TRANSBOUNDARY SURFACE WATER SURVEY 2020 ......EUWI+ Technical report- surface water transboundary...

European Union Water Initiative Plus for the

Eastern Partnership Countries (EUWI+)

Result 2

TRANSBOUNDARY

SURFACE WATER SURVEY 2020

TECHNICAL REPORT

Armenia and Georgia

2021 February

Beneficiaries

LEPL National Environmental Agency, Georgia

Hydrometeorology and Monitoring Center, Armenia

Responsible EU member state consortium project leader

Mr Alexander Zinke, Umweltbundesamt GmbH (AT)

EUWI+ country representatives in Armenia and Georgia

Mr Vahagn Tonoyan (AM)

Mr Zurab Jincharadze (GE)

Responsible international thematic lead expert

Ms Kristina Schaufler, Umweltbundesamt GmbH (AT)

Responsible Armenian and Georgian thematic lead experts

Elina Bakradze, NEA (GE)

Gayane Shahnazaryan, HMC (AM)

Authors

Magda Aptsiauri

George Kargareteli

Irakli Kordzaia

Ana Gabritchidze

Qaryan Vardan

Zurnachyan Alina

Anna Zatikyan

Elisabeth Sigmund

Kristina Schaufler

Disclaimer:

The EU-funded program European Union Water Initiative Plus for Eastern Partnership Countries (EUWI+) is

implemented by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), both responsible for the implementation of Result 1, and an EU Member States

Consortium comprising the Environment Agency Austria (UBA, Austria), the lead coordinator, and the International

Office for Water (IOW, France), both responsible for the implementation of Results 2 and 3. The program is co-

funded by Austria and France through the Austrian Development Agency and the French Artois-Picardie Water

Agency.

This document was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein

can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union or of the Governments of the Eastern

Partnership Countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of, or sovereignty over, any

territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries, and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Imprint

Owner and Editor: EU Member State Consortium

Umweltbundesamt GmbH

Spittelauer Lände 5

1090 Vienna, Austria

Office International de l’Eau (IOW)

21/23 rue de Madrid

75008 Paris, France

Responsible IOW Communication officer:

Ms Chloé Déchelette [email protected]

2021 February

mailto:[email protected]

EUWI+ Technical report- surface water transboundary survey, Armenia & Georgia 2020

3

1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................ 6

2 Introduction and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 7

3 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Survey program .......................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Selected pilot river basins and sampling sites in Georgia ................................................ 9

3.1.2 Selected pilot river basins and sampling sites in Armenia ............................................. 11

3.1.3 Sampling period in Georgia ............................................................................................ 12

3.1.4 Sampling period in Armenia ........................................................................................... 13

3.1.5 Quality elements ............................................................................................................. 14

3.1.6 Responsibilities of Georgian experts .............................................................................. 14

3.1.7 Responsibilities of Armenian experts ............................................................................. 15

3.2 Sampling and field methods ..................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Laboratory analyses ................................................................................................................. 16

3.4 Quality assurance ..................................................................................................................... 18

4 GEORGIAN Results ......................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Field Protocols and Hydro-Morphological Site Description ...................................................... 19

4.2 Chemical analyses .................................................................................................................... 19

4.3 Biological analyses ................................................................................................................... 21

5 ARMENIAN Results ......................................................................................................................... 22

5.1 Field protocols .......................................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Chemical analyses .................................................................................................................... 22

5.3 Biological analyses ................................................................................................................... 23

6 Conclusions and Lessons learned ................................................................................................... 25

6.1 Comparison of data and status (according to respective ESCS) ............................................. 25

6.2 Discussion of data deviations ................................................................................................... 25

6.3 General lessons learned ........................................................................................................... 26

Annex 1: Field protocols ........................................................................................................................ 27

Annex 2: The Hydro-Morphological Site Description (Hydrobiology) .................................................... 42

Annex 3: Photo documentation ............................................................................................................. 48

Annex 4: Chemical data summary ........................................................................................................ 58

Annex 5: Chemical data certificate format ............................................................................................. 59

Annex 6: Protocols for sample delivery and handover .......................................................................... 60

Annex 7: Biological data summary ........................................................................................................ 64

Annex 8: MHS field tables ..................................................................................................................... 66

Annex 9: Metadata ................................................................................................................................ 68


4

List of Tables

Table 1 Sampling plan and timeline for the transboundary surface water survey in Georgia 2020........ 7

Table 2 Sampling plan and timeline for the transboundary surface water survey in Armenia 2020 ....... 8

Table 3: List of sampling sites with geographical coordinates. ............................................................... 9

Table 4: Characterization of the sampling sites ...................................................................................... 9

Table 5. Description of the Sampling sites ............................................................................................ 11

Table 6: Sampling dates and information on meteorological and hydrological conditions in Georgia. . 12

Table 7 Sampling dates and information on meteorological and hydrological conditions in Armenia .. 13

Table 8: Responsible institutions and persons during the preparation and the survey Georgia ........... 14

Table 9 Responsible institutions and persons during the preparation and the survey Armenia ........... 15

Table 10: Analysis Georgia: Parameters analysed in the field and in the laboratory............................ 16

Table 11: Analysis Armenia: Parameters analysed in the field and in the laboratory. .......................... 17

Table 12: Results of the chemical analyses of 7 Georgian sampling sites in autumn 2020. ................ 19

Table 13: Results of the chemical analyses – continued. ..................................................................... 20

Table 14 The Ecological Status of sampling points according to the biological analyses .................... 21

Table 15 Results of chemical analyses at 10 Armenian sampling sites in autumn 2020. .................... 22

Table 16 Results of the chemical analyses – continued. ...................................................................... 23

Table 17 Results of the biological assessment of the ecological status ............................................... 24

List of Figures

Figure 1 Map of sampling sites in Georgia ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 2 Map of sampling sites Armenia ............................................................................................... 12


5

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Field protocols

Annex 2: The Hydro-Morphological Site Description (Hydrobiology)

Annex 3: Photo documentation

Annex 4: Chemical data summary

Annex 5: Chemical data certificate format

Annex 6: Protocols for sample delivery and handover

Annex 7: Biological data summary

Annex 8: MHS field tables

Annex 9: Metadata

References

EUWI+ Manual for Surface Water Monitoring (EUWI+, 2019, Available on EUWI+ website)

Definition of reference conditions and class boundaries in rivers of Georgia for the BQE benthic invertebrates (EUWI+, 2020, Available on EUWI+ website) Definition of reference conditions and class boundaries in rivers of Armenia for the BQE benthic invertebrates (EUWI+, 2020, Available on EUWI+ website)

Guidance document on the joint river monitoring procedures, Armenian-Georgian Joint Transboundary

Monitoring Program of Water Quality in Ktsia/Khrami-Debed River Basin, Draft 2020


6

Abbreviations

ADA ...................... Austrian Development Agency

DoA ....................... Description of Action

DG NEAR ............. Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations

of the European Commission

EaP ....................... Eastern Partnership

EC ......................... European Commission

EECCA ................. Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia

EMBLAS ............... Environmental Monitoring in the Black Sea

EPIRB ................... Environmental Protection of International River Basins

ESCS .................... Ecological Status Classification Systems

EU ......................... European Union

EU-MS .................. EU-Member States

EUWI+ .................. European Union Water Initiative Plus

FD ......................... Floods Directive

GEF ...................... Global Environmental Fund

ICPDR ................... International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

INBO ..................... International Network of Basin Organisations

IOWater/OIEau .... International Office for Water, France

IWRM .................... Integrated Water Resources Management

MSFD .................... Marine Strategy Framework Directive

NESB .................... National Executive Steering Board

NFP ....................... National Focal Point

NGOs .................... Non-Governmental Organisations

NPD ...................... National Policy Dialogue

OECD ................... Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

RBC ...................... River Basin Council

RBD ...................... River Basin District

RBMP ................... River Basin Management Plan

RBO ...................... River Basin Organisation

ROM ..................... Result Oriented Monitoring

SCM ...................... Steering Committee Meeting (of the EU Action EUWI+)

SEIS ..................... Shared environmental information system

TA ......................... Technical Assistance

ToR ....................... Terms of References

UBA ...................... Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Environment Agency Austria

UNDP .................... United Nations Development Programme

UNECE ................. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

WISE ..................... Water Information System for Europe

WFD ...................... Water Framework Directive


6

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Within the project “European Union Water Initiative Plus for the Eastern Partnership (EUWI+ 4EaP)” a

UNECE guidance for transboundary monitoring (“Guidance document on the joint river monitoring

procedures”) was drafted in the frame of the bilateral monitoring agreement between Armenia and Georgia

(agreement number AVH 10839-GE-NEA-7). For the practical aspects of this policy document, first hand

lessons from national experts were crucial. Therefore, a first joint field work in form of a transboundary

ecological survey was carried out at 10 and 7 sampling sites in RBDs of Armenia and Georgia respectively.

Sampling took place on 9-11th September 2020: In Georgia 3 sites on the 9th of September and 4 sites in

10th of September were sampled. In Armenia, each 4 sites were taken on the 9th and 10th of September, two

sites were assessed on the 11th of September.

Due to the difficult circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic, simultaneous monitoring was conducted

as an alternative to joint sampling. Data and knowledge were exchanged for preparation, during and after

the field campaign. Reporting was again done jointly by both national survey teams within this report.

The survey included a field documentation for each site, water and benthic invertebrate sampling, chemical

and biological analyses, a hydro-morphological description and photos of the sampling sites and the reporting

of the results. Based on the biological data (macro-invertebrates) and river typology, the ecological status

for each site was calculated. Results were jointly discussed and compared.

The present report provides a brief overview of the simultaneous sampling campaign, while all raw data are

presented in separate documents or summary tables as annexes.

Survey findings are that most of the selected sites in Georgia indicate impacts by wastewater, water

abstraction and morphological deterioration. Onsite impressions reveal a high level of eutrophication (high

nutrient concentrations). Five sites indicate a Good Ecological Status. Two sites, one in Debeda river close

to the border to Armenia and a second one on Khrami river, have only a Moderate Ecological Status.

On Armenian side, most of the inspected river sections show no deviation from its natural character and no

pressures from wastewater, transport or other anthropological use. But six sites show deterioration (low

oxygen content, high concentrations of NH4, NO3 and phosphorous components or high chloride and sulfate

concentrations). In terms of overall ecological classification (macrozoobenthos), five of the investigated sites

indicate a High Ecological Status, one site has a Good Ecological Status, while four sites fail to achieve the

Good Ecological Status: one has a poor status, one a moderate (like on GE side the border section) and two

even a bad status (at one of them no animals were found).

As a follow-up, a bilateral monitoring programme on a yearly base should incorporate other parts of the

Debed/Debeda river basin to increase the quality of and confidence into joint results. Based on political will,

institutional support and personal engagement by national experts, this can serve as a model across the

Eastern Partnership-Region.


7

2 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

Practical experiences from national experts were needed to inform the UNECE guidance document on the

joint river monitoring procedures in the frame of the bilateral monitoring agreement between Armenia and

Georgia.

Objective of the survey in autumn 2020 was a more substantial cooperation of the Armenian and Georgian

survey teams in survey preparation, exchange and comparison of survey results and joint reporting. The

survey scope was to gather biological, physio-chemical and hydromorphological data from neighboring

locations at the Khrami-Debeda river basin in Georgia and in Armenia.

Planning and preparation of the survey as well as data assessment and analysis were prepared in

accordance with the EUWI+ Manual for Surface Water Monitoring (EUWI+, 2019). Based on the biological

data and river typology, the ecological status for each site was calculated. Results were then jointly discussed

and compared.

Another objective of the survey was to gain more field data in order to increase the knowledge and the

accuracy of the ecological status classification methodology based on macro-invertebrates. The supportive

quality elements (physico-chemical and hydro-morphological parameters) help to identify human impacts

and pressures.

Further goals were to:

Provide data for the evaluation of the water body delineation and the monitoring design.

Provide lessons learned for the guidance document on transboundary monitoring.

Improve knowledge transfer and data exchange between national experts of Armenia and Georgia.

A large network of experts participated in this activity:

EUWI+ expert and thematic lead for surface water, Kristina Schaufler (UBA- EUWI+, Result 2) provided

overall coordination of the transboundary survey. Close collaboration with Alexander Belokurov (UNECE-

EUWI+ Result 1) and the national experts listed in chapter 3.1.6 and 3.1.7 ensured a harmonized preparation

and knowledge transfer to the monitoring guidance. To increase visibility, a camera team accompanied the

fieldwork on the Armenian side, facilitated by Chloé Dechelette (IoW- EUWI+ Result 3).

The following chapters usually provide subsections for both countries. A special focus was given to chapter

6 “Conclusions and lessons learned” for comparing methods, data and assessment results as well as the

practical learnings that can inform policy documents.

General survey information is summarized in the tables below:

Table 1 Sampling plan and timeline for the transboundary surface water survey in Georgia 2020

Country Georgia

River basin Khrami-Debeda

Campaign Autumn 2020

Objective Surface Water Monitoring Program


8

Country Georgia

Quality elements Biological quality components:

Macrozoobenthos

Supporting elements:

Hydro-morphological site description

General physico-chemical quality elements

Preparation of field work August and September 2020

Field work 9th to 10th September 2020

Chemical analyses 10th to 25th September, 2020

Biological analyses 25th September to 6th October 2020

Reporting October - February 2021

Submission of technical report February 2021

Table 2 Sampling plan and timeline for the transboundary surface water survey in Armenia 2020

Country Armenia

River basin Debed

Campaign Autumn 2020

Objective Surface Water Monitoring

Quality elements Biological quality components:

Macrozoobenthos

Supporting elements:

Hydro-morphological site description

General physico-chemical quality elements

Preparation of field work 8th September 2020

Field work 9th to 11th September 2020

Chemical analyses 14th-to 25th September

Biological analyses 14th September to 23rd October

Reporting October - February 2021

Completion of technical report February 2021


9

3 METHODS

3.1 Survey program

The border area is called “Tazakendi” on the Georgian side and identified as “Border” by the Armenian team.

They are marked purple within the tables.

In the future it is recommended to additionally include a site close to Kirovka on Armenian territory.

3.1.1 Selected pilot river basins and sampling sites in Georgia

Sampling locations were chosen with a focus on transboundary sites, along Debeda river at the border to

Armenia. Additionally, the chosen sites should fill in the gap for ecological and chemical status assessment,

as they expand existing monitoring data from previous surveys (EPRIB, EUWI+). All selected locations are

affected by different significant pressures but do not classify as heavily modified water bodies (HMWB).

Table 3: List of sampling sites with geographical coordinates.

Basin River name Site name Site No. Latitude 1) Longitude 1)

Khrami-Debeda Debeda Tazakendi JFS-01 41.218116 44.87243

Khrami-Debeda Debeda Kirovka SW2-KHR-10/ JFS-02 41.27774 44.80710

Debeda Debeda Enikendi JFS-03 41.34938 44.88814

Khrami Khrami Imiri JFS-04 41.40916 44.82309

Khrami Khrami Didi Mughanlo JFS-05 41.38130 44.95335

Khrami Khrami Red Bridge JFS-06 41.33335 45.06750

Khrami Khrami Khangigazlo JFS-07 41.35306 45.01634

1) Latitude, Longitude: Format = Degree with six decimals (e.g., as 44.630139, conversion from 44° 37’ 48.5’’

through calculation 44 + 37 / 60 + 48.5 / 3600)

Table 4: Characterization of the sampling sites

River name Site name SWB Nr River type HMWB 1) Risk 2)

Significant

Pressure 3)

Debeda Tazakendi Deb 201 XVI No R H M

Debeda Kirovka Deb 202 XVI No R H M

Debeda Enikendi Deb 202 XVI No R H M EP

Khrami Imiri Khr 132 XVI No R H M


10

River name Site name SWB Nr River type HMWB 1) Risk 2)

Significant

Pressure 3)

Khrami Didi Mughanlo Khr 133 XVI No R H M EP

Khrami Red Bridge Khr 134 XVI No R H M

Khrami Khangigazlo Khr 134 XVI No R H M E P

1) Assignment as provisional HMWB: yes / no

2) Assignment of the risk status: R = at risk, PR = possibly at risk, NR = not at risk

3) Significant pressure: N = no significant pressure, P = organic pollution, E = eutrophication, T = toxic impact,

H = hydro-morphological alterations, M = multi-stressor, O = other, U = unknown

Figure 1 Map of sampling sites in Georgia


11

3.1.2 Selected pilot river basins and sampling sites in Armenia

For the Armenian part of the survey 10 sampling sites in the Debed RBD have been chosen. The sites are

located along several tributaries within the Debed river basin and along the course of Debed river itself up to

the border of Georgia. Site names, numbers and coordinates are given in Table 5 and Figure 2.

Table 5. Description of the Sampling sites

Site No. Basin River name Site name River type Longitude Latitude

SW-01 Debed Chichkhan Trchkan below I 44.11854 40.91446

SW-02 Debed Pambak Vanadzor below II 44.50758 40.81389

SW-03 Debed Sevaberd Noramut I 44.13766 41.10809

SW-04 Debed Dzoraget River mouth II 44.63063 40.95773

SW-05 Debed Jukhtak Above village Marc I 44.72702 40.92114

SW-06 Debed Debed Alaverdi III 44.67558 41.09593

SW-07 Debed Akhtala River Mouth HPP I 44.78176 41.14942

SW-08 Debed Shnogh Teghut I 44.86841 41.09646

SW-09 Debed Shnogh River mouth II 44.83287 41.14367

SW-10 Debed Debed On border III 44.86566 41.21916


12

Figure 2 Map of sampling sites in Armenia

3.1.3 Sampling period in Georgia

The field work was carried out on 9th and 10th of September, 2020. The survey in the Khrami-Debeda basin

was done by national experts. Table 6 lists sampling dates and time as well as the experts involved.

Furthermore, it covers a brief description of the general meteorological and hydrological conditions during

the field work.

Table 6: Sampling dates and information on meteorological and hydrological conditions in Georgia.

River Basin Date Site No. Sampling team Meteorology Hydrology

Debeda 09.09.2020 JFS-01 EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry -

Debeda 09.09.2020 SW2-KHR-10 / JFS-

02

EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry Low

Debeda 09.09.2020 JFS-03 EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry Medium

Khrami 09.09.2020 JFS-04 EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry -

Khrami 10.09.2020 JFS-05 EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry Medium

Khrami 10.09.2020 JFS-06 EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry Low

Khrami 10.09.2020 JFS-07 EB,IK,GK,ZJ,AG Dry Medium

EB = Elina Bakradze, IK = Irakli Kordzaia, GM = Georgi Kargareteli, ZJ = Zurab Jincharadze, AG=Ana Gabritchidze


13

3.1.4 Sampling period in Armenia

The field work was carried out between 9th and 11th of September 2020.

Table 7 Sampling dates and information on meteorological and hydrological conditions in Armenia

River Basin Date Site No.

Sampling

team Meteorology Hydrology

Debed 11-09-2020 SW-01 Tigran

Araqelyan

Light conditions: Sunny;

Precipitation: Dry;

Air temperature: Warm;

Wind: Calm

River type: small

Stream order: first

Turbidity of water: no

turbidity


Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;

Air temperature: Hot;

Wind: Calm

River type: middle

Stream order:

second

Turbidity of water:

moderate


Araqelyan

Light conditions: Covered;

Precipitation: Dry;

Air temperature: Mild;

Wind: Slightly

River type: small

Stream order: First


turbidity


Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;

Air temperature: Hot;

Wind: Slightly

River type: middle

Stream order:

second Turbidity of

water: no turbidity


Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;


Wind: Calm

River type: small

Stream order: first


turbidity

Debed 10-09-2020 SW-06

Tigran

Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;


Wind: Slightly

River type: large

Stream order: third

Turbidity of water:

low

Debed 09-09-2020

SW-07 Tigran

Araqelyan

Light conditions: Sunny; Precipitation: Dry; Air temperature: Hot; Wind: Calm

River type: small

Stream order: first

Turbidity of water:

strong

Debed 09-09-2020

SW-08 Tigran

Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;


Wind: Calm

River type: small

Stream order: first


turbidity

Debed 09-09-2020

SW-09 Tigran

Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;


Wind: Slightly

River type: small

Stream order:

second

Turbidity of water:

low

Debed 09-09-2020 SW-10

Tigran

Araqelyan


Precipitation: Dry;


Wind: Calm

River type: large

Stream order: third

Turbidity of water:

low


14

3.1.5 Quality elements

For both countries, the following three quality elements have been chosen:

o Macroinvertebrates (= macrozoobenthos) as biological quality element

o General physico-chemical parameters measured onsite and in the laboratory.

o Hydromorphology for site description

3.1.6 Responsibilities of Georgian experts

The responsibilities for the different tasks of the survey are summarised in the table below:

Table 8: Responsible institutions and persons during the preparation and the survey Georgia

Responsibilities Institution, contact person, email-address

General

Coordination of surface water body

sampling

EUWI+ country representative

Contact person: Zurab Jincharadze

E-Mail: [email protected]

Field work

Biological and chemical sampling,

hydro-morphological site description

Pollution Monitoring Department, NEA

Contact person: Elina Bakradze

Supporting person(s): Giorgi Kargareteli, Irakli Kordzaia, Ana Gabritchidze


Functional check of sampling equipment Pollution Monitoring Department, NEA

Contact person: Giorgi Kargareteli


Calibration of on-site measuring

equipment




Chemical analysis

Chemical analysis in the lab, including

reporting and data delivery

Atmospheric Air, Water and Soil Laboratory, NEA



Sample transport from the field to the

laboratory




Analysing laboratory and contact person Atmospheric Air, Water and Soil Laboratory, NEA



Biological analysis

Biological analysis in the lab, including

reporting and data delivery


Contact person: Irakli Kordzaia






15

3.1.7 Responsibilities of Armenian experts

For the proper work each part of the survey had its own responsible person and institution. The contacts of

the responsible institutions and persons are shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Responsible institutions and persons during the preparation and the survey Armenia

Responsibilities Institution, contact person, email-address

General

Organization of surface water

body sampling

"Hydrometeorology and Monitoring Center" SNCO, Ministry of Environment

Contact person: Alina Zurnachyan (Head of Water Quality Monitoring Service)


Field work

Biological and chemical

sampling, hydro-morphological

site description


Contact person: Tigran Araqelyan (chemical), Vardan Qaryan (biological),

Hovakim Frunzikyan (hydro-morphological)

E-Mail: [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

Functional check of sampling

equipment


Contact person: Tigran Araqelyan


Calibration of on-site measuring

equipment




Chemical analysis

Chemical analysis in the lab,

including reporting and data

delivery

"Hydrometeorology and Monitoring Center" SNCO

Contact person: Gayane Shahnazaryan (Deputy Director)


Sample transport from the field

to the laboratory




Analyzing laboratory and

contact person


Contact person: Alina Zurnachyan (Head of Water Quality Monitoring Service)


Biological analysis

Biological analysis in the lab,

including reporting and data

delivery


Contact person: Vardan Qaryan,


Gayane Shahnazaryan (Deputy Director)


3.2 Sampling and field methods

Information of the sampling date at all sites was coordinated among the responsible experts of each country

in accordance with the EUWI+ Manual for Surface Water Monitoring (EUWI+, 2019). The total field survey

took two (Georgia) and three days (Armenia) respectively. Before taking water samples and onsite

measurements, all necessary equipment were calibrated internally by the laboratory staff.

The physico-chemical parameters were measured prior to biological sampling by using field measurement

equipment. Water samples were taken in pre-labelled bottles and stored in order to maintain integrity of the

samples. Benthic invertebrates were sampled using the multi-habitat sampling method within a

representative stretch of the river. Organisms were collected with a MHS net with 500µm mesh size. At each

site, a total number of 20 replicates was taken providing different substrate types within the stretch. The



16

whole sample of 20 subsamples was stored in vials with formalin for later analysis in the laboratory. Water

samples were transported to the responsible laboratory under proper conditions. Handover was documented

using the provided protocols. Each sample was kept according to the instructions, specific methodology and

specific SOPs.

3.3 Laboratory analyses

Analyses of the samples of each country were done in accordance with the ISO standards and the

appropriate SOPs which are implemented in the laboratory. A list of methods is given in Table 10 for Georgia

and Table 11 for Armenia.

The parameters WT, DO, O2-Sat, pH and EC were analysed both onsite and in the laboratory.

The analysis record includes the sampling date and the analysis date, thus ensuring compliance with the

attached manual on sample preservation.

The invertebrates were separated to the major taxonomic groups and identified at the highest taxonomic resolution available.

Table 10: Analysis Georgia: Parameters analysed in the field and in the laboratory.

Parameter Unit LOD Standards

Field measurements

Water temperature (WT) °C

Oxygen concentration (DO) mg/L (EPA 2540)1998

Oxygen saturation (O2-Sat) % oxymeter

pH EL. metrical

Electric conductivity (EC) µS/cm oxymeter

Laboratory analyses

Water temperature (WT, lab control) °C

Oxygen concentration (DO, lab control) mg/L (EPA 2540)1998

Oxygen saturation (O2-Sat, lab control) % oxymeter

pH (lab control) EL. metrical

Electric conductivity (EC, lab control) µS/cm oxymeter

Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/L SFS-EN 872

Biological oxygen demand (BOD5) mg/L ISO 5815:2010

Chemical oxygen demand (K2Cr2O7) (COD) mg/L ISO 6060:2010

Ammonia-N (NH4-N) mg/L 0.005 ISO 7150-1:2010

Nitrate-N (NO3-N) mg/L 0.0045 ISO 10304-1:2007

Orthophosphate, as P (PO4-P) mg/L 0.023 ISO 10304-1:2007

Total phosphorus (TP) mg/L Yu.Yu. Lurie "Unified methods of water

analysis"

Chloride (Cl) mg/L 0.0143 ISO 10304-1:2007


17

Parameter Unit LOD Standards

Sulphate, total ion (SO4) mg/L 0.0095 ISO 10304-1:2007

Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.299 ISO 6058:2008

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.145 ISO 6058:2008

Sodium (Na) mg/L 0.672 ISO 9964-3:2010

Potassium (K) mg/L 0.726 ISO 9964-3:2010

Table 11: Analysis Armenia: Parameters analysed in the field and in the laboratory.

Parameter Unit LOD Methods of measurements

Field measurements

Water temperature (WT) °C

Oxygen concentration (DO) mg/L ISO 5814:2012

Oxygen saturation (O2-Sat) % ISO 10523:2008

pH ISO 10523:2008

Electric conductivity (EC) µS/cm ISO 7888:1985

Laboratory analyses

Water temperature (WT, lab control) °C

Oxygen concentration (DO, lab control) mg/L: ISO 5814:2012

Oxygen saturation (O2-Sat, lab control) % ISO 5814:2012

pH (lab control) ISO 10523:2008

Electric conductivity (EC, lab control) µS/cm ISO 7888:1985

Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/L ISO 11923:1997

Biological oxygen demand (BOD5) mg/L ISO 5815:2003

Chemical oxygen demand (K2Cr2O7) (COD) mg/L ISO 6060:1989

Ammonia-N (NH4-N) mg/L 0.005 ISO 7150-1:1984

Nitrate-N (NO3-N) mg/L 0.006 ISO 10304-1:2007

Orthophosphate, as P (PO4-P) mg/L 0.0016 ISO 6878:2004

Total phosphorus (TP) mg/L 0.005 ISO 17294:2016

Chloride (Cl) mg/L 0.025 ISO 10304-1:2007

Sulphate, total ion (SO4) mg/L 0.125 ISO 10304-1:2007

Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.005 ISO 17294:2016

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.005 ISO 17294:2016

Sodium (Na) mg/L 0.005 ISO 17294:2016

Potassium (K) mg/L 0.005 ISO 17294:2016


18

3.4 Quality assurance

All chemical analyses were conducted in a professional manner and in accordance with the laboratory

accreditation procedures. The transport storage, preservation and chemical analyses were undertaken

according to accredited laboratory procedures, together with the application of internal analytical quality

controls. All standard solutions were prepared from reference materials, which are labeled with the date of

preparation, expiry date and the name of person that prepared the solution. These solutions are kept in

conditions specified in the test method.

For analyses in Georgia and Armenia, different normative standards of measurements have been applied

for the parameters total suspended solids (TSS), total (TP) and ortho-phosphate (PO4-P), magnesium,

potassium and sodium. In the future, it is recommended to harmonize these approaches.


19

4 GEORGIAN RESULTS

4.1 Field Protocols and Hydro-Morphological Site Description

The field protocols are provided as attachment in Annexes 1 and 2, including the protocols of the hydro-

morphological site description. Site photos are provided in JPG as separate files in Annex 3.

Most of the selected sites indicate impacts by wastewater, water abstraction and morphological deterioration.

Onsite impressions reveal a high level of eutrophication (high content of organic material in the water, high

amount of detritus, accumulations of green filamentous algae), which are indicators for frequent variability in

discharge and flow velocity.

4.2 Chemical analyses

The results of the physico-chemical analyses are summarized in Table 12 and Table 13. Chemical data

reports are listed in Annex 5. Scans of sample delivery and handover protocols are provided in Annex 6.

The analyses of samples show relatively homogenous nutrient concentration among the sites. The sites

along the river Debeda and Khrami – Imiri indicate O2-saturation between 60 and 86% and conductivity

between 338 und 462µS/cm, whereas sites 5 to 7 (all along Khrami river) show a saturation near 100% and

a high conductivity. Along the course of Debeda river nutrient levels for phosphorous concentrations rises.

A noticeable increase can be observed for Ca, Mg, Na, Ka, Cl and Sulfate. Along Khrami river there is no

such significant accumulation. Highest nutrient concentrations were found at the site Enikendi at river

Debeda.

Table 12: Results of the chemical analyses of 7 Georgian sampling sites in autumn 2020.

Nr River Sampling site

WT

field

DO

field

O2-Sat

field

pH

field

EC

field BOD5 COD NH4-N NO3-N

Units °C mg/L %

µg/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

1 Debeda Tazakendi 21,9 9,06 86 8,0 338 1,47 2,97 0,486 5,374

2 Debeda Kirovka 22,9 8,48 80 8,1 450 1,13 1,98 0,307 5,794

3 Debeda Enikendi 25,5 8,99 85 8,2 402 0,98 1,78 0,384 5,721

4 Khrami Imiri 23,9 6,78 63 8,0 462 1,13 2,18 0,323 4,517

5 Khrami Didi Mughanlo 25,4 10,16 97 8,1 730 1,83 3,56 0,399 5,370

6 Khrami Red Bridge 25,0 10,17 98 8,3 648 1,57 1,98 0,278 4,586

7 Khrami Khangigazlo 24,1 10,29 98 8,3 651 3,61 1,78 0,300 4,715


20

Table 13: Additional results of the chemical analyses

Nr River Sampling site PO4 TP Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

1 Khrami Tazakendi 0,203 0,320 46,50 13,20 15,38 1,94 4,88 25,83

2 Debeda Kirovka 0,272 0,305 61,95 21,09 38,86 2,42 14,81 93,63

3 Debeda Enikendi 0,338 0,371 75,67 29,41 39,47 3,07 25,74 122,58

4 Khrami Imiri 0,260 0,293 49,05 18,02 20,53 2,14 5,85 34,88

5 Khrami Didi Mughanlo 0,275 0,308 59,52 25,57 22,68 1,99 8,88 60,46

6 Khrami Red Bridge 0,226 0,259 65,32 23,86 34,32 2,98 11,80 91,11

7 Khrami Khangigazlo 0,074 0,100 64,34 22,47 32,40 2,66 12,07 93,45


21

4.3 Biological analyses

The biological raw data are provided in Annex 7.

According to the AQEM code, 33 different taxa (genus and family level) and 12 major groups appear. At the

7 investigated sites, the taxa richness varies between 6 to 20 taxa per sample, while the abundance ranges

from 41 to 175 individuals. Most dominant genera in the samples are Baetis sp. and Hydropsyche sp.

For all inspected sites, the ecological status is calculated following the Ecological Status Classification

System (ESCS) which has been developed during EUWI+. The ECSC system considers the composition

and abundance of taxa, the ratio of disturbance-sensitive taxa to insensitive taxa, the level of diversity and

the occurrence of major taxonomic groups (EUWI+ RefCond reports).

Five sites indicate a Good Ecological Status. Two sites, one in Debeda river close to the border to Armenia

and a second one on Khrami river, fail to achieve the Good Ecological Status (moderate).

Reason for the status class “moderate” might be the frequent variability in discharge, anthropogenic

deviations in morphology and a flood event just before the field trip. Many sites show a high potential of

riverbed re-arrangement after flood events. The site „Didi Mughanlo“ has a disturbed discharge variability

due to sand and gravel extraction works.

Table 14 The Ecological Status of sampling points according to the biological analyses

River name Site name Site code Nr. of individuals Nr. of taxa nEQR Ecological Status

Debeda Tazakendi JFS-01 175 15 0,54 Moderate

Debeda Kirovka SW2-KHR-10

/ JFS-02

41 6 0,69 Good

Debeda Enikendi JFS-03 89 8 0,74 Good

Khrami Imiri JFS-04 41 8 0,77 Good

Khrami Didi

Mughanlo

JFS-05 110 50 0,70 Good

Khrami Red Bridge JFS-06 50 10 0,73 Good

Khrami Khangigazlo JFS-07 86 20 0,48 Moderate


22

5 ARMENIAN RESULTS

5.1 Field protocols

The sampling team filled in field protocols (Annex 1) for each surface water sample site. The protocols include

detailed information about the river basin, name and type, site number and coordinates, sampling date and

time, weather and water quality conditions, name of surveyor with signature and other comments, Field

Protocols for 10 sample sites are attached to the report in separate files.

Most of the inspected river sections show no deviation from its natural character and no pressures from

wastewater, transport or other anthropological use. Hydro-morphological conditions were mainly natural or

semi-natural.

5.2 Chemical analyses

Data show a relatively heterogeneous nutrient concentration among the sites. Compared to the other sites,

the site SW-02 (Pambak) shows a low oxygen saturation (<80%) and highest concentrations of NH4, NO3

and phosphorous components. Chloride and sulfate concentrations are also relatively high. Highest sulfate

concentrations were measured at the sites SW-07 (Akhtala) and SW-09 (Shnogh village).

Table 15 Results of chemical analyses at 10 Armenian sampling sites in autumn 2020.

River Basin: Debed

Parameters WT DO O2-Sat pH EC NH4-N NO3-N

Units °C mg/L % µS/cm mg/L mg/L

River Sampling site Sampling date

Chichkhan Shirakamut village 11.09.2020 13,2 9,01 86 8,4 291 0,0621 0,406

Pambak Down to Vanadzor town

10.09.2020 17,6 6,50 68 7,9 610 9,2616 3,941

Sevaberd Katnarat village 11.09.2020 18,6 7,42 79,4 8,2 65 0,1090 <0.011

Dzoraget Dzoraget village 10.09.2020 16,6 9,56 97,9 8,8 273 0,0603 1,197

Jukhtak Marts village 10.09.2020 19 8,40 90,7 8,5 233 0,0793 <0.011

Debed Down to Alaverdi town

10.09.2020 19,9 8,47 93,1 8,7 336 0,1101 2,145

Akhtala Akhtala town 09.09.2020 18,4 8,88 95,1 7,8 1452 0,3978 1,585

Shnogh (Qaratsakh)

Teghut village 09.09.2020 19 8,49 91,6 7,9 508 0,0755 0,018

Shnogh Shnogh village 09.09.2020 22,8 8,54 99,4 8,5 1092 0,2169 1,636

Debed Border, Ptghavan (Bagratashen)

09.09.2020 21,2 11,44 130,1 8,9 406 0,1578 2,096


23

Table 16 Additonal results of the chemical analyses

River Basin: Debed

Parameters PO4-P TP Cl SO4 Ca Mg Na K

Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L


Chichkhan Shirakamut village

11.09.2020 0,037 0,064 1,00 6,66 36,76 5,11 6,39 0,89

Pambak Down to Vanadzor town

10.09.2020 0,340 0,532 18,34 47,37 61,90 11,40 27,41 4,35

Sevaberd Katnarat village 11.09.2020 0,014 0,038 0,13 1,32 6,11 1,53 2,64 1,84

Dzoraget Dzoraget village 10.09.2020 0,061 0,075 4,11 12,60 32,81 6,48 7,80 1,62

Jukhtak Marts village 10.09.2020 0,037 0,061 1,23 14,09 32,82 3,69 8,03 1,35

Debed Down to Alaverdi town

10.09.2020 0,098 0,125 7,14 26,38 42,18 6,84 11,75 2,09

Akhtala Akhtala town 09.09.2020 0,037 0,338 13,87 655,45 196,41 41,70 61,98 2,92

Shnogh (Qaratsakh)

Teghut village 09.09.2020 0,061 0,081 2,61 31,62 81,38 14,99 9,20 4,86

Shnogh Shnogh village 09.09.2020 0,061 0,094 11,09 345,88 132,93 23,44 52,17 3,72

Debed Border, Ptghavan

(Bagratashen) 09.09.2020 0,065 0,090 10,10 48,71 49,97 9,56 23,54 3,10

5.3 Biological analyses

Each of the 10 samples was sorted and subsampled, as described in the EUWI+ Manual for Surface Water

Monitoring (EUW+, 2019). The invertebrates were separated to the major taxonomic groups and attributed

to the appropriate taxonomic levels (Annex 7). For all inspected sites, the ecological status was calculated

following the Ecological Status Classification System (ESCS) developed by EUWI+. The ECSC system

considers the composition and abundance of taxa, the ratio of disturbance-sensitive taxa to insensitive taxa,

the level of diversity and the occurrence of major taxonomic groups (EUWI+ RefCond reports).

According to the AQEM code, 45 different taxa (genus and family level) and 12 major groups appear. Among

the 10 investigated sites, the taxa richness varies from 0 to 28 taxa per sample, while the abundance ranges

from 0 to 1034 individuals. Most dominant genera in the samples are Baetidae and Heptageniidae, both in

the same group Ephemeroptera.

Within the Debed River Basin, 5 of the investigated sites indicate a High Ecological Status based on the

macrozoobenthos quality element. One site shows a Good Ecological Status, Four sites fail to achieve the

Good Ecological Status.

Most of the sites with High Ecological Status show a considerable large number of taxa and individuals.

Results are supported by the physico-chemical measurements, which show a low concentration for nutrient

parameters and almost no hydro-morphological deviations from its natural character. At site SW-06, only 100

individuals of 8 MZB families were documented. The low diversity indicates that the resulting High Ecological

Status is not plausible. At site SW-07 no animals were found. This river section bears multiple anthropological

pressures (wastewater, water abstraction) and shows high nutrient concentrations.


24

Table 17 Results of the biological assessment of the ecological status

River name Site name Site code Nr. of individuals Nr. of taxa nEQR Ecological Status

Chichkhan

Trchkan

waterfall SW-01 28 1034 1,00 high

Pambak Vanadzor SW-02 9 423 0,00 bad

Sevaberd Noramut SW-03 24 1021 1,00 high

Dzoraget River mouth SW-04 18 427 0,63 good

Jukhtak Marts SW-05 18 697 1,00 high

Debed Alaverdi SW-06 8 100 0,86 high

Akhtala Akhtala SW-07 0 0 0,00 bad

Snogh Teghut SW-08 14 134 1,00 high

Snogh Snogh SW-09 9 260 0,24 poor

Debed Border SW-10 6 13 0,52 moderate


25

6 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

For this transboundary surface water survey macroinvertebrates were selected as biological quality

element, together with supporting physico-chemical parameters and hydromorphological elements, as

recommended by the WFD, to provide data for the water body typology evaluation and for the surface water

monitoring design.

Due to the difficult circumstances during the Covid-19 pandemic it was not possible to personally share

national approaches in sampling and field work. Alternatively, simultaneous monitoring was conducted

which partially allows a comparison of results of similar river types at the same seasonal conditions.

The selection of sampling sites allows profound insights into river basins and sections, where monitoring

practice has been sparse and reference conditions are hardly known. Eventually, the field experts came

across a picture of river sections, which was very different from what they expected from the biocenosis.

Proper documentation and discussion in joint reporting need coordination and initiative from both national

teams. Due to a lack of personnel resources, there is still much room for improvement to autonomously fulfill

the reporting requirements in the future.

6.1 Comparison of data and status (according to respective ESCS)

For Georgia, 5 of 7 sites indicate a God Ecological Status. For Armenia, onsite conditions were very

heterogeneous among the selected sites which leads to a wide range of results. In both countries, the

ecological status is low for polluted or disturbed sites (from human impacts like wastewater, water

abstraction and (open cast) mining). Along the border river Debeda/Debed, the species richness is very low

(8 to 6 taxa found in Armenia). Similar metrics were obtained close to the border on Georgian site. At the

sites Kirova and Enikendi, the species richness increase and coherently the ecological status improves.

6.2 Discussion of data deviations

The ESCS (ecological status classification system) developed during EUWI+ is based on type-specific

Reference Conditions. It was applied in the transboundary survey area, although reference conditions were

not established in this area yet. On one hand this served as a practical exercise of biological assessment

and on the other hand the ESCS was tested. As Expert Judgement suggests that the ecological status was

partially evaluated as too high on Georgian territory, it is strongly suggested to further refine the ESCS

and expand it to other river types.

Simultaneously assessed parameters, such as hydro-morphological and chemical conditions, help to identify

specific pressures within this area and explain the response at the biological coenoses (pressure

response). Additionally, inclusion of results of the hydro-morphological and chemical assessments into

plausibility checks of biological data lead to more accurate statements for the ecological status assessment.

Throughout the survey similar taxonomic levels (usually family level) have been applied. Despite the fact,

that different identification keys have been used, taxa lists on family level are comparable among each

other country. The most prominent differences are the number of documented species and individual

numbers. On-site impressions in Georgia reveal frequent changes in discharge and river bed morphology.

Frequent flood events in some valleys might have an impact on invertebrate coenoses, too. Furthermore,

differences between the samples taken at both country territories (Armenia-Georgia) could have been

caused by the different composition of the substrate. A more detailed hydro-morphological assessment

considering hydrological conditions could support the plausibility check of the ecological status based on

invertebrates.


26

The measurement methods for Ca, Mg, K, Na, total phosphorus and phosphate ions are different. A

comparison of results shows that the deviations are very high. Only the results of Ca and pH have a small

difference. This shows the need for further quality assurance in the laboratories and a harmonization of

methods, where possible. The reasons for deviation are manifold, ranging from sampling site selection,

sampling, lab methodology, data errors etc. This needs to be further investigated and specifically be identified

in future efforts.

6.3 General lessons learned

In light of the pandemic in 2020, all involved institutions are pleased that this pilot transboundary monitoring

could be successfully executed in the Debed RBD.

All field work could be done with sufficient respect for personal safety, especially during the sampling of water

and sediments in deep and fast-flowing river sections or at unstable sediment sites and riverbanks. At two

sites in Georgia accessibility problems arouse and the field team was forced to change the location.

Some conclusions and recommendations can be drawn:

The bilateral monitoring agreement between Armenia and Georgia lays the important ground for

international collaboration, which is then refined by the Guidance document on the joint river

monitoring procedures. It is strongly recommended that these collaborative, transboundary efforts

will be expanded 1) regarding the frequency: towards regular annual joint monitoring and 2) at a

larger geographical scope: at transboundary waterbodies across the entire EaP-region

Careful planning is necessary with a particular focus on weather and hydrological conditions;

samplings shortly after flood events should be avoided.

Adaptations for the field protocol are recommended to better illustrate local hydrological conditions.

Suggestions are to specify macrophytes coverage and to add information on water abstraction and

changes in discharge.

It is recommended to apply plausibility checks for raw data, as well as for the ecological status. If

biodiversity is unexpectedly and implausibly too low, it is necessary to improve sampling techniques

for quality assurance. EUWI+ strongly recommends to follow the AQEM procedure as described in

the EUWI+ surface water manual. Training and knowledge transfer for WFD-compatible sampling

techniques (MHS) could be intensified to gain comparable data on the ecological status.

Photo documentation and adding as much onsite information as possible during field work allows

experts, who have not been physically present on sites, to gain a better insight into the ecological

situation on the territory of either Armenia or Georgia.

For this pilot survey, strong international guidance was needed from the beginning to the conclusion

of the activity. After all, political will, institutional support and personal engagement by national

experts are essential for any successful transboundary cooperation.

In the future, national experts from HMC and NEA need to autonomously cooperate on how to further

achieve quality assurance in transboundary monitoring. Joint surveys and reporting relies on

transparency and good exchange of knowledge and data.

Results from this transboundary survey should be used to improve the ecological status

classification system. For some locations in the basin, adjustments in the classifications might be

necessary, as basin-specific reference conditions are unknown so far.

Nonetheless, a single sample does not allow to identify the ecological status for a larger catchment. A

bilateral monitoring programme on a yearly base should incorporate also other parts of the

Debed/Debeda river basin and reflect seasonal variations. This will increase the quality of and

confidence into joint results.

In general, this survey revealed a fruitful outcome of transnational knowledge and experience transfer

for transboundary river systems. It can become a model across the Eastern Partnership-Region.


27

ANNEX 1: FIELD PROTOCOLS

Georgia

N1 Tazakendi


28

N2 Kirovka


29

N3 Enikendi


30

N4 Imiri


31

N5 Didi Mughanlo


32

N6 Red Bridge


33

N7 Khengigazlo


34

Armenia

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Chichkhan

Site Name Trchkan below

Site Number EUWI+EP 1 Surveyor (name)

Frunzikyan

Site Number coordinates N40.91446 E44.11854 GPS Waypoint:

Sample number EUWI+EP 1 GPS Photo Number -

Sampling date and time Date (DD-MM-YYYY)11-09-2020 Time (HH.MM)15:00

Stream order River Type I Est. Discharge

Air temperature °C 210C

Weather conditions (mark with „X“)

Light conditions 0…Not available 1…X…Sunny 2…Covered 3…Gloomy 4…Cloudy 5…Foggy

Precipitation 0…Not available 1…X…Dry 2…Drizzle 3…Rain 4…Hail 5…Snow 6…Thunderstorm

Air temperature 0…Not available 1…Cold 2…Mild 3…X…Warm 4…Hot 5…Sticky

Wind 0…Not available 1…X…Calm 2…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane

Water quality parameters – field measurements

Water temperature °C 13.20C

pH-value 8.44

Electrical conductivity at 20°C µS/cm 291.3

Dissolved oxygen concentration mg/l 9.01

Oxygen saturation % 86%

Colour (Please describe)

Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1… X… no turbidity 2…low 3…moderate 4…strong

Turbidity of water NTU 17.2

Smell (Please describe) -

□ Preservation measures for chemical / biological samples carried out according to the specifica- tions of the laboratory

□ Deviating preservation measures (see remarks)

□ No changes in the condition of the sampling site or its surroundings compared to the situation as documented in master data sheet

□ Changes detected (see remarks)

Execution of the sampling according to Standard Operating Procedure No.:

Name of Surveyor: Frunzikyan Signature:


35

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Pambak

Site Name Vanadzor below


Frunzikyan

Site Number coordinates N40.81389 E44.50758 GPS Waypoint:


Sampling date and time Date (DD-MM-YYYY)10-09-2020 Time (HH.MM) 17:30

Stream order River Type II Est. Discharge





Air temperature 0…Not available 1…Cold 2…Mild 3…Warm 4…X…Hot 5…Sticky




pH-value 7.87

Electrical conductivity at 20°C µS/cm 610


Oxygen saturation % 68%


Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1…no turbidity 2…low 3…X…moderate 4…strong

Turbidity of water NTU 107

Smell (Please describe) 5








36

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Sevaberd

Site Name Noramut


Frunzikyan

Site Number coordinates N 41.10809 E 44.13766 GPS Waypoint:


Sampling date and time Date (DD-MM-YYYY) 11-09-2020 Time (HH.MM) 10:30




Light conditions 0…Not available 1…Sunny 2…X…Covered 3…Gloomy 4…Cloudy 5…Foggy


Air temperature 0…Not available 1…Cold 2… X…Mild 3… Warm 4…Hot 5…Sticky

Wind 0…Not available 1…Calm 2… X…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane



pH-value 8.23



Oxygen saturation % 79.4%

Colour (Please describe) -

Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1… X…no turbidity 2…low 3…moderate 4…strong










37

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Dzoraget

Site Name River mouth


Frunzikyan










Wind 0…Not available 1…Calm 2…X…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane



pH-value 8.77





Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1…X…no turbidity 2…low 3…moderate 4…strong


Smell (Please describe)








38

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Jukhtak

Site Name Above village Marc


Frunzikyan












Water temperature °C 190C

pH-value 8.49



Oxygen saturation % 90.7


Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1…X…no turbidity 2…low 3…moderate 4…strong

NTU 6.1








Surface Water Survey Manual EUWI+: General manual for biological survey

36

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Debed

Site Name Alaverdi


Frunzikyan




Stream order River Type III Est. Discharge






Wind 0…Not available 1…Calm 2…X…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane



pH-value 8.69





Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1…no turbidity 2…X…low 3…moderate 4…strong


Smell (Please describe) -








37

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Akhtala

Site Name River Mouth


Frunzikyan










Wind 0…Not available 1… X…Calm 2…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane



pH-value 7.83





Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1… no turbidity 2…low 3…moderate 4… X…strong

Turbidity of water NTU 410









38

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Shnogh

Site Name Teghut


Frunzikyan







Light conditions 0…Not available 1…X...Sunny 2…Covered 3…Gloomy 4…Cloudy 5…Foggy



Wind 0…Not available 1… X…Calm 2…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane


Water temperature °C 190C

pH-value 7.88





Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1… X…no turbidity 2…low 3…moderate 4…strong










39

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Shnogh

Site Name River mouth


Frunzikyan










Wind 0…Not available 1…Calm 2… X…Slightly windy 3…Wind 4…Strong wind 5…Storm 6…Hurricane



pH-value 8.45





Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1…no turbidity 2… X…low 3…moderate 4…strong










40

General aspects

River Basin / River Name Debed / Debed

Site Name On border


Frunzikyan




Stream order River Type III Est. Discharge









pH-value 8.88





Turbidity of water (mark with “X”) 1…no turbidity 2…X…low 3…moderate 4…strong

NTU 27.1









42

ANNEX 2: THE HYDRO-MORPHOLOGICAL

SITE DESCRIPTION (HYDROBIOLOGY)

Georgia

N1 Tazakendi


43


44

N2 Kirovka


45


46

N3 Enikendi


47


48

ANNEX 3: PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

-Georgia

Description: I, Tazakendi

GPS coordinates: N41,21816, E4487243

Date: 09,SEP,2020, Time: 13:30

Weather: Sunny day, no precipitation, warm air temperature and no wind,

Water temperature was 21,9ºC, no specific smell or colour,


49

Description: II, Kirovka

GPS coordinates: N41,27774, E44,80710

Date: 09,SEP,2020, Time: 14:55




50

Description: III, Enikendi


Date: 09,SEP,2020, Time: 16:50




51

Description: IV, Imiri


Date: 09,SEP,2020, Time: 17:50

Weather: Sunny day, no precipitation, mild air temperature and no wind,



52


53

Description: V, Didi Mughanlo


Date: 10,SEP,2020, Time: 12:10




54


55

Description: VI, Red Bridge


Date: 10,SEP,2020, Time: 13:15

Weather: Sunny day, no precipitation, warm air temperature

and no wind,



56

Description: VII, Khangigazlo


Date: 10,SEP,2020, Time: 14:00

Weather: Sunny day, no precipitation, mild air

temperature and no wind,

Water temperature was 25,0ºC, no specific

smell or colour,


57

Armenia


58

ANNEX 4: CHEMICAL DATA SUMMARY

Georgia

Armenia

Nr Parameter WT DO O2-Sat pH EC BOD5 COD NH4-N NO3-N

Sampling site River Units °C mg/L % µg/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

1 JFS-01 Debeda Tazakendi 21,9 9,06 86 8 338 1,47 2,97 0,486 5,374

2 SW2-KHR-10/JFS-02Debeda Kirovka 22,9 8,48 80 8,1 450 1,13 1,98 0,307 5,794

3 JFS-03 Debeda Enikendi 25,5 8,99 85 8,2 402 0,98 1,78 0,384 5,721

4 JFS-04 Khrami Imiri 23,9 6,78 63 8 462 1,13 2,18 0,323 4,517

5 JFS-05 KhramiDidi

Mughanlo25,4 10,16 97 8,1 730 1,83 3,56 0,399 5,37

6 JFS-06 Khrami Red Bridge 25 10,17 98 8,3 648 1,57 1,98 0,278 4,586

7 JFS-07 Khrami Khangigazlo 24,1 10,29 98 8,3 651 3,61 1,78 0,3 4,715

Nr Parameter PO4 TP Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

Sampling site River Units mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

1 JFS-01 Debeda Tazakendi 0,203 0,32 46,5 13,2 15,38 1,94 4,88 25,83

2 SW2-KHR-10/JFS-02Debeda Kirovka 0,272 0,305 61,95 21,09 38,86 2,42 14,81 93,63

3 JFS-03 Debeda Enikendi 0,338 0,371 75,67 29,41 39,47 3,07 25,74 122,58

4 JFS-04 Khrami Imiri 0,26 0,293 49,05 18,02 20,53 2,14 5,85 34,88

5 JFS-05 KhramiDidi

Mughanlo0,275 0,308 59,52 25,57 22,68 1,99 8,88 60,46

6 JFS-06 Khrami Red Bridge 0,226 0,259 65,32 23,86 34,32 2,98 11,8 91,11

7 JFS-07 Khrami Khangigazlo 0,074 0,1 64,34 22,47 32,4 2,66 12,07 93,45

Physicochemical data for surface water quality from the Debed River Basin, September 2020Basin, September 2020

River Basin: DebedParameters WT DO O2-Sat pH EC NH4-N NO3-N PO4-P TP Cl SO4 Ca Mg Na K

Units °C mg/L % µS/c

m

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L


Chichkhan Shirakamut village 11.09.2020 13,2 9,01 86 8,4 291 0,0621 0,406 0,037 0,064 1,00 6,66 36,76 5,11 6,39 0,89

Pambak Down to Vanadzor town 10.09.2020 17,6 6,50 68 7,9 610 9,2616 3,941 0,340 0,532 18,34 47,37 61,90 11,40 27,41 4,35

Sevaberd Katnarat village (Field blank) 11.09.2020 18,6 _ _ _ _ 0,0409 <0.011 0,009 <0.01 <0.05 0,25 0,07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Sevaberd Katnarat village 11.09.2020 18,6 7,42 79,4 8,2 65 0,1090 <0.011 0,014 0,038 0,13 1,32 6,11 1,53 2,64 1,84

Dzoraget Dzoraget village 10.09.2020 16,6 9,56 97,9 8,8 273 0,0603 1,197 0,061 0,075 4,11 12,60 32,81 6,48 7,80 1,62

Jukhtak Marts village 10.09.2020 19 8,40 90,7 8,5 233 0,0793 <0.011 0,037 0,061 1,23 14,09 32,82 3,69 8,03 1,35

Debed Down to Alaverdi town 10.09.2020 19,9 8,47 93,1 8,7 336 0,1101 2,145 0,098 0,125 7,14 26,38 42,18 6,84 11,75 2,09

Akhtala Akhtala town 09.09.2020 18,4 8,88 95,1 7,8 1452 0,3978 1,585 0,037 0,338 13,87 655,45 196,41 41,70 61,98 2,92Shnogh

(Qaratsakh)Teghut village 09.09.2020 19 8,49 91,6 7,9 508 0,0755 0,018 0,061 0,081 2,61 31,62 81,38 14,99 9,20 4,86

Shnogh Shnogh village 09.09.2020 22,8 8,54 99,4 8,5 1092 0,2169 1,636 0,061 0,094 11,09 345,88 132,93 23,44 52,17 3,72

Border, Ptghavan (Bagratashen) (Field blank)09.09.2020 21,2 _ _ _ _ <0.005 <0.011 0,009 <0.01 <0.05 <0.25 0,05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Debed Border, Ptghavan (Bagratashen) 09.09.2020 21,2 11,44 130,1 8,9 406 0,1578 2,096 0,065 0,090 10,10 48,71 49,97 9,56 23,54 3,10

Deputy Director of Hydrometeorology and Monitoring Center SNCO G. Shahnazaryan

Head of Surface Water Quality Monitoring Service A. Zurnachyan


59

ANNEX 5: CHEMICAL DATA CERTIFICATE

FORMAT

See separate documents.


60

ANNEX 6: PROTOCOLS FOR SAMPLE

DELIVERY AND HANDOVER

N1 Tazakendi


61

N2 Kirovka


62

N3 Enikendi


63


64

ANNEX 7: BIOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARY

Georgia

See separate attachment in Excel format


65

Armenia

Family Species

Ընտանիք Տեսակ site 1 Site 2 site 3 site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10

Baetidae 95 115 55 167 170 34 12 1

Heptageniidae 56 64 473 56 10 30

Heptageniidae Epeorus 4 5

Ephemerellidae 1 1

Caenidae 2

Blephariceridae 2 1 5

Chironomidae 64 17 23 11 5 124 6

Chironomidae Chironominae 4 39 5 98

Tabanidae 1 1

Tipulidae 2 3 3 2 1

Ceratopogonidae 4 6

Simuliidae 182 5 1 93 1 7 14

Stratiomyidae 1

Dixidae 1 1 2

Athericidae 1 1 29

Limoniidae 2 34 1 1 4

Dolichopodidae 4

Brachycentridae 95 1 6 1

Brachycentridae Brachycentrus 21 1 16

Glossosomatidae 1 1

Ptychopteridae 2

Hydropsychidae 120 6 163 18 51 29 1 16 1

Hydroptilidae 53 1

Limnephilidae 16 24 1

Leptoceridae 46 10 3

Rhyacophilidae 25 1 16 4 6 1

Sericostomatidae 1 1

Perlidae 32 104 83 14

Chloroperlidae 2 33 13

Capniidae 11 3 66 8

Gerridae 3

Elmidae 210 73 61 9 2

Planorbidae Gyraulus 1 14

Sphaeriidae Pisidium 1 1

Planorbidae Ancylus fluviatilis 33 6

Lymnaeidae Radix peregra 2

Erpobdellidae Erpobdella octoculata 1 1 1

Lumbricidae 1 189

Lumbricidae Eiseniella tetraedra 7 2

Naididae 5

Planariidae Planaria 7 20

Planariidae Polycelis nigra 1

Gammaridae Gammarus 60 40 80 94 2 2

Tetragnathidae Tetragnatha extensa 2

Number of individuals


66

ANNEX 8: MHS FIELD TABLES

See separate attachment(s) in JPG format or Excel format

N1 Tazakendi


67

N2 Kirovka

N3 Enikendi


68

Annex 9: Metadata


69

www.euwipluseast.eu

Date post:	10-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

TRANSBOUNDARY SURFACE WATER SURVEY 2020 ......EUWI+ Technical report- surface water transboundary...

Documents