken to the laboratory for identification. Figure 23: Identification of the Sampling area in each of the sampling points. Before the fieldwork started, literature research on indicated species was done in order to identify potential indicator species for good and bad water quality. These indicated species are noted in Table 8. Appendix VI includes complete data for vegetation occurrence in each sampling point together with their environmental requirements regarding salinity, nutrient level, pH and flow velocity tolerance range. 7.1.6 Phytoplankton Materials:  Lugol Solution  1x Pipette  1x Sampling net with mesh size of 110µm  1x Sampling net with mesh size of 35µm  11x Glass sampling bottles of 100ml  1x “Das Leben im Wassertropfen” (Streble & Krauter, 1988) (The life in a water drop)  1x Bucket of 11,4L  2x Microscope
    • 58 Method: Sampling was done at the littoral zone in slow and calm waters at a depth of 0,5m. At each location one phytoplankton sample was taken. 10 buckets of water were flushed through the nets in order to get a sufficient concentration of phytoplankton. Afterwards 1ml of lugol solution was added to the sample with a pipette. (EPA, 2009) The phytoplankton was identified within 10 hours. From each bottle two samples were taken and were analyzed through the microscope. Literature used for identification is the book “Das Leben im Wassertropfen” (Streble & Krauter, 1988). This book is for analyzing fresh water organisms only. After identification of the organisms they were compared with the list of key species in the book concerning the water quality. With that information the water class was calculated to determine level of organic pollution according to the saprobic index. 7.1.7 Saprobic index The saprobic index as a basis for the assignment of water quality classes in many European countries has a good public acceptance and serves as a traditional tool for water management and political decisions. The Saprobic system, which evolved in the early years of the 20th century, recognizes a series of stages in the oxidation of organic matter: typically ‘polysaprobic’, ‘α-mesosaprobic’, ‘β-mesosaprobic’ and ‘oligosaprobic’ (Table 9) along with various intermediate stages. Each stretch of a river can be assigned to a particular stage on the basis of the presence or absence of indicator species.
    • 59 Table 9: Biochemical values used to classify the systems. Derived from Hamm (1969), Lange-Bertalot (1978, 1979) and Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986-1991) Objective: A saprobic system aims to provide a water quality classification from pure to polluted by means of a system of aquatic organisms indicating by their presence and vital activity the different levels of water quality (Sládecek, 1973). Principle: The saprobic systems are based upon the observation of aquatic communities’ composition over a gradient of organic inputs, ranging from completed oxidation to predominance of reduction processes. As a result, a zonation in the aquatic communities can be distinguished reflecting the degree of saprobity. Every species has a specific dependency of decomposing organic substances and thus the oxygen content. Limitations: Saprobic Index was developed to detect a single stressor, organic pollution, across large gradients. However, it is no possible to determine if the limited accordance between levels of sensitivity/tolerance found in systems and the saprobic approach is a true difference, or is related to occurrence of multiple stressors. Value Description Water quality class Oxygen saturation (%) BOD5 20 (mg l-1 O2) 1 Oligosaprobous I, I-II >85 <2 2 β-mesosaprobous II 70 to 85 02 to 04 3 α-mesosaprobous III 25 to 70 04 to 22 4 Polysaprobous IV <10 >22
    • 60 7.2 Results 7.2.1 Saprobix Index The analysis of the biological assemblages according to the saprobic zoning system of Lange-Bertalot (1978) indicated a progressive downstream decrease of water quality starting at station 105 (Jerez WasteWater treatment plant), where the saprobic index changed fron β-mesosaprobic to α-mesosaprobic evidencing an important organic matter input which ends in a significant decrease in the water quality of the river which is unable to recover before it reaches de sea. (Figure 24) Figure 24: Graphical representation of the Saprobic Index results along the River Guadalete. Color Legend: Green: β-mesosaprobic; Yellow: α-mesosaprobic. Some phytoplankton of the brackish water was not identified because saltwater organisms are not taken into account in this chapter (Sampling point 117). Moreover, out of six species, only two species are useful for calculating the water quality class. With more key species the result would be more accurate. At sample point 80 no phytoplankton sample was taken due to a very high velocity of the water column.
    • 61 7.2.2 Macrophytes The lists of all the identified macrophyte species can be found in Table 10. This list shows the identified macrophytes per location and a list with all identified macrophytes. Table 10 provides a list of macrophytes that indicates certain conditions. From this table it can be inferred that water from the Guadalete River is nutrient rich and carbon rich. This can be concluded because almost all vegetation that was found belong to a group of plants that requires nutrient rich environments and many are carbon philic. No submersed species are found because of high turbidity and also no indicator species for a good water quality. Only a small difference is found between the locations. At some locations Montia fontana and Lithospermum officinale (see Figure 25) were found; these two macrophytes indicates poor nutrient conditions. But because of the abundance of macrophytes that indicates nutrient rich conditions this contradicts and points out a nutrient rich environment. The difference may be attributed to local and specific conditions that may be affecting the nutrient concentrations, but could not be reported in this work. Figure 25: Example of two poor nutrient environment indicators found during the fieldwork. Right panel: Lithospermum officinale. Left panel: Montia fontana Table 10 shows the macrophyte species found in each sampling point and Table 11 shows the environmental requirements for each of the species found.
    • 62 Table 10: Macrophyte species found on each sampling point. First two rows shows geographic coordinates and sample point code respectively. Table 10 is continued on the following page of the report.
    • 63
    • 64 Table 11: Environmental needs for different macrophyte found in the sampling points. Table 11 is continued on the following page. Trophic level pH Carbon level Salinity Velocity Potamogeton natans No requirements - - fresh Low Velocity Potamogeton pectinatus Nutrient rich - Mineral rich Fresh and brackish medium Velocity Phragmites australis Nutrient rich - - Fresh and brackish medium Velocity Leersia oryzoides Disturbed soil - - fresh medium Velocity Cynodon dactylon - - - fresh medium Velocity Bolboshoenus maritimus Disturbed soil basic Mineral rich Fresh and brackish Low Velocity Juncus effusus Nutrient rich, Disturbed soil - Low carbonate level - Low Velocity Suaeda maritima Nutrient rich - - salt Coastal plant Lythrum salicasiria No requirements - - - Shore plant Typha augustifolia Nutrient rich - - fresh High velocity Datura stramonium - - - - Shore plant Solanum nigrum Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant Verbena officinalis Nutrient rich - Carbon rich - Shore plant Comarum palustre Nutrient rich - - fresh Low Velocity Montia fontana Nutrient poor - - fresh Low Velocity Lycopus europaeus Nutrient rich - Carbon rich - Shore plant Rumex hydrolapathum - - - - Shore plant Rumex palustris Disturbed soil - - - Shore plant Convolvulus arvensis Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant Berula erecta Nutrient rich - - - Low velocity Salix alba - - - Tree Xantium strumarium Disturbed soil - - - Shore plant Mentha suaveolens Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant Mentha spicata - - - - Shore plant Persicaria hydropiper Nutrient rich - - - Low velocity Persicaria maculosa Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant Thymus serpyllum - - Carbon poor - Shore plant Paspalum paspalodus - - - Fresh and brackish Low velocity Scirpoides holoschoenus Nutrient rich - - fresh Low velocity Arundo donax - Carbon rich - High velocity Plantago major Nutrient rich - - - Low velocity Cichorium intybus Nutrient rich - Carbon rich - Shore plant Fraxinus excelsior - basic Carbon rich - Tree Atriplex prostrata Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant Rumex pulcher Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant Amaranthus Nutrient rich - - - Shore plant
    • 65 Expected was to find the Ranunculus fluitans, according to the requirement of this macrophyte it should be possible to grow in this river basin. (Aa, 2010) Probably because of pollutions and the high turbidity of the river this specie is not found. This indicates that according to the vegetation encountered, the water quality of the river Guadalete is poor. Unfortunately because of the lack of information on water quality requirements for a larger number of macrophyte species occurring in this river basin, no more conclusions can be draw. 7.2.3 Macro invertebrates Biotic Index The presented results are from three sample points taken throughout the Guadalete River. These three sample points are upstream, midstream, and downstream (location 20, 90 and 105 respectively). These are the most representative sampling points within the basin. All other results can be found in the appendix. Location 20 is situated upstream near Puerto Serrano. The following table, Table 12, shows the macro invertebrates used for determining the biotic index of location 20. For the determining of the biotic index all species which occurred at least twice in the sample is used. Also there were some organisms that were of no use for the biotic index, these can be found in the appendix. The biotic index calculated for this location is 9, meaning that this sample point is in very good condition. Lithospermum officinale Nutrient poor - Carbon rich - Shore plant diplotaxis muralis Nutrient rich - Carbon rich - Shore plant Atriplex patula Nutrient rich - - fresh Shore plant Brassica nigra Nutrient rich - Shore plant Atriplex portulacoides - basic - salt Coastal plant Limonium vulgare - basic - salt Coastal plant Salicornia maritima - basic - salt Coastal plant
    • 66 Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi- plumosus Ephemeroptera BAETIDAE Baetis >1 " " CAENIDAE Brachycercus Harrisella 1 " " CAENIDAE Caenis >1 " " CAENIDAE Cercobrachys >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Ecdyonurus >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Heptagenia >1 " " OLIGONEURIIDAE Oligoneuriella 1 " " POLYMITARCIDAE Ephoron virgo >1 " " SIPHLONURIDAE Isonychia 1 " " SIPHLONURIDAE Metreletus >1 Gammaridae Hemiptera " " Aphelocheirus Hirudinea Mollusca Physidae Physella Acuta >1 " " Planorbidae >1 Odonata Corduliidae >1 Odonata Plecoptera Perlodidae Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) HYDROPSYCHIDAE >1 " " PHYACOPHILIDAE partim 1 Tubificidae Table 12: Detail of the taxa found on sampling point 20. Location 90 is located near La Barca de la Florida. The following table shows the organisms found at this sample point. Location 90 uses the same parameters as location 20 for determining the biotic index. Again there are some organisms that were not used in the biotic index; the list of these unused organisms can be found in the appendix. The biotic index calculated for this location is 4, meaning that this sample point is in a somewhat bad condition.
    • 67 Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi- plumosus Ephemeroptera BAETIDAE Baetis >1 " " BAETIDAE Cloeon 1 " " CAENIDAE Caenis >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Rhitrogena 1 Gammaridae Hemiptera " " APHELOCHEIRUS " " HYDROMETRIDAE 1 " " PLEIDAE 1 Hirudinea Mollusca - Veneroida CORBICULIDAE 1 Mollusca - Caenogastropoda MELANOPSIDAE Meanopsis praemorosa >1 Mollusca - Hygrophila PHYSIDAE >1 Mollusca - Hygrophila PLANORBIDAE 1 Mollusca - Sphaeriidae Odonata Plecoptera Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) Tubificidae Table 13: Detail of the taxa found on sampling point 90. Location 105 is situated industrial area near Jerez de la Frontera. This location was sampled for macro invertebrates, but none was found. Therefore the biotic index for this location was graded 0, meaning this waterway is in the worst. A summary of the results obtained can be seen in Figure 26. Figure 26: Result map after applying the Biotic Index in sampling points.
    • 68 Furthermore, samples were analyzed in order to qet information on the species present in the river and to inform about the existence of invasive species (Table 14). Figure 27 shows some pictures of organisms found in the system. Figure 27: Macroinvertebrates found in the Guadalete basin. a) Ecdyonurus; b) Physella acuta; c) Hydropsychidae; d) Procambarus clarki. a)b) d)c)
    • 69 Table 14: Family list of macroinvertebrates found in the river Guadalete The difficulty of observing aquatic species and the scarcity of scientific papers in the river stretch under analysis shows that there is a great ignorance on aquatic fauna in general. Among the changes in the fauna of the river in recent decades is the emergence of invasive exotic species, including the presence of American crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), which has colonized the river in different sections. Table 15 shows a comparison between Ebro occurring species and the ones found in the Guadalete River. Order Ephemeroptera: Order Caenogastropoda: -Baetidae, g. Baetis -Melanopsidae, g. Melanopsis sp. Melanopsis praemorosa - Baetidae, g. Cloeon Order Hygrophyla: -Caenidae, g. Caenis -Physidae, g. Physa , sp. Physa Acuta -Caenidae, g. Cercobrachys -Planorbidae -Caenidae, g. Brachycercus , sp. Brachycercus harrisella -Corduliidae -Heptageniidae, g. Ecdyonurus Order Odonata -Heptageniidae, g. Heptagenia -Platycnemidiae - Heptageniidae, g. Rhitrogena Order Plecoptera -Oligoneuridae, g. Oligoneuriella -- Perlodidae -Plymitarcidae, g. Ephoron , sp. Ephoron virgo Order Trichoptera: -Siphlonuridae, g. Metreletus -Hydropsychidae -Sipholonuridae, g. Isonychia -Phyacophilidae Order Hemiptera: Order Diptera: -Corixidae -Culicidae -Hydrometridae -Dixidae -Pleidae Order Coleoptera: Order Veneroida: -Dytiscidae Corbicuidae -Hydrochidae Order Decaphoda -Chrysomolidae -Atyidae Order Oligochaeta: -Cambaridae -Hapltaxidae -Palaemonidae
    • 70 Table 15: Comparison between Ebro occurring species and the ones found in the Guadalete River autochthonous and invasive species. (Extracted from Oscoz, 2009) Table 15 continues on the following page of the report.
    • 71
    • 72 Results Summary Overall, after the results obtained, the river can be divides into three sections, each one of them characterized by different biological state: The Biotic Index indicates a good water quality (9 Value) in the upstream section of the river. The macro invertebrate communities consist of predators like Ceanidea and grazers like Heptageniidea. Heptaginiidae and Ocheaptera were represented. Snails were found of the family physidae, however these species can also live in polluted waters. The functional groups represented were mostly grazers in accordance with the river continuum concept (Vannote et al. 1980). The macrophytes found were determined to be mostly occurring in nutrient rich environments and some species had a preference of high pH and carbonate rich soil. Phytoplankton was sampled but no conclusion can be taken, probably because of the high current, which limits the occurrence of planktonic organisms. The water was turbid and visibility was estimated around 30 cm with a grey like suspension. In the middle part of the river, all the sample locations were downstream the Borno reservoir and several cities: Arcos, Junta de los Ríos, etc. Here Ceanidae were the most represented group: this family represents the grazers and collectors of the river. Also Hemiptera were abundant in the samples like water skaters and backswimmer bugs. These species can almost occur in any type of water so they do not indicate water quality conditions. Macrophytes did not differ when compeared to upstream sampling points. Phytoplankton samples suggested the water quality is at β-mesotrophic state (see Saprobic Index). It was observed that eucalyptus is very abundant in location 90. Those eucalyptus trees have a negative effect on the biological state because their roots reach the river itself, changing its geomorphology. Also invasive species were found: american crayfish and guppies. For freshwater and one point “117” for the saline part of the river. In the lowest freshwater section almost no macro invertebrates were found. At point 105 no indicative macro invertebrates were found, so the biotic index ranked a 0 (zero) value, even though a lot of shrimps and american crayfish were collected. This leads to the conclusion that the abundant functional group was filtrators and scavengers. Macrophytes did not differ that much from other middle part and upper part of the river indicating that these macrophytes are in nutrient rich environment.
    • 73 7.3 Discussion The effects of human activities over the biological state of the river are difficult to address, even after designing a sampling strategy that focus its efforts on finding differences between locations being affected by diverse pollution sources. Moreover, in places where differences were found, it was difficult to individualize the effect of each agent. The sampling and determination was done within a short period of time (3 days). This has caused the data to be insufficient to conclude about the influences of humans on the biological state of the river. The samples only represented the biological state that occurs in the summer. Furthermore, an inter-temporal analysis should be performed in order to find seasonal effects on the system. The winter of 2013 was very wet with an above average rainfall. This may also be affecting the results that may not be the average biological state of the river. The sample method used was only suited for qualitative measurement. Quantitative measurements of phytoplankton and macro invertebrates were not done. Thus, a more precise sampling method should be applied in order to obtain qualitative data. 7.4 Conclusion Determining effects of the influences of human activities on the system is complex. Even more difficult is to distinguish and separate certain co-occurring effects like agriculture, diffuse sources, or point source pollution. After the Biological assessment, it can be concluded that there is a progressive decrease in the quality of the river water when analyzing the system from its birth until the mouth of the river. Particularly the results from point 105 taken slightly after the effluent of a waste water treatment plan had a biotic index of zero which is probably reflecting the bad quality of the discharge from the waste water treatment plant.
    • 74 8. Stakeholders 8.1 Methods The results of the next chapter are based upon the answers from the different stakeholder groups and literature research. This will create a profile of the main problems in the Guadalete basin, based on the requirements of the stakeholders. This provided information is only partly controlled and therefore, not completely reliable. Furthermore, the sources are providing their personal knowledge and opinions, which makes the information unreliable. On the other hand, literature research provided the group a way to determine whether or not the information can be trusted. For example, a comparison can be made with the data from field samples provided by the other research groups in order to control the reliability of the interviewed stakeholders. On top of that some of the interviews lost quality by the need of translation from English to Spanish and/ or visa-versa. To begin with, the Guadalete river basin is affected by several activities related to the uses of water for food, human, nature and industrial purposes. Firstly, possible stakeholders were identified discussing together in the group and tried to figure out their roles and influences in the basin and vice-versa. After which, several field trips were organised in order to observe and understand the Guadelete river basin properly. In total, 7 stakeholder groups were identified; see Table 16. Few stakeholders like farmers and fishermen were casually interviewed in the field. Next, after the field studies and discussion within the group, a list of questions of our interest was prepared. The main interests of this group was to look into the impact and influence of the individual stakeholders on the river basin, as well as any possible conflicts that may exists in this environment. Phone calls were made to contact and make appointments with different stakeholders. Different stakeholders provided the information to us through presentations, short visits in the plants and conversations. The outcome of the interviewed stakeholder can be found in the Appendices VII until Appendices XI. Finally, literature research was carried out throughout the project in order to figure out the supportive information and to check the relevancy of various informal interviews. Previous studies on the basin were studied thoroughly and compared the status when possible. Web pages, textbooks and journals, scientific articles etc were studied.
    • 75 Figure 28: Land use of the Guadalete river basin region with the river highlighted in blue
    • 76 8.1.1 DPSIR-framework The DPSIR framework is used for the conclusion and analysis phase. The DPSIR- framework is useful to structure environmental assessments and identify indicators in to a causal chain. The framework has its foundations of the relatively simple PSR (Pressure- State-Response) model. In response to the limitations of this model the DPSIR (Driver- Pressure- State-Impact- Response) framework emerged. This framework states that environmental impacts are originating in driving forces such as industrial or agricultural activities (IEHIAS, 2012). The pressure changes the state of the environment due to for example pollution, habitat loss and climate change. These changes are followed by a certain environmental impact. Examples of this are changes in biodiversity, the landscape quality or human health. The framework continues with the responses to control these impacts such as policy measures. These responses can be linking to different points in the causal chain. The higher in the chain the more effective the response, as preventative measures (targeting the sources) tent to be more operational than later interventions. Cleaning up pollution or repairing other forms of damage after they have occurred, is often expansive and difficult. Responses identified, as being higher in the caudal chain in contradiction requires difficult changes in policy’s, laws or regulations. By identifying whether the response links to the driving force, the pressure the state or the response will therefore analyse the effectively of the used response.
    • 77 8.2 Result & Discussion 8.2.1 Water Use Multiple stakeholders are involved in the Guadalete river basin, however stakeholders have different uses for the water they use. Four main categories can be distinguished from each other: Water for humans, water for food, water for nature and finally water for industries and others3. Also, the type of stakeholders will also be defined. The four main categories consist of: Government institution, NGO’s, private companies and individuals. The following table will present the individual stakeholders and for whom or what they use their water, after which, a short paragraph will describe this relationship between the individual stakeholders and their water, see Table 16. Water for human Water for food Water for nature Water for industries & Others Institution & Government -Water Agency -WWTP -Thermal Power Plant NGO -Ecology action group Private -Tourism -Golf Course Individual -Illegal housing -Villages -Local Farmers -Fisherman Table 16: Stakeholders and their water use To begin with, the wastewater treatment plant is a government institution employs the water for nature. It collects and receives it, in order to treat before releasing it back into the river. The water has to meet certain standards before it is allowed back into the environment, in order to avoid harming the ecological status. After which, comes the ecology action group. This company belongs to the NGO’s and uses water for nature. Although they are not directly involved with water, they represent the interests of the Guadalete River basin as a natural entity, so that it is not harmed by human activities. Despite of direct involvement in the use and discharge of water resources from and to the river basin, they have been working in protecting, preserving and promoting the water quality and quantity and the ecosystem of the river basin continuously since the 80´s. Next, tourism and recreation represents the private companies and employs water for humans. As Cadiz is a beautiful city, large number of tourists visits the place every year. According to the research group of Cadiz University, a research was done on the impacts of the tourism on the Guadelete river basin. During the summer when the number of tourist reaches the highest, large amount of water is needed in order to fulfil their needs. But the infrastructures existing at the 3 Global Water Partnership, http://www.gwp.org/
    • 78 moment was planned and developed only keeping the local population of Cadiz in attention. And again the WWTP existing at the moment were not designed and developed to treat the wastewater that is being produced in the summer time here in Cadiz. Like the other infrastructures they were also planned and developed only keeping the local population of Cadiz in attention. As a result large amount of wastewater cannot be treated properly. Due to the large increases of tourists in the area during the summer time, the demand for water increases as well. Therefore the amount of water available to the locals and farmers decreases, as well as the water level and volume of Guadalete River The following stakeholder concerns the fisherman of the River. This stakeholder is considered as individuals and uses water for food. They fish the local organisms, in order to sell it on the market. Their influence on the river remains minimum, since the amount and type of fish that can be caught is controlled. However, illegal fishing does occur for the specialty of the region: Glass eel Farmers are another vital stakeholders of this system. They are individuals using water for food. They water their crops with either rainwater or irrigation from surface water or groundwater, depending on their location. The main plantations of this region are cotton, wine and olives. 44.7% of total land of Cadiz is used for the purpose of agricultural productions. Thus they use the water from the reservoirs contributing the river to irrigate their fields. The use of different kind of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers in the production without any monitoring and controlling adds a lot of nutrients and toxic materials to the river basin eventually by the surface run-off and flooding (in flood planes). Besides most of the farmers use inefficient way of irrigation. They also irrigate their fields by pumping up the water from the river, which is legally not allowed. A problem that involves the farmers is the fact that their demand is constant throughout the year and is not influenced by the plantations. Therefore, the farmers are in conflict with the tourism business, because of the increase in people and the lack of available water during the summer. This problem will be developed further in the following chapter. Next, the villages and the illegal housings represent individuals and employ water for humans. First of all, the villages pollute the river by throwing their garbage into the river and creating something similar to a landfill. A specific spot on the river was discovered, where a massive pill of rubbish and construction material (most probably of the illegal houses) was created, nearly obstructing the flow of the river. After which, the illegal houses pose a problem to the environment of the river. Since they are illegal, they are not necessarily linked into the sewer system, so their waste is possibly discharged into the river. These two problems will be developed further in the following chapter. Another point to keep in mind is that the locals from the villages are also in conflict with the tourism business, due to the lack of drinking water during the summer time. The reason they do not receive enough drinking water is due to the too small
    • 79 infrastructure. Indeed, the sewer system is not able to transport a big enough volume of water to the local villages. After which, the water agency plays a big role in the Guadalete River basin. It is a government organization that governs the Guadalete River and employs water for humans. This stakeholder is responsible for building dams, protection against flooding, and maintenance of the ecological status. This water agency has a large influence, because it controls nearly everything related to the river, therefore it is also responsible for the amount of water circulating through the basin. For example, Demarcación De Costas Andalucía Atlantico Cadiz has been constructing a dam, in order to monitor and evaluate the responses in the presence of floods the basin. These water agencies have been working on water resources control mechanisms. Thus they have a direct influence on the aquatic ecosystem. The golf fields are linked to the tourism business, since they would most probably go bankrupt without the tourists. However it is still an independent stakeholder that is private and that uses water for humans. Their involvement with the river basin has to do with their irrigation. To begin with, they use fertilizers that are dissolved by the irrigation of the grass and seeps into the ground. After time, this water contaminated by the fertilizers reaches the river water and, in large quantities, it could pose problems for the ecological status of the Guadalate River. Finally, the thermal power plant is a private stakeholder that employs water for humans. This plant it able to produce energy with water steam that comes from one of the multiple reservoirs linked to the Guadalete River. However it is very controversial and little information was available.
    • 80 8.2.2 Evaluation of Stakeholders Stakeholders Impact Power Reliability Water agency 5 5 5 WWTP 5 1 1 Ecology Action Group 2 2 4 Tourism 5 4 4 Villages 3 1 2 Local Farmers 3 2 2 Fisherman 2 1 2 Table 17: Influence of individual stakeholders, - 1 = very low / 2 = low / 3 = medium / 4 = high / 5 = very high This table, Table 17, was established in order to try and establish the importance of each individual stakeholder. The importance was defined by the research group as the impact or influence, the power and the reliability of each individual stakeholder. The impact of the stakeholders can be described as the influence they have on the river basin. In other words, how much their actions affect the Guadalete river. After which, the power is defined by the potential each stakeholder has to change, modify or contribute to decision concerning the river basin. These decisions can be for new legislations or laws, infrastructures or anything else concerning the Guadalete river. Finally, the reliability is very simple. It is defined by how trustworthy each individual stakeholder actually is. Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that the stakeholders generally present their own personal point of view and that information may not be reliable. To begin with, the water agency has a very high, influence, power and reliability. This water agency is a branch of the government and they try to take into account the interests of everybody from the region of Cadiz. They are the people who have the final say when it comes to decisions making concerning the Guadalete river basin and their personal activities have a high impact on the environment of this particular river. The following stakeholder is the wastewater treatment plant. Although it has a very high impact on the Guadalete river, it has a very low reliability and power. Indeed, the WWTP is constantly discharging treated wastewater into the environment and although they claim to meet the European standards, this is not necessarily the case. For example, the chemistry group proved that the discharge
    • 81 of the WWTP of Jerez was far above the norms. This clearly indicates that their reliability is very low, because they try to protect they own interests, while on the other hand their influence is high. Next, their power is very low because the WWTP plants are always public or semi-public companies and they are nearly never consulted when it comes to decision making for the Guadalete river basin. Next comes the Ecology Action Group. These people are a group of activists that protect the river as a natural entity and always have its best interests in mind. Their power is low, because they do not officially belong to the government. The only way they can influence decision-making is by doing manifestations. The same goes for their influence, since they protect the river, they try to not change it whatsoever. In the end, their reliability is high, because they have no reason to release false information, since they want preserve the Guadalete river as much as possible. Furthermore, the tourism business is a very important stakeholder for the region. They have a very high impact, power and reliability. Indeed, since the tourism business produces such large revenues for Spain, it has a large amount of power when it comes to decision-making. After which, the influence of this stakeholder is high, because it is a very large business that triples the population of the region during the summer time. As for their reliability, it is high, because they are content with the situation, they have no reason to divulge false information. Also the people that were interviewed were students from Cadiz University studying the tourism business of the region. After which, the villages have to be taken into account, since the locals live in this region all year round. They only have a medium impact, since they pollute the river but it is they environment, so they try to keep nice as much as possible. Their power is very low, because single individuals of villages are never consulted when it comes to decisions making. Finally their reliability is low, since it will always be their own personal point of view that they will explain during the interviews. Next, the farmers are similar to the villages with medium influence and low power and reliability. Fertilizers and water uptake from the river and aquifers are the reason for their influence. Their power is low, but still higher than the villages, since they produce food for the region. However, their reliability remains low, because, once again, it is their personal point of view that will be explained during interview or conversations. Finally, the fishermen have a rather low influence, power and reliability. The fishing activates on the Guadalete river is not very extensive at all. Indeed, certain species that were very popular in this region were declared as protected, so catching them is now illegal. In other words, the fishing activities and their influence have decreased in the past few years. They are never consulted when it come to decisions making, which is why their power is very low. As for their reliability, similarly to the villages and farmers it is low, since they will only present their own personal point of view.
    • 82 8.2.3 Main Stakeholders Due to the fact that a large amount of stakeholders was discovered, it was essential that the main stakeholders involved in the Guadalete River basin be defined. The five principal stakeholders that were discovered are as follows: the wastewater treatment plant, the Ecological Action Group, “Ecologistas en action”, the tourism business, the farmers and the local villages. In the following paragraphs, these individuals will be described in detail. These five individuals stakeholders were chosen because of the following reasons. First of all, the villages and the farmers live in the region all year round, so their impact is definitely not negligible. Next, without the WWTP, the river would already be destroyed, so they are key players within this system. As for the tourism business, they bring forward very large revenues to Spain, so their opinions and influence are an important factor. Finally, the “Ecologistas en action” always try to protect and preserve the Gudalete river. Although they do not have a very large influence, their impact and efforts are non negligible. However, the main reason these main stakeholders were chosen, is because they are all involved in a conflict that concerns the lack of drinkable water! WWTP To begin with, multiple wastewater treatment plants exist around the Guadalete river basin, however only one was interviewed, in Jerez. Founded in 1994, this semi-public company has been growing ever since. The expansion of the plant is not negligible; it has nearly doubled in size, however not all the system is currently employed. Due to the lack of funding, this company is unable to run to its full capacity. Indeed, 50% of the reactive is left to rust in its corner, without being used. The local government told to help the WWTP to improve the efficiency by providing money to install an anaerobic system. The only problem is that they have been waiting for over 6 months already and there is still no sign of the money arriving. This problem is linked to the local economy, which is currently in a very poor state. Until the economy improves, no money will be available for a system that is working, even though it is not at its full capacity or treating the water as good as possible. This wastewater treatment plant employs the classical system for treating wastewater, in other words flocculation, sedimentation and aeration. The anaerobic process is missing, which is a massive disadvantage to this plant. With it, they would have the opportunity to produce up 80 or 90% of their personal energy demand and therefore lower the cost of the plant. However, as explained above, as long as the money does not come in, this will not be possible. The treated water is discharged back into the river at a certain location that they did not specify. According to the person that was interviewed, the European standards for wastewater discharge are met. On the other hands, the samples collected by the chemistry group disagree with this statement. These samples indicate a very high content of total nitrogen and phosphate, which are above the standards defined by the European union. The exact quality level required will
    • 83 be mentioned later in the chapter of legislations and law, as well as in the chemistry portion of the report. The amount that exceeds the standards were high, however not massive. The problem is that the company treats over 2.1 million litres every year. With time, the excess keep amounting up and at a certain point could pose extreme problems, however nobody can know when. Ecologists Action Group The following main stakeholder involved in the Guadalete River basin is the Ecology Action Group: “Ecologistas in Action”. This group is a National action group that is active in 300 different subgroups divided along the hole of Spain. The Jerez sup-group has been working on the river problems since 1980 as a non-profit part-time organization. They focus on analyzing the impacts of the different stakeholders on a part of the downstream Guadalete Basin. The 70 kilometers between Marcos and the estuary, has been divided into 17 different sampling points, in order to assess the quality of this portion of the river. The results of this analysis are presented, in order to inform the population and research groups about the state of the river. The results are presented in public presentations as well as being available in digital and printed reports. The goal of this analysis is to protect the public domain of the Guadalete River. Indeed, This river can be separated into a public and a private domain. The Ecology action group tries to protect the public domain part of the river. This area is the one directly surrounding the riverbank. This area is supposed to be protected against building activities and other activities that disrupt or disturb the river. The groups analysis uncovered several different problems of the Guadalete River. First of all, the illegal construction along the channel is an issue. The constructions are conducted in protected zones and a lot of the installation is not occupied any more. For example bridges that are not used anymore but act as a barrier due to lack of maintenance and degradation. Moreover, agricultural activities ruined the original flood plains. Indeed, the agriculture narrows the river down as well as taking water from the river. Due to this, there is no natural vegetation anymore in these areas. After which, gravel mining used to be very profitable in the region, however after a certain time, it became illegal and they sites were abandoned as they were without cleaning anything up. This resulted in a problem of invasive species, such as eucalyptus, that now grows in the natural river basin. The final main problem concerns the local sewer system. In the end of the summer the volume of water in the system increases due to the tourists and the beginning of rainfalls, so the sewers are not able to cop with it anymore. This results in the wastewater overflowing from the sewer system and polluting the river. On the other hand, this Ecology Action Group did indicate that in the past 5 years the condition of the river has improved. This was caused by, first of all, dredging the channel and cutting some eucalyptus trees down, in order to restore of the riverbank. Secondly, illegal constructions were demolished. Moreover, water quality was improved by in creasing the water volume of the river, in order to dilute to the pollution and decrease its concentration.
    • 84 Local Villages The local villages are the following important stakeholders involved with the Guadalete River basin. These people live in this area the entire year, so their impact is none negligible. The first issue that concerns them is their sewers system. It is very basic so as soon as the volume of water increases, the sewers are not capable of cooping with it anymore, which results in an overflow. This overflow pollutes first of all the banks of the river and the agricultural crops if there are some in the region and secondly the river itself. Another problem that concerns this region is linked to education and awareness. Due to the lack of education and awareness, they do not understand the harm they can cause by polluting the river. Indeed, any inconvenient garbage or waste construction material will be deposited in the riverbed. After time, these location turn into an improvised land fill, full of concrete, garbage and any other waste that is hard to discard. Of course this is a serious problem for the ecological status of the Guadalete River basin, especially since nobody tries to clean it up, it simply lies there for years on end. One example of this can be found at the sampling point 105. Farmers The following stakeholders involved in the river basin are the local farmers. These people are not governed by any specific law reinforcement, so they can do whatever they want most of the time. To begin with, in times of drought, they start taking water from the Guadalete River, which results in a decrease in the amount of water volume available. Also, more and more illegal ground water pumping is happening. Once again, this linked to the lack of water available. The problem is that the ground water and aquifers are direct suppliers of the Guadalete river, so if these were to dry up, the river would eventually dry up as well. Another issue is that the farmers use inefficient ways of irrigation. A lot of water is wasted, due to the system employed. With a bit more money and knowledge, they could drastically improve their situation. Next, farmers obviously use fertilizers, in order to increase the quality and output of their crops. A lot of the fertilizers, pesticides and other products that are employed end up infiltrating the ground water, as soon as there is a little bit of rainfall or during irrigation. These products will eventually end up in the Guadalete River and act as pollutants. In large quantities, this might pose serious problems for the faun and flora of the river basin.
    • 85 Tourism Business The final stakeholder involved with Guadalete River basin is the tourism business. During the summer time, Spain and especially Andalusia is a very popular tourist destination, due to the hot weather, the beaches and the good food. Indeed, between May and September, the amount of people present in this region is three times higher4. Logically, this results in an increase in the amount of water consumption. On top of the extra amount of people, the ones on vacation do not take into account their actions. They are on vacation, where they paid for a hotel so they think: “I paid for the hotel, no need to worry about the water bill. I’ll take an extra long shower and leave the water running while I brush my teeth.” This results in an even higher water consumption than necessary and the government is even considering installing a tax on water for the tourists during the summer. 8.3 Interviews and interpretation During our investigation a couple of causes and effects which harm the Guadalete river basin could be examined, see Figure 29 Figure 29: Cause and effect diagram This figure represents a cause and effect diagram, Figure 29. The main issues the individual stakeholders had to struggle with were concerning Law, no budget and missing awareness of the stakeholders. A detailed description and a further interrelation of the problems are made in the DIPSTER chapter. Tourism, which includes tourists as well as facilities related such as golf club, is a big consumer of water along the Guadalete River especially in summer. The information resource is quite dependable since it is from a professor from University Cadiz who is relative neutral. Tourism has a quite high power 4 This information originates from the interview with the students studying tourism
    • 86 regarding on discussion making since they are the main economic income of the river basin area. The main problem regarding tourism is too much water consumption while tourists don't pay tax. Therefore there might be not enough water for agriculture in a particular season. The Ecology Action Group is a stakeholder who stands for the natural environment only. Since they are a non-profit organization the information from them is more dependable compared with other stakeholders. On the other hand, since they are not purely neutral, still some of the information from them might not be true. The Ecology Action Group has a positive impact on the environment as well as public awareness. However, they might have a relative low power on discussion making about the Guadalete River. Their main problem is the pollutant from man activities to the water quality and illegal constructions as well as agriculture activities to the water quantity. The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) of Jerez in the Guadalete river basin treats the sewage of about 200 000 inhabitants and can therefore be considered as one of the biggest WWTP in the area. Nevertheless, the WWTP we visited is just one out of many (13 – 20 WTP in the basin for approx. 333 709) inhabitants living in the upper and lower course of the river). The company is semipublic. This means that the wastewater treatment plant has a private investor, as well as the local cities. During our short 10 minute interview, the group was not able to receive deeper information. Furthermore the reliability of the information has to be seen skeptical as they differ in parts from the information the chemistry group received during their visit. In the following description a integration of both observations is made. The impact on the water quality of the Guadalete River is pretty high since they discharge the treated water into the river. In general the WWTP works regarding the Urban Wastewater Discharge Directive (EEC 91/271), which were implemented into the Spanish law (Real Decreto-Ley 11/1995; Real Decreto 509/1996). Nevertheless the WWTP face several problems: Overall the WWTP don’t receive enough money from the private investor as well as from the state. Therefore a big part of the installation is either not working or under construction which could not been finalized or cannot be maintained and operate properly. Consequently the effluent which is released to the Guadalete river is poor in quality. The chemistry group analyzed the effluent, in order to determine if it meets the standards or not. And especially during tourism season, the pressure on the WWTP increases enormous. At the end the WWTP are not able to treat the amount of sewage coming in to the system, which may enter the river without any kind of treatment. In the following chapters a closer look should be given to the environmental assessment starting with the driving forces that cause the problems in the river basin. This will be followed by a literature comparison of the investigated problems and previous studies, which is based on the research of the Ecology action group on the river basin.
    • 87 8.4 DPSIR analysis Figure 30: DPSIR Analysis
    • 88 This chapter contains the DPSIR-Framework based on the answers of the stakeholders. This framework was described in a previous chapter. The environmental assessment is illustrated in the following structure; see Figure 30, which starts with the driving forces that might cause the problems in the area. Financial problems lead to a lower quality of education that changes the attitude towards the river state. The people living in the basin have no personal attachment with the river, which makes them careless about its state. It seems that the people in the area do not hesitated about throwing waste into the basin. Furthermore, a lack of governmental interest creates financial problems in the area because the government is not willing to support the area financially. Poverty of the locals will change their attitude. Next, the cultural aspect is linked to both education and attitude, since these aspects can lead to changes of the two categories. What follows a bad attitude is that both the government and the civilians do not control the laws and legislations that have been put in to place by the European union. Also a lack of financial support can lead to no social control and no enforcement. No control also means miss usage, pollution and infrastructural mismanagement, which leads to decreases in biodiversity and in crop yield of the surrounding area. Furthermore, old bridges, dams and dikes disrupt the nutrient flow to the lower parts of the basin. Responses to these types of problems can be characterized differently. Although responses to problems located higher in the causal chain are even more difficult, they are more efficient than the responses to the states or impacts. Indeed, the disadvantages of the reactions to the drivers and pressures are that they require political power that local civilians and farmers usually do not have. That is why farmers can adapt themselves and their practices by, for example, making use of crop rotations or by using ground water in water scare seasons. This second adaptation is however said to be an adaptation only used in the past, when irrigation water from the river was more expansive. Now that water prices diminished, pumping decreased as well and river water irrigation increased. On the other hand, the low irrigation price did create a new problem. Indeed, the low prices tend to create an attitude problem, since it is so cheap; the farmers tend to waste more water.
    • 89 8.5 Conflict and Problems To begin with, the Ecologist Action Group conducted an analysis, which had as a goal to protect the public domain of the Guadalete River. Indeed, this River can be separated into a public and a private domain. The Ecology action group tries to protect the public domain part of the river. This area is the one directly surrounding the riverbank. This area is supposed to be protected against building activities and other activities that disrupt or disturb the river. The report of the Ecology Action Group is based on the observations made in different areas of the river. A compilation of the results of that report was made according to the main impacts and is shown in the table on the following page. IMPACTS EXAMPLES Type of Impacts Origin/Location OCCUPATION OF CHANNELS, BANKS AND MARGINS (Encroachment, invasion, degradation, destruction, interventions ..) Constructions and Facilities - Housing - Garages / parking - Agricultural or irrigation facilities ... - Collectors, drains, ... Urban pressures - Construction in margins and / or floodplain Agricultural pressures - Usurpation of the hidraulic public domain - Damage resulting from agricultural practices Corrections in banks / channel - Dams, weirs STATE OF THE VEGETATION OF THE BANK AND MARGINS Type of vegetation - Traces of destruction of vegetation: logging, burning, ... - Only herbaceous species SPILLS ON THE RUNWAY AND MARGINS Solid - Waste and household - Filled with earth on the banks - Contributions of mud, silt ... by runoff, erosion - Deposits of fluvial sediments and dragged banks Liquids - Effluent treatment plants - Industrial discharges - Discharge of dairies and farms - Untreated Wastewater - Networks of farm drains - Presence of floating pollutants Other: - Agricultural plastics - Packaging for plant protection products - Diffuse pollution by pesticides IMPACT OF GRAVELS Soil and vegetation - On the vegetation of riparian / margins / environment - Degree of soil restoration (filling materials, topography, topsoil layer) - Loss of organic soil Water - Direct contamination of aquifers - Dumping of sludge per channel ... EXTRACTION OF WATER - Pumping stations - Engines or mobile installations - Booths / fixtures machinery / irrigation pumps - Other deposits ... IMPACTS OF PUBLIC WORKS - Landfills in the bank - Destruction of vegetation - Silting in the channel - Barrier effect - Other impacts ... Table 18: Ecological issues concerning the Guadalete river basin
    • 90 There are several main problems of the Guadalete River, see Table 18. First of which is the illegal construction along the channel and a lot of the installation are not occupied any more for example bridges that are not used anymore but act as a barrier. Indeed, these infrastructures act as impairment for the water returning to the river after a flood. Moreover, agricultural activities ruined the original flood plains and sediment increased because of man activities. Because agriculture narrows the river down and also takes water from the river. There is no natural vegetation any more in these areas. Invasive species like eucalyptus grows into the natural river also due to gravel mining. Furthermore, pollutant from man activities is also a big problem for the river. To begin with, urban waste from the street kills the animal by going over the overflow. And also, farmers dump wastewater in the river; pollutant from sugar factory; faeces as well as Transportation Company cleans their tanks that contained milk in the river. It was also mentioned that not all the ground water is pumped up legally. Lastly, mining activities also affected the river; the construction of gravel mining trend to go down. It should be restored but it filled up by waste and pollutant. There are laws against this kind of activity for example the IPA. However, there is no control by the laws. There is also no control of the pesticides in the agriculture sector. After which, based upon all the results the ecologist group uncovered, they established a map indicating the ecological sensible zones, see Figure 31. This map was entitled “Black Spots” due to the fact that the ecologists indicated the sensible zones with black spots on the map. Furthermore, this map will be into context with the results of the other groups (chemistry, biology, hydrology and geomorphology), so that it can be established whether or not these ecological sensible zones are still existing or not.
    • 91 1 The weir of El Portal 2 El Portal /EL Portalillo 3 Bridge of Herradura 4 El Portal: Discharge area of the EDAR, spillway and ponds of the sugar factory 5 Cantred of La Corta 6 Around junction of the rivers Salado and Guadalete 7 Around Puente de Cartuja 8 Around Puente de la autovía de Los Barrios. 9 Bridge of Greduela. Near to Venta de Las Carretas 10 Gravels of El Palomar 11 Riverside of El Torno 12 Gravels of Llanos de Espínola 13 Gravels of Torrecera 14 Gravels of Bucharaque 15 Around La Barca 16 Around Majarromaque 17 Gravels of Vega de Albardén. 18 Gravels of Haza de Rivero in Vega de Abadín Figure 31: Location of the “Black Spots” indicated by the Ecological Action Group
    • 92 One of the main and very serious conflict going on around the Guadalete river basin involves the local villages, farmers, tourists and the wastewater treatment plant. This dispute is due to the volume of water, in particular drinking water, available. As explained above, during the summer time, the amount of people inhabiting the region is three times higher than in winter time, therefore the water consumption of Andalusia is as well much higher. Since the tourism business is one of the main revenues for Spain, the hotels will never be cut of from the water supply. On the other hand the local villages have to suffer from limited access to drinking water during this time period. The same goes for the farmers. Their water need is even higher, in order to be able to irrigate their crops properly, however, their demands are not always met, since not enough water is available. One of the main reasons for the lack of water is the existing infrastructure. The pipe system in place for transporting drinking water is not capable of handling a larger amount of water, so only a limited amount reaches the villages. At this point, the farmers will look into other options for irrigating their crops. The first of which is taking water from the Guadalete river basin. This is a very easy solution for them, since the river is near by and easy to access. The second solution that is sometimes employed is extracting the ground water from the aquifers. Although this method is harder to accomplish, it yields better water quality and is very abundant water supply for a limited amount of time. On the other hand, it is much harder for the villages to find drinkable water. They often do not have the means to reach the water in the aquifers and the water from the river is definitely not drinkable. The solution that they turn to most of time is relatively simple, however not very cheap: bottled water. Finally, the wastewater treatment plant is also heavily affected by the increase in people and water consumption. The plant is already under budget and not running to its full capacity, so an increase in the water volume that they have to treat is a serious problem. During the summer time, the wastewater treatment plants still has to treat all the water. However, it is not allowed for them to discharge untreated water into the Guadalete river. What happens is that the quality of the treatment decreases. Indeed, the water is not allowed sufficient time for the different processes. For example, instead of letting the water and sediments settle for 3 hours, it will stay in that basin for 2 hours, which results in a lower quality of water discharged into the river. Due to the fact that the plant is lacking money, this is its only option, to keep up with the water volume and as a result it is the Guadalete river that suffers. To begin with, the quality of the water discharged by the WWTP was not meeting the standards, so in the summer time, this quality is even worse and the impact on the river higher.
    • 93 8.6 Conclusion In brief, multiple stakeholders are involved in the Guadalete river basin. Most of them are linked together and all have an influence on the river and its surroundings. Out of all these stakeholders, five of them have been defined and the key players in this system: the wastewater treatment plant, the ecology action group, the farmers, the local villages and the tourism business. The ecology group always has the interests of the river in mind, so it is a very positive thing for the Guadalete River. On the other hand, the other four main stakeholders are in a constant conflict concerning the quantity of available water. During the summer time, when the tourism business is booming, the amount of people increases and with it the demand for clean drinkable water. As a result, the ones that suffer are the local inhabitants of the villages and the farmers, since they are not necessarily supplied with enough water anymore. Another impact of this conflict is that water is extracted from the river and aquifers, in order to provide a short-term solution. However, this poses a serious threat to the viability of the Guadalaete River basin, since it relies directly on the aquifers as one of its source. Without sufficient water in the system, the Guadalete River risks drying up and also a lack of water poses a serious threat to its ecosystem, faun and flora.
    • 94 9. Discussion A lot of information will be provided in this discussion, so a certain structure has been put into place. To begin with, different observations and discussion points based upon all the results will be presented. They will be presented in the order of the Guadalete river, starting from the mouth of river and moving upstream until the Zhara reservoir. Next, human interference will be looked into further, which will be followed by the factors that limited and restrained this project. Finally, recommendations for future research will be developed, so that the next analysis of the Guadalete river basin can be conducted even better and yield more results. To begin with, an overall observation is the general water quality of the river downstream, near the mouth of the river, is not as good as upstream. Each individual research group indicates that the quality of the water in this region is less good than upstream. Whether it is biological, chemical, hydrological or geomorphological, the results are similar. Indeed, multiple factors influence this area of the Guadalete river basin. First of all, there is a higher population density in the region; therefore there is as well more human activity on the river. There is an increase in fishing activities, tourism, due to the coast and beaches located nearby and a large amount of illegal housing. Combined together, all these factors contribute towards a lower water quality. Another issue is that the existing infrastructures for the sewer system are too small. In other words, they are not capable of handling a large volume of water. This means, that when high rainfall occurs, wastewater from the sewer system can overflow and reach the surface water, therefore decreasing its quality. On top of that, the city of Jerez has a big wastewater treatment plant located nearby the river. The chemical research group has proven that this wastewater treatment plant does not meet the European standards. The effluent discharge has a nitrogen level of 46.6 mg/L, which is 4.6 times higher than the maximum level defined by the European Union (10 mg/L). Indeed, this WWTP has a very inefficient system. Currently more than 50% of the infrastructures are not in use, even though they a discharging bad quality of water. This is due to lack of funding as well as a lack of law enforcement. The result of this situation is that the sampling point 105, located directly afterwards the WWTP has a very bad water quality for every single research group. On the other hand, the volume of water flowing through the river is reasonably high, which an advantage for the WWTP. In point of fact, this volume of water is able to dilute the excess nutrients and any other pollutants that may be discharged by the plant. In other words at following sampling points the bad water quality is not noticeable anymore. Although the bad qualities of the water are not noticeable anymore it does not mean that they have disappeared. They have been diluted by the large water volume but are still in the system and will end up at the coast in the ocean.
    • 95 The following point involves the weir, which is located at the sampling point 110. This weir is a key element of the Guadalete river basin. Its strategic placement allows it to limit the tidal influence. This has several repercussions, the first of which concerns the salt intrusion. The weir stops the salt water from infiltrating the ground further upstream, so that the ground water, aquifers remain fresh water and therefore are usable for irrigation and as sources of drinking water. Next, the tides do not have an effect on the riverbanks further upstream than the weir. That way the banks remain available and appropriate for agriculture and other human activities. On the other hand, this weir offers only limited protection against the tidal influence. In the case where a massive storm would occur, the tidal levels would increase and the protection of the weir would be rendered useless for the duration of the storm. However, the weir also has a negative impact on the Guadalete river system. It acts as an obstacle for fish and other organism’s migration upstream. Moving upstream, the next issue concerns the sampling point 60. At this location, the hydrological and geomorphological research groups indicated a bad quality of the environment. The geomorphological quality is bad due to the fact that there was massive human interference. The area was transformed into a type of park and the entire natural aspect of the river was taken away. Next, the hydrological quality was defined as bad, due to an abnormal decrease in the flow rate. It is an unusual decrease because the flow rate was steadily increasing from the Zhara reservoir until the river mouth. Indeed, at that point the discharge decreases from 7 m3/s to 5.9, after which it increases back up to 7.3 m3/s. The hypothesis that was put forward for this uncommon situation involves the stakeholder “Thermal Power Plant”, which is located at the sampling point 60. As mentioned in the chapter of the stakeholders research group, this plant was a very controversial subject. Although it is currently functioning, a lot of people do not want it. Therefore it was not within the means of the research group to find any data concerning the thermal power plant. The hypothesis that was established is that the thermal power plant is extracting water from the river at that point, which is causing the decrease in water discharge. It could also be possible, that the thermal power plant sponsored the construction of the park at that location, so that their involvement in the system is not noticed as much. However, once again, this is all a hypothesis, since no information was available. The next subject involves small villages that do not have wastewater treatment plants. Four different villages that did not have access to a wastewater treatment plant were discovered in the Guadalete river basin. The first of these villages is located in Puerto Serrano, which is the sampling point 20. Although the water quality should be bad, the biology and chemistry group indicated that quality of the water was good. This is most probably due to an organization problem. The research groups most probably took their samples upstream of the waste discharge point of Puerto Serrano. Indeed, the samples taken from the chemistry group at point 30 indicate a poorer water quality. Since this sampling point is further down stream, the pollutants and nutrients were diluted a little bit, however the water
    • 96 quality is definitely less good. This indicates that village Puerto Serrano, without a WWTP, has a negative influence on the river basin. The following village is located at Bornos and is the sampling point 35. No negative factors were discovered for this location, however there is a very good reason for this. Bornos is situated directly next to a lake or reservoir, so any waste discharge is directly diluted in the large volume of water and was not noticeable by the research groups. After which, the village Espera is as well without a wastewater treatment plant. This village discharges its wastewater into a tributary of the Guadalete river, named, Salado. The sampling point 70 is located where the Salado river joins the Guadalete river. However, the Salado dries up before reaching the Guadalete, so no sampling was possible. It is assumed that any pollutants and excess nutrients infiltrate the ground and still pollute the environment, but it was not possible to gather data for this location. Finally, El Torno is the last village without wastewater treatment plant that was discovered. This village is extremely small with only 953 inhabitants5. None of the individual research groups discovered a decrease in the water quality at this location. However, this can be justified, by the fact that there is only a very small amount of people discharging their waste and that at this point the river has a high flow rate. Furthermore, human influence is present all over the Guadalete river basin. Multiple factors contribute towards this human influence and they are all factors that play a part in a poor water and river basin quality. First of all, there is a serious problem of illegal housing along the Gudalaete riverbanks. These houses pose a problem for safety as well as pollution. For example, they are not protected against floods, which could endanger the inhabitants. Next, due to the fact that they are illegal, there is no proper system to dispose of their waste. It is possible that some of the houses discharge their waste directly into the river or perhaps they have a storage system that is emptied every so often. Another issue that concerns these illegal houses is that they are constructed wherever the owners want. In other words, there are sometimes located in riverbanks that are categorized as protected areas, so they harm the local faun and flora. Secondly, hard structures pose as well a problem for the Guadalete river basin. To begin with, bridges and banks modify the hydrological natural properties of the river. After which, a lot of abandoned structures were observed a long the riverbanks. These infrastructures pose problems, because they act as a barrier during floods. They interfere with the water retreating back to the river after a flood. In other words, stagnant pools of water a created inland, which is not good for the ecology or the humans, because it is a breeding zone for illnesses. The dams are one of the key elements when it comes to hard structures and human interference. The four dams that are present along the Guadalete river basin were constructed, in order to solve water quantity problems. Although they do meet their intial goal of retain water, the environment and Guadalete river basin system was not taken into 5 Google search: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=El+Torno%2C+Spain&safe=strict
    • 97 account when it was built. Indeed, these dams pose a big problem for the migration of organisms upstream and for the sedimentation process. Indeed, the sediments are not able to reach the coast anymore, since they are blocked at the dams. This is currently increasing the coastal erosion. The beaches of Andalusia have slowly but surely been retreating, due to the lack of sedimentation. After which, fish migration upstream is also an issue. With these four dams in place, the fish are not able to migrate upstream to their breading location. This in turn is a serious threat for fauna of the Guadalete river basin. Next, multiple abandoned gravel mines exist along the river. Before the economical crisis hit the country, it was developing and constructing on a very large scale. Gravel mining was a very profitable business, however as soon as the economical crisis arrived all the construction stopped. Without any construction, the gravel business was not yielding money anymore and the sites and material were completely abandoned. Currently, there are mines, material and small infrastructures polluting the river, which is once again a threat for its ecological status. One of the main issues linked to the human interference is the lack of law enforcement. There are never any consequences when people or companies do not respect the laws or standards. For example, the wastewater treatment plant of Jerez has been discharging wastewater with a quality poorer than the European standards and has never received a fine or a type of punishment. Without any consequences for illegal actions, people and industries will not change their habits and continue polluting the river. This issue is of course also linked to the problem of illegal housing. If the law was enforced properly, people would not build in protected areas, such as river banks and the ecological status and safety of the Guadalete river basin would be higher. This issue is also linked to the attitude of the local population. The people are not aware of the consequences of their actions. They are not informed that discharging their waste into the river or disposing of inconvenient garbage in the basin could pose serious environmental problem. Without awareness, people will not learn or change their mentality and attitudes. The same can be said for the companies who do not respect the standards or laws. If they were better informed, they might not act as they do. A very big problem that involved this project was the lack of proper resources for the research groups. In certain situations, different measuring methods were employed for the same value, which makes the results more uncertain. In other cases, the necessary material was not available, so certain parameters could not measured. For example, the suspended solids could not be taken into measured, since the required instrument was not available. As for the biology research group, a major problem that concerned them was the lack of information. Although they were able to collect a lot of field samples, they did not have sufficient information to
    • 98 put them into context and see if these samples were a threat to the environment or indicators of a bad ecological status. Next, the amount of available time was a very limiting factor. Of course this project is an IP or in other words an Itensive Project, so the amount of time should be limited. However when reading this report, the fact that only three days were available to collect field samples and only five days in total to analyze these samples and results has to be taken into account. With more time, better quality results could have been handed, but this was not the case. In other words, the research groups did the best they could with the amount of available time. After which, this project was new for all the individuals involved. Sponsored by the European government, this intensive project regroups four different universities and 48 students from all over the world. The organization was very difficult and certain issues developed because of this. The main problem that occurred is communication. Indeed, with so may people involved, it was sometimes hard to make sure that everybody received the same information. In certain cases, this resulted in a waste of time, where people produced something that was not required. In other situations, an individual wrote a document completely wrong, which resulted in him or her having to start everything from the beginning. For future research concerning the Guadalete river basin, the individuals of this project have certain recommendations, in order to make it more complete. To begin with, investigating the situation with the ground water and aquifers could provide a lot more information for the hydrological status of the river and its water balance. Next, multiple stakeholders and supervisors from Spain hinted that the volume of water in the river has increased since the winter 2012/2013. However, no data was found on previous years, so this statement could not be denied or confirmed. It would be interesting to have this information, because as the saying goes: “dilution is a solution for pollution”. Another recommendation would be to organize the stakeholders before hand. The most important stakeholders have to be interviewed. However, in this situation, no background information was provided so it was sometimes confusing. Also, the main interviews were organized for the end of the week. This had as repercussions that very little time was available to analyze the information received during these interviews. Next, access points to the river were problematic. For future reference, it would be easier if GPS coordinates could be provided for each sampling point. This would allow each team to have exactly the same location for the sampling points, but also to know how to reach each individual point easily, so that no time is wasted driving around.
    • 99 10. Conclusion In brief, the quality of the Guadalete river basin cannot be considered as good or bad, but rather as “medium”. There are certain points where the water quality is indeed poor, but as well other areas where it is considered as good. The conclusion of the individual research groups generally differs from one another. There are some points in common, for example the sampling point 60, where both the geomorphology and hydrology group indicated a bad quality. Another example of this situation is point 20, where both chemistry and biology concluded a good water quality. However, the different bad quality points that the different research groups pointed out differ from one group to another. Next, the local government and population have to improve their attitude. The inhabitants of the region are not aware of the situation in the river. They do not understand the consequences of their actions towards the Guadalete river basin. After which, the government does not enforce the laws and standards in place. Without consequences to certain actions, people will not change their attitude and will continue to cause problems for the Guadalete river basin. This is also linked to a communication problem. Individual stakeholders do not share information or communicate, so solutions cannot be found together. They all try by themselves, while working together would be much more effective and efficient.
    • 100 11. Reference list Online Website 1. M.Braina, T.Harris (2013). “How GPS Recievers Work. Howstuffworks.” From: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/travel/gps4.htm [cited on 20-9-2013] 2. C.Kee, Parkinson, B. W., and Axelrad, P. (1991), "Wide area differential GPS", Navigation, Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 38, 2 (Summer, 1991) From: http://ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=100207 [cited on 19-9- 2013] 3. Wentworth (1922). Grain size classification. From: http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/charts/wentworth- 1922-grain-size.html [cited on 19-9-2013] 4. Bachelor students of Water Management in HZ, (2012). “Ecological Assessment of Guadalete River, Spain, 2012.” From: http://fs.iamadelta.eu/assessment-of-the-ecological-state-of-the-guadalete- river-andalucia-spain/ [cited on 20-9-2013] 5. Mccully. (2001). “Silenced Rivers: The ecology and politics of Large Dams”. From: http://www.internationalrivers.org/dams-and-water-quality. [cited on 21- 9-2013] 6. Sabater S., Navarro-Ortega A., Barceló D. (2011) “Water supply and demand: implications for Mediterranean river systems”. From: www.fgcsic.es/lychnos/en_EN/articles/water_implications_for_mediterranean_r iver_systems. [cited on 20-9-2013] 7. WORMS, (2013). “World Registre of Marine Species.” From: http://www.marinespecies.org/ [cited on 21-9-2013] 8. F.-Javie Gracia, (2013). “The Guadalete River Basin and Estuary.” From: http://fs.iamadelta.eu/lecture-gemorphology-and-hydrology-delta-guadalete/ [cited 25-9-2013] 9. Holiday weather, (2013). Weather Condition in Andalucia. From: http://www.holiday-weather.com/andalucia/averages/june/ [cited on 25-9- 2013]
    • 101 Documents 1. Limerinos J. T., Determination of the manning’s coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural channels, U.S. Geol.Surv., Water Supply Pap. 1898-B, 47pp, 1970 2. G. H. DURY (1961) BANKFULL DISCHARGE: AN EXAMPLE OF ITS STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIPS, International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Bulletin, 6:3, 48-55, DOI: 10.1080/02626666109493230 L.B. Leopold, An improved method for size distribution of stream bed gravel.(1970). U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. 20242 3. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2003). “Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-B-03-003. 4. Aa, B. v. (2010). Een onderzoek naar de factoren die abundantie en verspreiding van Ranunculus fluitans in het Nederlandse deel van de Swalm beïnvloeden. Venlo. 5. Alba-Tercedor J., (1982).Claves para la identificación de la fauna española. 4. Las familias y géneros de las ninfas de efémeras de la Región Paleártica Occidental.Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28 pp. 6. Davies, S.P., and S.K. Jackson. (2006). The biological condition gradient: A descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16(4):1251–1266. 7. Ecologistas en acción. (2008). Diagnóstico de impactos ambientales en el río Guadalete. 198 p. 8. Gayardo-Marenco A. (2003). Distribución Espacial de los Efemerópteros (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) en dos Cuencas Mediterráneas a Diferentes Altitudes. Zool. baetica, 13: 93-110. 9. González M.A. & Cobo F. (2006). Macroinvertebrados de las aguas dulces de Galicia.Hercules Ediciones A Coruña 173 pp 10. Hamm, A. (1969). Die Ermittlung der Gewässergüteklassen bei Fleibgewässern nach den Gewässergütesystem und Gewässergütenomoramm. Münch. Beitr. Abwas. Fisch. Flussbiol. 15: 46-48. 11. Hynes, H. B. N. (1960). The biology of polluted waters. Liverpool Univ. Press. SMITH, V. H. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. of Toronto Press. 12. Kolenati, (1848). Über Nutzen und Schaden der Trichopteren, Stettiner entomol. Ztg. 9.(Quoted by Sládecek, 1973). 13. Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1986) Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 1 Teil: Naviculaceae. 876pp. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer-Verlag.
    • 102 14. Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991) Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 3 Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. 576pp. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer-Verlag. 15. Lange-Bertalot, H. (1979). Pollution tolerance as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwigia 64: 285-304 16. Macan T.T., (1975).Guía de animales invertebrados de agua dulce. Libros de Biología, EUNSA, Pamplona, 118 pp. 17. Mulholland, P. J. (2001). Inter-biome comparison of factors controlling stream metabolism. Freshw. Biol. 46: 1503–1517. 18. Puig M.A., (1999). Els macroinvertebrats del rius catalans. Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Medi Ambient 251 pp. 19. Ramos-Gómez J, Martín-Díaz ML, Rodríguez A, Riba I, DelValls TA. (2008). In situ evaluation of sediment toxicity in Guadalete Estuary (SW Spain) after exposure of caged Arenicola marina. Environ Toxicol. 23(5):643-51. doi: 10.1002/tox.20416. 20. Rawson, D.S. (1956). The plankton of Great Slave Lake. J. ‘Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 13(1): 53-127. 21. Smith, V. H. (2003). Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems. A global problem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 10: 126–139. 22. Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 37(1): 130-137. 23. Ecologistas en Accion Jerez. (2013). Diagnóstico Impactors Ambientales En El Rio Guadalete 24. J.A. Lopez Geta…et al, Coord.(2005) Madrid; Instituto Geologico y Minero de Espania; Diputacion de Cadiz, ATLAS hidrogeologico de la provincial de Cadiz.
    • 103 12. Appendix Appendix I: IDRIAM form EVALUATION FORMS FOR PARTLY - AND UNCONFINED CHANNELS GENERALITY Date 17-09-2013 Operators Joshi Catchment Guadelete Stream/river Guadelete Upstream limit Downstream limit Segment code P0 Reach Code Reach length (m) 70m GENERAL SETTING AND INITIAL SEGMENTATION 1. Physiographic setting Physiographic area Physiographic unit 2. Confinement Confinement degree (%) <10% Confinement class Cn 2 Confinement index >n 3. Channel morphology Aerial photo or satellite image (name, year) Sinuosity index any Braiding index >1,5 Anastomosing index <1,5 Typology CI Bed configuration (only for ST, S, M, SAB morphologies) RP Mean bed slope Mean channel width (m) 62 Bed sediment (dominant) G 4. Other elements for reach delimitation Upstream Downstream Bed slope discontinuity, tributary, dam, artificialization, changes in width of alluvial plain and/or in confinement, changes in channel width, changes in grain sizes, other (specify): Additional available data / information Drainage area (at the downstream limit) (km2 ) Sediment size D50 (mm) Unit Discharges NA Gauging station
    • 104 Mean annual discharge (m3 /s) Q1.5 (m3 /s) Maximum discharge: value Maximum discharge: year GEOMORPHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY Continuity F1 Longitudinal continuity in sediment and wood flux score selection conf sconf A Absence of alteration in the continuity of sediment and wood 0 x B Slight alteration (obstacles to the flux but with no interception) 3 C Strong alteration (discontinuity of channel forms and interception of sediment and wood) 5 F2 Presence of a modern floodplain score selection conf sconf A Presence of a continuous (>66% of the reach) and wide floodplain 0 x B Presence of a discontinuous (10÷66%) floodplain of any width or >90% but narrow 3 C Absence of a floodplain or negligible presence (≤10% of any width) 5 Not evaluated in the case of mountain streams along steep (>3%) alluvial fans F4 Processes of bank retreat score selection conf sconf A Presence of frequent retreating banks particularly along outer banks of bends 0 x B Infrequent retreating banks because impeded by bank protections and/or scarce channel dynamics 2 C Complete absence or widespread presence of unstable banks by mass failures 3 Not evaluated in the case of straight – sinuous channels of low energy (lowland rivers, low gradients and/or bedload) F5 Presence of a potentially erodible corridor score selection conf sconf A Presence of a wide potentially erodible corridor (EC) for a length >66% of the reach 0 x B Presence of a narrow potentially EC for >66%, or wide but for 33÷66% of the reach 2 C Presence of a potentially EC of any width but for ≤33% of the reach 3 Morphology Morphological pattern F7 Forms and processes typical of the channel pattern score selection conf sconf A Absence (<5%) of alteration of the natural heterogeneity of forms expected for that river type 0 x B Alterations for a limited portion of the reach (≤33%) 3
    • 105 C Consistent alterations for a significant portion of the reach (>33%) 5 F8 Presence of typical fluvial forms in the alluvial plain score selection conf sconf A Presence of alluvial plain forms (oxbow lakes, secondary channels, etc.) 0 B Presence of traces of alluvial plain forms (abandoned after the 1950s) but with possible reactivation 2 C Complete absence of alluvial plain forms 3 Evaluated only in the case of meandering rivers (now or in the past) within a lowland plain physiographic unit Cross-section configuration F9 Variability of the cross-section score selection conf sconf A Absence (≤5%) of alteration of the cross-section natural heterogeneity (width and depth) 0 x B Presence of alteration (cross-section homogeneity) for a limited portion of the reach (≤33%) 3 C Presence of alteration (cross-section homogeneity) for a significant portion of the reach (>33%) 5 Not evaluated in the case of straight, sinuous or meandering channels with natural absence of bars (lowland rivers, low gradients and/or low bedload) (natural cross-section homogeneity) Bed structure and substrate F10 Structure of the channel bed score selection conf sconf A Natural heterogeneity of bed sediments and no significant clogging 0 B Evident armouring or clogging in various portions of the site 2 x C1 Evident and widespread (>90%) armouring or clogging, or occasional substrate outcrops 5 C2 Widespread substrate outcrops or alteration by bed revetments (>33% of the reach) 6 Not evaluated for sand-bed rivers, and for deep rivers when it is not possible to observe the channel bed F11 Presence of in-channel large wood score selection conf Sconf A Presence of large wood 0 C Negligible presence or absence of large wood 3 x Not evaluated above the tree-line and in streams with natural absence of riparian vegetation Vegetation in the fluvial corridor F12 Width of functional vegetation score selection conf Sconf A High width of functional vegetation 0 x B Medium width of functional vegetation 2
    • 106 C Low width of functional vegetation 3 Not evaluated above the tree-line and in streams with natural absence of riparian vegetation F13 Linear extension of functional vegetation score selection conf Sconf A Linear extension of functional vegetation >90% of maximum available length 0 x B Linear extension of functional vegetation 33÷90% of maximum available length 3 C Linear extension of functional vegetation ≤33% of maximum available length 5 Not evaluated above the tree-line and in streams with natural absence of riparian vegetation ARTIFICIALITY Upstream alteration of longitudinal continuity A1 Upstream alteration of flows score selection conf A No significant alteration (≤10%) of channel-forming discharges and with return interval >10 years 0 x B Significant alteration (>10%) of discharges with return interval >10 years 3 C Significant alteration (>10%) of channel-forming discharges 6 A2 Upstream alteration of sediment discharges score selection conf A Absence or negligible presence of structures for the interception of sediment fluxes (dams for drainage area <5% and/or check dams/abstraction weirs for drainage area <33%) 0 x B1 Dams (area 5÷33%) and/or check dams/weirs with total bedload interception (area 33÷66%) and/or check dams/weirs with partial interception (area >33% plain/hills or >66% mountains) 3 B2 Dams (drainage area 33÷66%) and/or check dams/weirs with total bedload interception (drainage area >66% or at the upstream boundary) 6 C1 Dams for drainage area >66% 9 C2 Dam at the upstream boundary of the reach 12 Alteration of longitudinal continuity in the reach A3 Alteration of flows in the reach score selection conf A No significant alteration (≤10%) of channel-forming discharges and with return interval>10 years 0 x B Significant alteration (>10%) of discharges with return interval>10 years 3 C Significant alteration (>10%) of channel-forming discharges 6 A4 Alteration of sediment discharge in the reach score selection conf A Absence of structures for the interception of sediment fluxes (dams, check dams, 0 x
    • 107 abstraction weirs) B Plain/hills units: consolidation check dams and/or abstraction weirs ≤1 every 1000 m Mountain units: consolidation check dams ≤1 every 200 m and/or open check dams 4 C Plain/hill units: consolidation check dams and/or abstraction weirs >1 every 1000 m Mountain units: consolidation check dams >1 every 200 m and/or retention check dams or presence of a dam or artificial reservoir at the downstream boundary (any physiographic units) 6 In case of density of interception structures, including bed sills and ramps (see A9), is >1 every n, add 12 (insert "x") (where n=100 m in mountain units, or n=500 m in plain/hills units) 12 A5 Crossing structures score selection conf A Absence of crossing structures (bridges, fords, culverts) 0 x B Presence of some crossing structure (≤1 every 1000 m in average in the reach) 2 C Presence of many crossing structure (>1 every 1000 m in average in the reach) 3 Alteration of lateral continuity A6 Bank protections score selection conf A Absence or localized presence of bank protections (≤5% total length of the banks) 0 x B Presence of protections for ≤33% total length of the banks (sum of both banks) 3 C Presence of protections for >33% total length of the banks (sum of both banks) 6 In case of extremely high density of bank protection (>80%), add 12 (insert "x") 12 A7 Artificial levees score selection conf A Absent or distant levees, or presence of levees close or at contact ≤10% total length of the banks 0 x B Medium presence of levees close and/or at contact (at contact ≤50% bank length) 3 C High presence of levees close and/or at contact (at contact >50% bank length) 6 In case of extremely high density of levees at contact (>80%), add 12 (insert "x") 12 Alteration of channel morphology and/or substrate A8 Artificial changes of river course score selection conf A Absence of artificial changes of river course in the past (meanders cut-off, channel diversions, etc.) 0 x B Presence of changes of river course for ≤10% of the reach length 2 C Presence of changes of river course for >10% of the reach length 3 A9 Other bed stabilization structures score selection conf sc A Absence of structures (bed sills/ramps) and revetments absent or localised (≤5%) 0 x B Sills or ramps (≤1 every m) and/or revetments ≤25% permeable and/or ≤15% 3
    • 108 impermeable C1 Sills or ramps (>1 every m) and/or revetments ≤50% permeable and/or ≤33% impermeable 6 C2 Revetments >50% permeable and/or >33% impermeable 8 In case of widespread bed revetment (>80%), add 12 (insert "x") 12 m=200 m in mountain units; m= 1000 m in plain/hills units Intervention of maintenance and removal A10 Sediment removal score selection conf sc A Absence of recent (last 20 years) and past (from 1950s) significant sediment removal activities 0 x B Moderate activities in the past (from 1950s) but absent during last 20 years, or absent in the past but present recently (last 20 years) 3 C Intense activities in the past, or moderate in the past but present during last 20 years 6 A11 Wood removal score selection conf A Absence of removal of woody material at least during the last 20 years 0 x B Selective cuts and/or clear cuts over ≤50% of the reach during the last 20 years 2 C Total removal of woody material during the last 20 years 5 Not evaluated above the tree-line and in streams with natural absence of riparian vegetation A12 Vegetation management score selection conf A No cutting interventions on riparian vegetation during the last 20 years 0 x B Selective cuts and/or clear cuts over ≤50% of the reach during the last 20 years 2 C Clear cuts over >50% of the reach during the last 20 years 5 Not evaluated above the tree-line and in streams with natural absence of riparian vegetation CHANNEL ADJUSTMENTS CA1 Adjustments in channel pattern score selection conf sconf A Absence of changes of channel pattern since 1950s 0 x B Change to a similar channel pattern since 1950s 3 C Change to a different channel pattern since 1950s 6 Applied only to channels wider than 30 m CA2 Adjustments in channel width score selection conf sconf A Absent or limited changes (≤15%) since 1950s 0 x
    • 109 B Moderate changes (15÷35%) since 1950s 3 C Intense changes (>35%) since 1950s 6 Applied only to channels wider than 30 m CA3 Bed-level adjustments score selection conf sconf A Negligible bed-level changes (≤0.5 m) 0 B Limited to moderate bed-level changes (0.5÷3 m) 4 x C1 Intense bed-level changes (>3 m) 8 C2 Very intense bed-level changes (>6 m) 12 Applied only to channels wider than 30 m
    • 110 Appendix II: Grain size distribution In the following appendix you can see the different diameters, d50 etc. for each location. LOCATION  -10 0 20 30 60 80 100 110 120 DIAME TERS d10 μm 16679, 45217 40957, 6 32553, 00696 69,68 31509 ,6 65,43 65,3 65,5 8 φ -4,06 -6,683 -6,383 -6,235 -6,331 3,498 3,51 6 - 0,10 4 d50 μm 66377, 92284 66756, 1 61413, 4148 38803 ,4 53400 ,9 76,11 75,6 77,0 1 φ - 6,0526 31579 -6,061 -5,94 -5,278 -5,739 3,716 3,72 6 3,69 9 d84 μm 139377 ,8159 97331, 36641 80159, 71 74904 ,175 76421 ,91 86,66 784 85,6 425 924, 84 φ -7,1229 - 5,4617 75504 - 5,1622 5 3,837 -5,181 3,901 3,90 45 3,89 5 d90 μm 165585 ,0452 102727 ,0 83467, 88394 81274 ,9 80484 ,4 88,53 87,4 1074 ,5 φ - 7,3714 28571 -5,356 -5,025 3,843 -4,978 3,934 3,93 6 3,93 1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS very coar se grav el 22,41% 96,3% 90,4% 55,8% 89,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% coar se grav el 16,37% 3,3% 7,4% 6,7% 10,8% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% med ium grav el 3,45% 0,4% 0,9% 0,7% 0,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% fine grav el 1,72% 0,0% 0,2% 1,2% 0,0% 0,4% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% very fine grav el 0,86% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 1,5% 0,1% 0,0% 5,7% very coar se sand 1,72% 0,0% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0% 3,8% 1,9% 0,0% 5,5% coar se sand 0,86% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% med ium sand 0,86% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% fine sand 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0%
    • 111 very fine sand 0% 0,0% 0,5% 35,4% 0,0% 94,4 % 98,0 % 0,0% 88,8 % very coar se silt 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% coar se silt 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% med ium silt 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% fine silt 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% very fine silt 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% clay 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100% 0,0% DESCRIPTION TRANS ECT LINE METHO D AREAL SAMPLI NG - BULK METHO D BULK METHO D BULK METH OD AREA L SAMP LING - BULK METH OD BULK MET HOD BUL K MET HOD TOO MUCH FINE SAMPLE - ANY INTERES TS IN OUR INVESTIG ATION BUL K MET HOD Very Coarse Gravel Very Coarse Gravel Very Coarse Gravel Sandy Very Coars e Gravel Very Coars e Gravel Slight ly Very Fine Grav elly Very Fine Sand Sligh tly Very Fine Grav elly Very Fine Sand Silt and Clay Very Fine Grav elly Very Fine Sand
    • 112 Appendix III: Slope values Measurement point Distance from point 0 (km) Local slope Global slope -10 -10,23 0,0001 0 0,00 20 28,65 0,0028 0,0056 30 42,28 0,0002 40 56,70 0,0009 60 64,08 0,0001 0,0028 80 81,74 0,0002 90 93,91 100 107,24 110 112,03 0,0010 120 116,36 0,0002
    • 113 Appendix IV: Grain size classificatio
    • 114 Appendix V: Materials Chemistry Following equipment’s were used in the field.  Sampling bottles (1 liter and half liter)  Sampling bucket and rope  Water sampler with a rope (stratification measurements)  Conductivity meter with temperature meter (WTW Cond 3210)  Oxygen meter (WTW Oxi 3210)  pH meter (WTW pH 315i) Following equipment’s were used in the laboratory.  Beakers 250 ml  Cuvettes 10 ml  Cuvettes 25 ml  Total Nitrogen cuvettes  DR LANGE LT 100 thermostat  Hach Lange DR 2800  Hach Lange  Automatic Pipettes  GF/ C Filter paper diameter 47 mm  Filtration Pump  Demi water  100 ml Volumetric flask Methods The methods used during the field and lab work to analyze with the Hach-Lange spectrophotometer are done as described on the package of the individual parameters.
    • 115 Appendix VI:Complete lists of macroinvetebrate found on each sampling point Table X Location 20 organisms used for biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amoun t Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi- plumosus Ephemeroptera BAETIDAE Baetis >1 " " CAENIDAE Brachycercus Harrisell a 1 " " CAENIDAE Caenis >1 " " CAENIDAE Cercobrachys >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Ecdyonurus >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Heptagenia >1 " " OLIGONEURIIDAE Oligoneuriell a 1 " " POLYMITARCIDAE Ephoron virgo >1 " " SIPHLONURIDAE Isonychia 1 " " SIPHLONURIDAE Metreletus >1 Gammaridae Hemiptera " " APHELOCHEIRUS Hirudinea Mollusca PHYSIDAE Physella Acuta >1 " " PLANORBIDAE >1 Odonata CORDULIIDAE >1 Odonata Plecoptera PERLODIDAE Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) HYDROPSYCHIDA E >1 " " PHYACOPHILIDAE partim 1 Tubificidae
    • 116 Table X Location 20 not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount ANNELIDA 1 DIPTERA Culicidae >1 DIPTERA n/a 1 Coleoptera DYTISCIDAE >1 Coleoptera HYDROCHIDAE >1 CRUSTACEA Palemonidae 1 Oligochaeta HAPLTAXIDAE 1 Table X Location 30 organisms used for biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi-plumosus Ephemeroptera (excl. Heptageniidae) " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Gammaridae Hemiptera (excl. Aphelocheirus) " " APHELOCHEIRUS Hirudinea Hygrophyla PHYSIDAE Physa acuta >1 Mollusca (excl. Sphaeriidae) " " SPHAERIIDAE Odonata Plecoptera Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) HYDROPYCHIDAE >1 Tubificidae Table X Location 30 not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Decapoda PALAEMONIDAE 1
    • 117 Table X Location 80 organisms used for biotic index Order Family Genus Specie s Amoun t Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi-plumosus Ephemeroptera (excl. Heptageniidae) CAENIDAE Caenus >1 " " CAENIDAE Cercobrachy s >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE >1 Gammaridae Hemiptera (excl. Aphelocheirus) n/a >1 " " APHELOCHEIRUS Hirudinea Mollusca (excl. Sphaeriidae) " " SPHAERIIDAE Odonata Plecoptera PERLODIDAE >1 Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) HYDROPSYCHIDA E >1 Tubificidae Table X Location 80 not used for the biotic index Family Genus Species Amount ANNELIDA DIPTERA Culicidae >1 DIPTERA n/a >1 Table X Location 90 organisms used for biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amoun t Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi- plumosus Ephemeroptera BAETIDAE Baetis >1 " " BAETIDAE Cloeon 1 " " CAENIDAE Caenis >1
    • 118 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Rhitrogena 1 Gammaridae Hemiptera " " APHELOCHEIRUS " " HYDROMETRIDA E 1 " " PLEIDAE 1 Hirudinea Mollusca - Veneroida CORBICULIDAE 1 Mollusca - Caenogastropoda MELANOPSIDAE Meanopsis praemoros a >1 Mollusca - Hygrophila PHYSIDAE >1 Mollusca - Hygrophila PLANORBIDAE 1 Mollusca - Sphaeriidae Odonata Plecoptera Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) Tubificidae Table X Location 90 organisms not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Gambusia affinis >1 decaphoda ATYIDAE >1 CAMBARIDAE 1 PALAEMONIDAE 1 diptera DIXIDAE >1 Table X Location 95 organisms used for biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi-plumosus Ephemeroptera (excl. Heptageniidae) BAETIDAE >1 " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Gammaridae Hemiptera (excl. Aphelocheirus) CORIXIDAE 1 HYDROMETRIDAE >1
    • 119 " " APHELOCHEIRUS Hirudinea Mollusca (excl. Sphaeriidae) " " SPHAERIIDAE Odonata Plecoptera Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) Tubificidae Table X Location 95 organisms not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Cyprinodontiformes POECILIDAE Gambusia Gambusia affinis >1 Decapoda CAMBARIDAE Procambarus Procambarus clarkii >1 Table X Location 100 organisms used for biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi-plumosus Ephemeroptera (excl. Heptageniidae) " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Gammaridae Hemiptera (excl. Aphelocheirus) " " APHELOCHEIRUS Hirudinea Mollusca (excl. Sphaeriidae) " " SPHAERIIDAE Odonata PLATYCNEMIDIDAE >1 Plecoptera Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) Tubificidae
    • 120 Table X Location 100 organisms not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Cyprinodontiformes POECILIDAE Gambusia Gambusia affinis >1 Decapoda ATYIDAE >1 CAMBARIDAE Procambarus Procambarus clarkii >1 Table X Location 105 organisms not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Decapoda CAMBARIDAE Procambarus Procambarus clarkii >1 ATYIDAE >1 Table X Location 110 organisms used for biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Ancylidae Asellidae Chironomus thummi-plumosus Ephemeroptera (excl. Heptageniidae) " " HEPTAGENIIDAE Gammaridae Hemiptera (excl. Aphelocheirus) CORIXIDAE corixia (larvae) >1 " " APHELOCHEIRUS Hirudinea Mollusca (excl. Sphaeriidae) " " SPHAERIIDAE Hygrophila PHYSIDAE 1 Hygrophila PLANORBIDAE 1 Odonata 1 Plecoptera Syrphidae-Eristalinae Trichoptera (with tube) Tubificidae
    • 121 Table X Location 110 organisms not used for the biotic index Order (or higher taxa) Family Genus Species Amount Decaphoda PALAEMONIDAE >1 gambusia affinis 1 Coleoptera CHRYSOMOLIDAE (larve) 1
    • 122 Appendix VII: Interview water purification plant Wednesday, September 18, 2013 Interview Consorcio De Aguas De La Zona Guaditana- Water Purification Plant of the Guaditana area This was really interesting information, however this does not concern our research project. - Water for drinking purposes is extracted from 2 sources: o 2 reservoir  Embalse de los Hurones: characterized by a better water quality, (extraction during the whole year), water flowing by gravity  Embalse de Guadalacin: characterized by a lower water quality, way bigger, much more turbid because of the inflow from the Embalse de los Hurones (extraction during summer), use pumps (cost:60000 euro per month) o Groundwater (groundwater extraction “only” by the occurrence of heavy drought) - Possibility to produce enough energy if a hydroelectric plant would be installed at the upper reservoir (Embalse de los Hurones)  Problem: Reservoir is owned by 2 different companies, administration problem: no one wants/(can afford) to invest money - Purification Plant was installed in 1987  Cover a Basic Treatment, (“reservoir relative clean, no need”)  Pump when energy is less expensive (expected at night)  Public institution: founding concerns/conflict - Bottled Water Industry is a concurrent. Hugh influence on the water consumer by advertising bottled water and repute tap water as “lower quality” - Since 1990 an accident occurred and tap water was not clean for a short time. People were afraid of drinking tap water. (they couldn’t explain to us what were exactly happening) - Treatment process: Main Problems  THM + Pesticides o Add permanganate to the outlet of the reservoir as a pretreatment to remove organic matter EU directive: maximum level of 1 ppm (just use around 0,3) o Add Active carbon powder(destroy pesticides), carbon dioxide (reduce pH + hardness), aluminium sulfite (eliminate turbidty)
    • 123 o Add chlorine  Problem: summer high amount of organic matter (mainly algea)  THM is produced as a secondary product by the reaction of Chlorine + organic matter EU directive: maximum level of 100 ppt for THM o Sand filtration, 70 cm of sand - Conclusion: Regarding the impressions we got from the owner it seems to be working well and is producing drinkable water. As a public institution, Funding/Financing concerns are the major reason for occurring problems and less improvement in their techniques. However, with a little more funding they could increase the efficiency of their system while at the same time decreasing the problems they have. For example covering the settlement basins as well as the sediments basins to avoid the presence and growing of algae in the basin. All in all, it is essential to mention the relevance of the interview regarding the water purification plant. The purification plant is one out of four public plants in the region of Cadiz, providing potable water for 16 villages and 60 % of the overall population in the region. Consequently, carrying a high responsibility to guarantee a proper operation of the system and a service provision to their costumer. Conversely as a public institution this water purification plant has a high power on decision making regarding policy making and water use of the users, but on the other hand are depended on the income of money from their government, which can result in an limitation of their scope of operations and maintenance of their system. Appendix VIII: Waste Water Treatment Plant - Water is discharged into the Guadalete River, however the exact location was not known by the person we interviewed. - The sludge is used for compost and biogas. o The Nitrate and Phosphate problem of the compost is not yet solved, however they are currently installing a process to take care of it. o The biogas produces enough energy to fully sustain the waste water treatment plant. Actually, they are a 130% sustainable, meaning that they are even able to sell the extra energy to the surrounding cities and villages. - The standards of the EU for the waste water discharge are met, however we have no proof and we do not know what the standards are.
    • 124 - The company is semipublic. This means that the waste water treatment plant has a private investor, as well as the local cities. - The company treats 2.1 million liters/year - The company was founded in 1994 and has been expanded since. - We got the impression and information that the WWTP is working according the legislation. - Conclusion: The Wastewater Treatment Plant (NAME) (WWTP) in the Guadalete river basin treats the sewage of about 200 000 inhabitants and can therefore be considered as one of the biggest WWTP in the area. Nevertheless, the WWTP we visited is just one out of many (13 – 20 WTP in the basin for approx. 333 709) inhabitants living in the upper and lower course of the river). The company is semipublic. This means that the waste water treatment plant has a private investor, as well as the local cities. During our short 10 minute interview we were not able to receive deeper information. Furthermore the reliability of the information has to be seen skeptical as they differ in parts from the information the chemistry group received during their visit. In the following description a integration of both observations is made. The impact on the water quality of the Guadalete River is pretty high since they discharge the treated water into the river. In general the WWTP works regarding the Urban Wastewater Discharge Directive (EEC 91/271) which were implemented into the Spanish law (Real Decreto-Ley 11/1995; Real Decreto 509/1996). Nevertheless the WWTP face several problems: Overall the WWTP don’t receive enough money from the private investor as well as from the state. Therefore a big part of the installation is either not working or under construction which could not been finalized or cannot be maintained and operate properly. Consequently the effluent which is released to the Guadalete river is poor in quality. The chemistry group analyzed the effluent, in order to determine if it meets the standards or not. And especially during tourism season, the pressure on the WWTP increases enormous. At the end the WWTP are not able to treat the amount of sewage coming in to the system, which may enter the river without any kind of treatment.
    • 125 Appendix IX: Interview about tourism and coastal management Thursday, September 19, 2013 Interview INTERVIEWED: Demarcación de costa (Coastal office) Responsabilities: Maintenance Protection --> managing the marine public domine (coastal management). Three different administrations involved in the Guadalete river basin management. Ministery of public work: from the mouth to the bridge crossed by highway of Jerez CA- 31--> e.g. dragging the bed channel near the harbour and pumping it to the open sea. Coastal office (Demarcación de Costa): from this bridge to interception between the roads A.4 and A-381. Regional authority, water management (Consejería de medio ambiente) INTERVIEW: Tourism information The bigger problem in province of Cadiz is water consumpsion , even more than pollution. Most conflicts related with tourism, as big resolts or golf camps. Besides tourism, agriculture uses a important amount of water due to the irrigation system. Another problem found is the insufficient infraestructures. This is mainly caused by the rapid increase in inhabitants as result of an important tourism activity. This fast grow produces an increase in the demand that produces as for example insuffiecient pipe or treatment plant sizes. During few months per year inhabitants number grows dramatically, sometimes twice, three... ten times the local number. Solution: to build bigger infraestructures. Problem: tourism is only during few months so the cost during the rest part of the year should be paid by local inhabitants. Besides, tourism do not pay taxes, maybe the onwer, so the price each pay is not proporcinal to the use (tourist just pay the accommodetion and similar, but not the bills). Tourism taxes could be the solution but it has effect in competitivity Quality Water quality is not a general problem, only punctual. Treatment plants are working and quality is well controlled. One example: Chiclana de la frontera Council built a treatment plant designed for double of the local number of inhabitants, as tourism information showed. It was insufficient and the reason was found in the ilegal tourism activity. Actually, during the summer, the inhabitant number was not double, but triple.
    • 126 Conflicts The real criticism about water use regarding agriculture is the low efficient of the irrigation system. An improvement in technology is requeried The lack of tourism taxes appeared again. Activities offshore are not too popular, with groups as fishermen and tourism sector agains due to potential impact. Golf Drinking water use for irrigation is allowed. This is the case of smaller and older golf camps. Modern golf camps use recycled water. Las aletas Las aletas are an important surface of dried salinas where an industrial areas construction is considered. Another industrial areas in the surrounding are about 30% of occupation so its construction is neither rational nor sustainable. Only constructors companies are interested on it and totally different information arrives depending on the source.
    • 127 Appendix X: Interview Ecology action group Thursday, September 19, 2013 Interview and powerpoint presentation The Ecology Action group is a National action group that is active in 300 different subgroups divided along the hole of Spain. The Jerez sup-group has been working on the river problems since 1980 as a non-profit part-time organization. They focus on analyzing the impacts of the different stakeholders on a part of the downstream Guadalete Basin. This 70 km between Marcos and the estuary, which has been divided in 17 different sampling points. The results of this analyzes is presented to inform the population and research groups about the state of the river. The results are presented in presentations as well as available in reports. The Guadalete River can be separated in a public and a private domain. The Ecology action group what they try to do is to protect the public domain part of the river. The public domain is the area directly surrounding the riverbank. This area is supposed to be protected against building activities and other activities that disrupt or disturb the river. There are several main problems of the Guadalete River they have, first of which is the illegal construction along the channel and a lot of the installation is not occupied any more for example bridges that are not used anymore but act as a barrier. Moreover, agricultural activities ruined the original flood plains and sediment increased because of man activities. Because agriculture narrows the river down and also takes water from the river. There is no natural vegetation any more in these areas. Invasive species like eucalyptus grows into the natural river also due to gravel mining. Furthermore, pollutant from man activities is also a big problem for the river. To begin with, urban waste from the street kills the animal by going over the overflow. And also, farmers dump wastewater in the river; pollutant from sugar factory; feces as well as Transportation Company cleans their tanks contained milk in the river. It was also mentioned that not all the ground water is pumped up legally. Lastly, mining activities also affected the river; the construction of gravel mining trend to go down. It should be restored but it filled up by waste and pollutant. There are laws against this kind of activity for example the IPA. However, there is no control by the laws. There is also no control of the pesticides in the agriculture sector. It was told that in the last 5 years, the condition of the river improved by several changes. Firstly, dredging the channel and cutting some eucalyptus carried out to restore of the riverbank. Secondly, illegal constructions were demolished. Moreover, water quality was improved by dilution to decrease the pollution. The action group separates the Guadalete river into 2 parts: one is called “blue river” which is the channel part, the other is called “green river” in this case is the bank part. The quality of water in “blue river” part is actually quite ok while the main problem is in the “green river” part cause there are flooding areas and problems with dimensions channel.
    • 128 There is also a big problem concerning the wastewater treatment plant in Puerto de Santa Maria, which is caused by tourism. Tons of tourists come in summer time every year but the wastewater treatment plant is not able to treat the high amount of water. On the other hand, there is a lack of awareness of the public regarding the river. The action group is against the privatization of water cause private company will increase the water price to gain more profit while pay less attention on the maintenance of infrastructure of the water system.
    • 129 Appendix XI: Interview Friday, September 20, 2013 Interviews 1st Speaker Environmental Department River bank management:  Flora and fauna assessment  Constructions and mining operations need an environmental permits;  Rangers responsible for monitoring, surveillance, vigilance on the field;  Sand and gravel mining companies are companies that own old concessions (50 year old)  Contaminants found in the river water were herbicides that are used in vegetation remvoval from the river banks  New concessions highly regulated; not given out unless proper , integrated assessment  Overexploitation of aquifers ->lowering the water tables ->lagoon dryout-> loss in bird species Main issues  Sand and gravel exploitation  Deforestation  River regulation Power of decision making  Monitoring and surveillance on the field  Regulation of new land concessions  Integrated approach Environmental aspects considered by the agency  natural environment  protected natural areas  environmental prevention  water bodies and coastal areas Impact Positive: Regulation on new concessions; projects not approved without proper, integrated environmental assessments. Negative: No real control over existing activities. No support and enforcement of existing problems.
    • 130 Conclusion The interview we had with the Environmental Department of the Regional Government of Andalusia provided us with useful information regarding management strategies within the Guadalete River Basin. The department is responsible for environmental monitoring and surveillance, regulation of new land concessions and in integrated approach in term of new infrastructure development along the river corridor. The department is further divided into Natural Environment, Protected Natural Areas, Environmental Protection and Water Bodies and Coastal Areas. The main environmental issues mentioned during the interview in are sand and gravel mining in the river channel and flood plains in the Lower Guadalete, deforestation especially in the Upper Guadalete causing local landslides and finally river regulation. Uncontrolled infrastructure development is an issue in the Guadalete River Basin. River water quality as well as flood protection management is under pressure because of the high number if illegal buildings in the flood plain areas. Therefore new programs within the department do not approve new project unless proper, integrated environmental assessments. Protected natural areas include river banks and natural lagoons, home of numerous flora and fauna species under protection therefore regulation for over growing vegetation removal along the river is highly regulated. However to decrease flood risk in places where vegetation block the water flow, herbicides are used by land owners in the vicinity of the river. In the past years, a decrease in number and size of natural lagoons has been associated to excessive groundwater subtractions and so a loss in bird species under the protection of Natura 2000 European Network. 2nd Speaker Surface and Ground water Quality Department Main issues  Waste water treatment plants  Herbicides: diuron and glyphosate  Salinization of aquifers Power on decision making  Water quality monitoring in the Province of Cadiz ( Regional Government of Andalusia): Surface water and Groundwater  Control Programs o Operative: every 6 months, starting from October 2008; o Surveillance: every 6 months, starting from October2008; o Protected areas: every 3 months, starting from October 2008;  Control Program Design
    • 131 o Water consumer protection: anthropological vision ; o Control Network Program: ability to meet different uses by means of certain parameters and concentration limits associated; o Ecosystem Protection: organisms found in the water; o Monitoring programs: evaluation of ecological and chemical status of the water; integrated approach and ecosystematic; o Physical, chemical and biological indicators: laboratory analysis: BOD,COD, nitrates, phosphates, metals, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen; macroinvertebrates, fish, macrophites, diatoms, phytoplankton, riverbank vegetation, etc. ; o Quality objectives – Uses: Drinking water, waste water/sewage, etc.; o Quality objectives – Ecosystem health: GOOD ecological and chemical status of the water bodies Impact Positive: The existence of a program of integrated control. Negative: No real support and enforcement for the well-functioning of the waste water treatment plants in the Guadalete River Basin. Conclusion The Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Department, Province of Cadiz (Regional Governemnt of Andalusia) is responsible for water quality monitoring of all the surface water and groundwater bodies in the province of Cadiz. Control programs are classified as: Operative (every 6 months), Surveillance (every 6 months) and Protected areas (every 3 months). A positive aspect of this department is the Control Program Design which based on an integrated approach to water quality monitoring , looking at physicochemical, biological as well as hydromorphological asspects a water bodies. Quality objectives and standards are defined in terms of uses (drinking water, waste water/sewage, etc.) and ecosystem health (ecological and chemical status). The water quality issues in the Guadalete river basin are related to waste water release in the surface water bodies. Waste water treatment plants are either nonexistent in some parts of the of the river basin (El Torno) or in poor condition, released effluent not within the European wastewater standards. In terms or chemicals, there have been identified mainly herbicides such as Diuron and Glyphosate. Agricultural practices have changed in the past 10 years from intensive agriculture to integrated agricultural methods, farmers switching to more biodegradable pesticides. Ground water salinization in the aquifers near the coast is under the pressure due to high water consumptions.
    • 132 3rd Speaker Regional Government Department of Land Use Main issues  Illegal construction; slow application of laws.  Tourism pressure  500 m tidal coridore Power in decision making  Territorial Management Plan (POT) o Management plan at a regional level o They try to solve the problems of water supply and waste water treatment; o Regulating the coast line, avoiding uncontrolled constructions; o Giving space back to nature;  The Territorial Management Plan takes into account the Metropolitan Green Spaces, proposes to protect public domains along the river channel Impact Positive The existence of land use regulation programs, incorporated in the environmental department. Planning is natural resource oriented: protection and conservation. The department cares about use as well as about preservation. Past conflicts  Urban development and environmental protection agencies  Tourism and Environmental agencies/activists  Nonexistent control over the illegal construction activities along the cost of Cadiz. Conclusions Currently the Land Use Department of the Regional Government of Andalusia is functioning within the Environmental Office, which brings about a more integrated approach in terms of the destination of public and private properties. However the slow application of the new laws and management programs are not felt yet. The new Territorial Management Plan (POT) focuses on regional management, trying to solve the problems of water supply and wastewater treatment strategies. The POT proposes the protection of public domains along the river channels and coastal area. One of the main pressures in terms of land use is represented by tourism activities.