Institute of Meteorology and Water Management,
Wroclaw Branch PP 10
Wrocław, 28-29.06.2007
4. Water resources management
4.2 - Assessments of the hydrological characteristics of the Polish
territory during different climatic conditions. Estimation of water resources
in flood, drought and average conditions. Assignment of the amount of
minimal discharge.
Person responsible for action
Dr Tamara Tokarczyk, Eng
4. Water resources management
4.4 - Creation of homogeneous water quantity and quality database for
about 100 selected monitoring points localised along the main Polish
rivers. The assessments of surface water quality will take into account
different climatic conditions, as in the periods of swelling, flood, drought
and also in average conditions.
Person responsible for action
Dr Agnieszka Kolanek, Eng
TIMETABLE
No
Particular action in
Month
1
Analysis of preliminarily selected monitoring stations according to data
availability in the last 10 years
III. 2006
2
Characterisation of monitoring network according to surface water
quantity and quality data
V.2006
3
Interim Report
VI.2006
4
Analysis of hydrological data from the last 10 years, taking into account
different climatic conditions
VII.2006
5
Creation of homogeneous water quantity and quality database
VIII.2006
6
Input data for the database
IX.2006
7
Calculation of surface water quality variations related to flow
XII.2006
8
Interim Report
XII.2006
9
Assessments of surface water quality variation related to flow
I.2007
10
Final Report
II.2007
Expenses I - II.2007 - app. 8 300 euro
Metodology
100 selected water
quality monitoring
stations
95
Red
96
a
Łe ba
usa
Nar
Tina
Miła
kó w
za
up
a
Bia
ła
Ha
ńc
Ma
za
ryCc
zhaa
rn
a
Ha
100ńcz
a
ka
N
Pa sł
iłw
Liwa
W
a
Ryp
Wkr
a
Bie brz a
el
isła
24
37
83
84
25
26
ic a
ie n
W
Noteć
ie
a
38
87
cz
sa
ło
Pisa
a
ęc
da
Łosośna
Drw
a
W
O
Ś
tu
p a w is
a
G
Brd
N
wa
ę ta
In
Narew
23
85
33
32
86
Weł
czka
wią
31
34
3536
82
zyca
Bz ur
69
a
Je
rk
zio
22
a
Św
80
da
20
19
m ka
Rado
68
67
ida
w
a
By
st
na
Sto bra
a
wa
53
Kłod
zk
Nysa
49
51
Pilic a
aw
Op
46 47
44
43
Kło dn
ica
2
a
3
4
42
40 41
Nid
5
12
7
6
Wiar
ław
a
11
Os
9
10
Strwiąż
ik
bn
jeziora
1
Ste
rzeki
27
Wisłok
Wisłoka
a
stanowiska monitoringowe
28
ka
13
8
Olz
Legenda:
Tanew
14
a
Ła
bu
ń
Wie
prz
n
Sa
50
45
ce
15
Mała
Pa ne
w
a
Tich
áO
rli
17
Sanna
48
m sz
Prze
ica
Orl
Metu
je
a
Úp
Ličn
á
a
Židov
Sz ka
yb
ka
ka
65
52
a
Iz er
Śc
ina
w
Duna
je c
a
Kw
is
a
nn
ie nn
29
ka
16
ie
66
54
Ka m
18
ra
an
W
m
Ka
55
ka
c
Ka
aw
Wid
za
73
72
Pr71
os
56
wa
Iłż
Bó br
21
77
76
75
74
a
nic
Wo
ie
ka
Barycz
a
ck a
Łu ży
a Wielk
Czern
Nysa
Po
ls
er
m
a
dn
Ru
57
63
62
61
79
78
Orla
Rów Polski
ki Ró
w
id
ś
Ty
Krz yc
Szprotawa
60
30
70
81
Giełczew
Obr
58
zy ca
Oło
59 Biała
64
Bys
tr
bok
Plisz ka
Bug
nk
a
Warta
na
Zg ło
Ila
Odr
z
es
Sz
99
ę ka
og
at
Studnica
ca
łs
Wa
na
Ły
a
Elbląg
wa
za
rz y
Wie
98
Bauda
Motła
a
pr
ie
wn
Radew
Pa
rs
wa
39
Rega
eja
Ukl
nica
Gowie
88
W
łs to
Mo
ica
rz y
Le śn
Słu pia
k
ów
a
97
Sz ka rpa
k
Po
90
89
wa
n
Ba
w
pa
Łu
92 Grabo
Ły
na
94
93
91
Metodology of calculation
the loads of
contaminations
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
20
River
Km
curve
a
b
Coo. of deter.
WISŁA /MAŁA WISŁA/ 86,5 y=a*x**b
90,7 0,8739
0,96
PRZEMSZA
5,7 y=a*x**b 8065 0,3804
0,18
WISŁA
0,5 y=a*x**b 28050 0,4003
0,44
SOŁA
1,0 y=a*x**b
187 0,9236
0,98
SKAWA
4,8 y=a*x**b 248,3 0,8823
0,97
WISŁA
63,7 y=a*x**b 13910 0,4525
0,52
40
80 Km
Calculation the loads of contaminations
a
Prosna, km 2,8
Prosna, km 28,6
Prosna, km 42,2
Prosna, km 57,0
Prosna, km 72,8
1997
Prosna, km 83,6
1996
Prosna, km 105,0
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
10000
Prosna, km 140,0
[t/y]
12000
Prosna, km 156,2
14000
1998
8000
1999
2000
WET PWRIOD - 2001
6000
2002
DRY PERIOD - 2003
4000
Tab. 3 Volume of the pollutant load along the course of the river
Prosna compared to an average year
2004
2000
Sus pe nde d s olids
0,0
BOD
b
Prosna, km 2,8
Prosna, km 28,6
Prosna, km 42,2
4000
Prosna, km 57,0
1997
Prosna, km 83,6
1996
Prosna, km 72,8
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
Prosna, km 105,0
5000
Prosna, km 140,0
[t/y]
Prosna, km 156,2
6000
No
River, km
WET PERIOD 2001
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
(the basis)
DRY PERIOD - 2003
%
t / yr
t / yr
%
t / yr
1
Prosna, km 156,2
106
351
170
12,7
149
2
Prosna, km 140
96,6
725
369
11,5
327
3
Prosna, km 105
140
791
330
16,9
274
4
Prosna, km 83,6
100
1065
532
12,0
468
5
Prosna, km 72,8
89,2
2240
1184
23,0
912
6
Prosna, km 57
80,2
3579
1986
20,9
1571
7
Prosna, km 42,2
122
3517
1587
25,5
1183
8
Prosna, km 28,6
134
3730
1594
27,1
1162
9
Prosna, km 2,8
98,5
3833
1931
22,1
1504
105
19831
9683
22,0
7550
1998
1999
3000
2000
WET PWRIOD - 2001
2002
2000
DRY PERIOD - 2003
2004
1000
BOD
0,0
c
Prosna, km 2,8
Prosna, km 28,6
Prosna, km 42,2
1997
Prosna, km 57,0
1400
Prosna, km 72,8
1996
Prosna, km 83,6
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
1600
Prosna, km 105,0
1800
Prosna, km 140,0
[t/y]
Prosna, km 156,2
2000
1998
1200
1999
1000
2000
JOINTLY
WET PWRIOD - 2001
800
2002
600
DRY PERIOD - 2003
2004
400
200
NITRATES
Kje ldahl Nitroge n
0,0
Prosna, km 2,8
Prosna, km 28,6
Prosna, km 42,2
Prosna, km 57,0
Prosna, km 72,8
Prosna, km 83,6
1997
Prosna, km 105,0
1996
Prosna, km 140,0
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
20000
1998
15000
1999
2000
WET PWRIOD - 2001
10000
2002
DRY PERIOD - 2003
2004
5000
Nitrate s
0,0
e
1998
1999
4000
2000
WET PWRIOD - 2001
3000
2002
DRY PERIOD - 2003
2000
2004
1000
Total Nitroge n
0,0
Prosna, km 2,8
Prosna, km 28,6
Prosna, km 42,2
Prosna, km 57,0
1996
1997
5000
Prosna, km 72,8
6000
Prosna, km 83,6
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
Prosna, km 105,0
7000
Prosna, km 140,0
[t/y]
Prosna, km 156,2
8000
River, km
WET PERIOD 2001
AVERAGE PERIOD - 1995
(the basis)
DRY PERIOD - 2003
d
[t/y]
Prosna, km 156,2
25000
No
%
t / yr
t / yr
%
t / yr
1
Prosna, km 156,2
161
2348
901
19,3
726
2
Prosna, km 140
148
3791
1527
17,9
1254
3
Prosna, km 105
145
6434
2628
17,4
2171
4
Prosna, km 83,6
152
7295
2892
18,4
2360
5
Prosna, km 72,8
158
11659
4527
39,0
2763
6
Prosna, km 57
197
18635
6264
47,8
3270
7
Prosna, km 42,2
223
20508
6340
37,1
3990
8
Prosna, km 28,6
213
21982
7021
36,1
4489
9
Prosna, km 2,8
221
21602
6735
36,8
4256
194
114255
38833
34,9
25279
JOINTLY
cz
AVERAGE PERIOD
28,6
PROSNA, km 42,2
km 57
dr
ni
ok 1,5
OŁOBOK, km
rz
ka
ian
DPROSNA,
km 140
opły
w spica
Brzeźn
od km
Brze 3,2
NIESÓB,
z
We
soła
PROSNA,
km 156,2
DPROSNA,
km 140
opły
w spica
Brzeźn
od B
NIESÓB,
km
rzez3,2
in
ica
We
soła
PROSNA,
km 156,2
j
Dop
a
tw
Pra
Barto
sz
j
DRY PERIOD
cz
Gr
Kanał Młynikowski
ab
ów
ka
Błotnica
P
arow
PROSNA,
km
a Pil
ska
G
ar
ba
28,6
PROSNA, km 42,2
ka
Ner
Ża
b
ian
ka
sz
Gi
DopływPROSNA,
z Czajkowa
km 57
Sw
ę
dr
ni
Cie
mn
a
PROSNA,
km 72,8
R
udnik
Ołobok
Legend:
dra
wk
a
Troja
nówka
ę
Sw
a
Lip
ó
P
Gniła Barycz
o
PROSNA, km 83,6 OŁOBOK, kmkrz1,5
yw
Barycz
Żura
Za
le
Tsoki
Mły
rzR
eónw
nó
wk
ick
a
iR
ów
Nie
sób
Jam
ica
Pro
s na
Stru
ga
Go
łe
ska
Pia
Piaska
PROSNA, km 2,8
ływ
z
ka
Go
łe
Jam
a
Rybka
mość
der
Wy
Dop
ływ
z
a
sób
Struga Kraszewick
Struga Za
ka
tw
Pra
ian
Nie
in
ica
uż y
ca
der
Wy
m
Po
Jam
Rybka
ni
ca
w
ka
PROSNA,
km 105
Ł
Pro
s na
sób
Żura
a
Struga Kraszewick
Pro
s na
Nie
Barycz
ca
uż y
ca
mość
Water quality
P
w
ka
PROSNA,
km 105
Ł
Struga Za
udnik
Za
le
Tsoki
Mły
rzR
eónw
nó
wk
ick
a
iR
ów
Za
le
Tsoki
Mły
rzR
eónw
nó
wk
ick
a
iR
ów
Żura
a
PROSNA,
km 72,8
R
Gniła Barycz
Gniła Barycz
Barycz
rn
i
o
PROSNA, km 83,6 OŁOBOK, kmkrz1,5
yw
yw
ni
wk
a
Sw
ęd
Troja
nówka
Ołobok
P
PROSNA, km 83,6
km 57
ędra
Sw
na
PROSNA,
km 72,8
R
udnik
Ołobo
k
Lip
ó
ędra
Sw
na
Troja
nówka
wk
a
DopływPROSNA,
z Czajkowa
a
m
Cie
m
Cie
Lip
ó
ka
sz
Gi
Sw
ę
Ża
b
DopływPROSNA,
z Czajkowa
ka
ka
Ner
ian
ka
Ża
b
sz
Gi
Barto
sz
Gr
Kanał Młynikowski
ab
ów
ka
Błotnica
P
arow
PROSNA,
km
a Pil
ska
G
ar
ba
28,6
PROSNA, km 42,2
Ner
PROSNA, km 2,8
Stru
ga
WET PERIOD
cz
Barto
sz
Gr
Kanał Młynikowski
ab
ów
ka
Błotnica
P
arow
PROSNA,
km
a Pil
ska
G
ar
ba
Stru
ga
PROSNA, km 2,8
ni
Specific Total Nitrogen load [kg/ha/y]
ca
0-5
wk a
5 - 10
PROSNA,
km 105
Ł
uż y
ca
10 - 15
> 15
Struga Kraszewick
Struga Za
mość
a
Total Nitrogen concentration [mg N/l]
0 - 2,5
Rybka
DPROSNA,
km 140
opły
w spica
Brzeźn
od B
NIESÓB,
km
rzez3,2
2,5 - 5
in
5 - 10
We
soła
PROSNA,
km 156,2
Go
łe
j
> 20
ka
Dop
ływ
z
der
Wy
twa
Pra
10 - 20
sk
Pia
a
0 5 10
20 km
Changes in the
concentration value of
the total nitrogen
against the unit values
of the pollutant loads
in the dry, wet and
average period in the
Prosna basin.
Parameters
% of decrease of concentration in the dry period / to concentration
in the average period in the monitoring station in km of Prosna
156,2
140,0
105,0
83,6
72,8
57,0
42,2
28,6
2,8
BOD
2
0
7
1
-
-
4
7
-
Nitrate
9
8
7
8
22
34
25
24
25
Total
Nitrogen
8
6
7
7
16
14
17
18
15
Total
Phosphorus
5
1
5
4
-
-
-
-
-
Dissolved
solids
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
WET PERIOD
Łupawa, km 13,3 Łeba, km 25,2
Reda
Reda, km 20,9
Gdynia
Pasłęka, km 2
Słupsk
Grabowa, km 18
Rega, km 12,9 Koszalin
Parsęta,
P km 25
Ina
Ina, km 10,2
Elbląg
a
Reg
Odra, km 690
Water quality
Olsztyn
Szczecin
Od
ra
Wisła, km 926
Tczew
Wisła
ars
ęta
Gdańsk
ka
Grabowa
Słupia
łę
Pas
Słupia, km 11,3 Łeba
Wieprza, km 20,6
Grudziądz
Stargard Szczeciński
Piła
Bydgoszcz
Toruń
Gorzów Wielkopolski
Inowrocław
Włocławek
AVERAGE PERIOD
Reda
Łeba
Grabowa
Słupia
Elbląg
Tczew
a
Reg
Wisła
Pa
rsę
ta
Gdańsk
Ina
Olsztyn
Szczecin
Od
ra
ka
Koszalin
łę
Pas
Gdynia
Słupsk
Grudziądz
Stargard Szczeciński
Piła
Bydgoszcz
Toruń
Gorzów Wielkopolski
Inowrocław
Włocławek
DRY PERIOD
Łupawa, km 13,3 Łeba, km 25,2
Reda
Reda, km 20,9
Gdynia
Pasłęka, km 2
Słupsk
Elbląg
Wisła
Ina, km 10,2
Wisła, km 926
Tczew
Szczecin
Od
ra
Specific Nitrates load [kg/ha/y]
Ina
a
Reg
Odra, km 690
Legend:
Gdańsk
ka
ars
ęta
Grabowa
Rega, km 12,9 Koszalin
Parsęta,
P km 25
Słupia
łę
Pas
Słupia, km 11,3 Łeba
Wieprza, km 20,6
Grabowa, km 18
Olsztyn
Grudziądz
Stargard Szczeciński
0 - 15
Piła
Bydgoszcz
Toruń
15 - 30
30 - 45
Gorzów Wielkopolski
Inowrocław
Włocławek
45 - 60
Nitrates concentration [mg NO3/l]
0-5
5 - 15
15 - 25
25 - 50
> 50
0
25 50
100 km
The changes in
the value of the
concentration of
the nitrates
against the value
of the unit
pollutant loads in
the dry, wet and
average period
for the Przymorze
rivers.
Conclusions
The assumed device to evaluate the quality of water enables
specifying the differences, which may take place together with
the climatic changes.
The results of evaluation of water quality from 100 monitored
stations in the period of 10 years, from the concentration of the
parameters of pollution have changed depending on various
hydrological conditions (the volume of flows in particular years).
The most significant differences were indicated for the nitrates,
for which concentration in the wet year increased within the
limits from 20% to 100% in comparison to the average year.
The climatic changes taking place during 10 years did not cause
clear water quality changes in the analyzed monitoring stations,
still they are sufficient to postulate significant changes in the
quantity of the unitary outflow of the pollutant load in various
hydrological conditions, even over 200%”.
4. Water resources management
4.5 - Assessments of a collaboration system on the transboundary
waters management with Czech Republic, Germany, Slovakia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Lithuania, Russian Federation.
Person responsible for action
Dr Alfred Dubicki
TIMETABLE
No Particular action in
Month
1
Assessment/analysis of the previous Polish cooperation on the
boundary and transboundary waters.
2
Analysis of the obligatory conventions of Polish collaboration
on the boundary and transboundary waters from the point of
view of qualitative and quantitative surface water monitoring
programs according to WFD requirements.
II.2007
IV.2007
Proposed changes the conventions according to WFD
3
4
requirements
Final reporting
V.2007
VI.2007
Expenses I-VI.2007 - app. 15 000 euro
Typical Collaboration System consist on:
 hydrology, hydrogeolody, water management and flood protection,
 plans of water management, shipping and transbounduary hydrotechnic
structures,
 keeping a river in good condition, regulation and hydrotechnic structures,
 waste-water management and water quality.
Water resources management
Common and simultaneusness
measurment on transbondary rivers
Flood protection system on Zalew Szczeciński,
Pomorska Bay and Baltic coastal area
Example of exchange the information
Number of station/point
No
Type of information
RP
RFN
Total
1.
Level of the water
4
5
9
2.
Water temperature
4
2
6
3.
Model's forecast sea
level on 1 day with 3
hours period
1
-
1
4.
Model's forecast sea
level on 1 day with 3
hours period
-
5
5
5.
Ice cover
21
31
52
6.
And moreover together:
Biuletine and maps of ice - 2 times in a week
7.
Together:
Wornings and forecast for low and high level and
ice
International Czech – Polish – German
hydrometeorological data exchange in Odra basin
Stałe łącza IP
Oddziały
CHMU
NTC
Warszawa
Przekazuje do Czech
dane hydro-met dotyczące rzek granicznych,
prognozy, ostrzeżenia
i komunikaty hydro-met.
Stałe łącza IP
LUA Brandenburg
Frankfurt n. Odrą
ftp
e-mail
fax
Ostrava
ftp
Usti n. Łabą
e-mail
fax
IMGW
Oddział we
Wrocławiu
Hradec Kralove
Przekazują do Polski dane dotyczące
dorzecza górnej Odry:
1. Dane obserwacyjno-pomiarowe
hydrologiczne i meteorologiczne.
2. Prognozy hydrologiczne z modelu dla górnej Odry.
3. Ostrzeżenia, prognozy i komunikaty meteorologiczne i hydrologiczne.
Przekazuje do Niemiec dane dotyczące dorzecza Odry granicznej:
1. Hydrologiczne dane obserwacyjno-pomiarowe.
2. Prognozy z modelu dla Odry.
3. Ostrzeżenia, prognozy i komunikaty meteorologiczne i hydrologiczne.
BSH
Rostock
Przekazuje do Polski
dane hydrologiczne
dotyczące rzek granicznych, prognozy, ostrzeżenia i komunikaty.
ftp
e-mail
fax
Poznań
Stałe
łącza IP
Stałe łącza IP
RTC
Praga
Przekazuje do Niemiec
dane dotyczące Warty
i Odry granicznej:
1. Hydrologiczne
dane obserwacyjno-pomiarowe.
2. Prognozy z modelu dla Warty i
Odry.
Oddziały
IMGW
Gdynia
Polsko-niemiecka wzajemna
wymiana danych dotyczących
Bałtyku:
1. Dane hydrometeorologiczne
dla Zalewu Szczecińskiego,
Zatoki Pomorskiej i strefy
brzegowej Bałtyku.
2. Prognozy poziomu morza.
3. Stan zlodzenia Bałtyku.
4. Ostrzeżenia.
The most important problems in cooperation with
bordering country:
Czech Republic:
 Define of hydrological characteristic for boundary profile,
 Circulation of water in Niecka Śródsudecka area and negotiation
underground water balance,
 Sliming of stream in Turów opencast mine region,
Slovak Republic:
 Small Hydro-Electric Power Station (MEW) in Sulina.
Ukraine Republic:
 without regulation monitoring,
 reclamation area on sulphur mine,
Belarus Republic:
 Work of measure and control,
Russian Federation
 No respecting existing agreement

no agreement for water management
Assessment and summary of results of present
cooperation on boundary water:
1.
Cooperation on boudary water is correct, even good or very good
with countries with which Poland has agreements for water
management, all ellements of declared cooperation are realized.
2. The best cooperation is with Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia
and Ukraine based on yearly plans of cooperation and their
realisation.
3. „The Rules of Cooperation” is the main document specifying the scope
and form of cooperation.
4. The difficulties in boundary cooperation are with the former Soviet
Union Countries.
Technical co-ordinator of HYDROCARE Project - PP 10
and contact person:
Dr Agnieszka Kolanek tel. + 48 71 328 56 44
e-mail: [email protected]
Thank you for your attention