júcar pilot publica/phc-2015-2021...title: júcar pilot river basin, provisional article 5 report...

Júcar PilotRiver Basin

Provisional Article 5 Report

Pursuant to the Water

Framework Directive

MINISTERIODE MEDIO AMBIENTE

CONFEDERACIÓNHIDROGRÁFICADEL JÚCAR

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página III

Title: Júcar Pilot River Basin, Provisional Article 5Report Pursuant to the Water FrameworkDirective – 208 pages.

Internet version: A pdf file of the report is available on theJúcar Pilot River Basin website: ww.chj.es

Publisher: Confederación Hidrográfica del JúcarMinisterio de Medio AmbienteAvenida Blasco Ibáñez 4846010 ValenciaEspaña

Telephone: +34 96 393 88 00Telefax: +34 96 393 88 01

E-mail: [email protected]: www.chj.es

Co-ordinator: Teodoro Estrela

Authors: Teodoro Estrela Josefina MaestuAránzazu Fidalgo Miguel A. PérezJuan Fullana Ana M. Pujante

Contributions: Estrella Alonso Bárbara GassetJoaquín Andreu Jaime MartínezJavier Cachón Manuel MenéndezInés Calvo María J. RodríguezFederico Estrada Elisa VargasJavier Ferrer Antonio YáñezEnrique Font

Database and GIS: José M. Leal Luis Niño

Format revision: Estrella Alonso Miguel BonedBárbara Gasset

English revision: Bárbara Gasset Elisa VargasJuan A. Vera

Year of publication: September 2004

NIPO: 315-04-001-4ISBN: 84-922007-2-3Depósito legal: M-41762-2004Printed by: Edipack Gráfico, S.L.

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página IV

V

Contents

CONTENTS

FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 3

1 JÚCAR PILOT RIVER BASIN DISTRICT ......................................................................................... 7

1.1 Administrative framework ................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Physical framework ............................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Climatic conditions................................................................................................................. 15

1.4 Biotic framework ..................................................................................................................... 18

1.5 Water resources ....................................................................................................................... 23

1.6 Environmental flows ............................................................................................................. 30

1.7 Water demands ........................................................................................................................ 31

1.8 Extreme events: floods and droughts ........................................................................ 32

1.9 Monitoring networks ............................................................................................................ 34

2 CHARACTERISATION OF JÚCAR PILOT RIVER BASIN ........................................................ 41

2.1 Characterisation of surface water bodies................................................................ 41

2.1.1 Surface water body types .......................................................................................... 41

2.1.1.1 Rivers............................................................................................................. 41

2.1.1.2 Lakes ............................................................................................................. 48

2.1.1.3 Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 51

2.1.1.4 Coastal waters ........................................................................................... 55

2.1.1.5 Transitional waters ................................................................................... 57

2.1.1.6 Artificial and heavily modified water bodies .................................. 58

2.1.1.7 Surface water bodies .............................................................................. 62

2.1.2 Establishment of type-specific reference conditionsfor surface water bodies ............................................................................................ 63

2.1.2.1 Rivers............................................................................................................. 63

2.1.2.2 Lakes ............................................................................................................. 72

2.1.2.3 Coastal and transitional waters ........................................................... 73

2.2 Characterisation of groundwater .................................................................................. 74

2.2.1 Initial characterisation ................................................................................................. 74

2.2.2 Further characterisation .............................................................................................. 81

3 REGISTER OF PROTECTED AREAS................................................................................................. 87

3.1 Areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for humanconsumption .............................................................................................................................. 87

3.2 Areas for the protection of economically significant aquatic species .. 88

3.3 Areas for recreational waters.......................................................................................... 88

3.4 Nutrient sensitive areas ...................................................................................................... 89

3.5 Areas for protection of habitat or species .............................................................. 92

4 IMPACT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ON THE STATUS OF WATERS ...................................... 95

4.1 Identification of significant pressures ....................................................................... 95

4.1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 95

4.1.2 Driving forces and main significant type of pressures .................................. 95

4.1.3 Effects of water abstractions on flow regimes.................................................. 100

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página V

VI

Contents

4.1.4 Flow regulation .............................................................................................................. 102

4.1.5 Morphological alterations of water bodies......................................................... 106

4.1.6 Pollution pressures from diffuse and point sources ....................................... 110

4.1.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 110

4.1.6.2 Pollution from point sources ............................................................... 111

4.1.6.3 Diffuse pollution ....................................................................................... 115

4.1.6.4 Pressure indicator from point source and diffuse pollution .... 119

4.2 Impact on surface water bodies .................................................................................... 120

4.2.1 Assessment of impact ................................................................................................. 120

4.2.2 Water bodies at risk of not achieving a good status ..................................... 128

4.2.3 Detailed analysis for water bodies at risk ofnot achieving a good status..................................................................................... 132

4.3 Impact on groundwater....................................................................................................... 134

4.3.1 Assessment of impact ................................................................................................. 134

4.3.1.1 Quantitative analysis................................................................................ 134

4.3.1.2 Chemical impact....................................................................................... 144

4.3.2 Water bodies at risk of not achieving good status ......................................... 149

4.4 Pressures and impacts for coastal and transitional waters......................... 149

5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USE ..................................................................................... 153

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 153

5.2 Spanish institutional map of water services ......................................................... 153

5.3 Cost recovery analysis for surface waters ............................................................... 154

5.3.1 Services of abstractions and conveyance of surface waters ...................... 154

5.3.2 Water distribution, wastewater collection and treatment servicesto urban users ................................................................................................................ 158

5.3.3 Water distribution services for irrigation farmers ............................................. 161

5.3.4 Detailed cost recovery studies ................................................................................. 162

5.4 Financial cost for groundwater use............................................................................. 166

5.5 Tools for estimating environmental and resource costs................................ 168

5.5.1 Environmental costs ..................................................................................................... 168

5.5.2 Resource costs ............................................................................................................... 169

5.6 Economic characterisation of water use and trend analysis....................... 171

5.6.1 General analysis ............................................................................................................ 172

5.6.2 Sector analysis................................................................................................................ 173

5.6.2.1 Agriculture ................................................................................................... 173

5.6.2.2 Urban areas ................................................................................................ 175

5.6.2.3 Tourism ........................................................................................................ 179

5.6.2.4 Industry......................................................................................................... 183

5.6.2.5 Energy sector ............................................................................................. 186

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................... 187

DICTIONARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................... 189

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página VI

VII

List of figures

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Territorial area of the Júcar RBD....................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Digital Elevation Model (DEM).......................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3. River Basins ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4. Júcar River at Alzira................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 5. Cenia River at Font de Sant Pere (Castellón).............................................................................. 10

Figure 6. Land use map.......................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Orange tree fields ................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 8. Lithological map ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 9. Geomorphological types around the Benidorm coast ............................................................. 14

Figure 10. Harbour of the city of Alicante and nearby coastline ............................................................ 14

Figure 11. Mean annual temperature map (ºC) ........................................................................................... 15

Figure 12. Annual precipitation in the Júcar RBD (mm/year) ................................................................. 15

Figure 13. Mean annual precipitation in the Júcar RBD (mm/year)..................................................... 16

Figure 14. Water cycle in natural regime (hm3/year) ................................................................................. 16

Figure 15. Flood in the Júcar River ..................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 16. UNESCO humidity index ................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 17. Riparian forest in the middle course of the Júcar River (Alcalá del Júcar). .................. 19

Figure 18. Riparian vegetation in an ephemeral water course (Rambla de Bolbaite). .................. 19

Figure 19. Aquatic vegetation in the final reach of Júcar River ............................................................... 19

Figure 20. Samaruc (Valencia hispanica)........................................................................................................ 20

Figure 21. Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis). ................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 22. Autochthonous crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes). ......................................................... 20

Figure 23. Posidonia oceanica ............................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 24. Annual runoff in the Júcar RBD (hm3/year) ............................................................................. 22

Figure 25. Mean annual runoff (mm/year) .................................................................................................... 22

Figure 26. Acequia Real del Júcar irrigation channel ................................................................................. 23

Figure 27. Main channels in the Júcar RBD.................................................................................................... 23

Figure 28. Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer........................................................................................................... 24

Figure 29. Reservoirs in the Júcar RBD............................................................................................................. 25

Figure 30. Alarcón reservoir ................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 31. Tous reservoir ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 32. Well in operation .................................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 33. Wastewater treatment plant............................................................................................................. 27

Figure 34. Wastewater direct reuse (hm3/year)............................................................................................ 28

Figure 35. Canal de Alicante desalination plant ............................................................................................ 29

Figure 36. Water demands in the Júcar RBD ................................................................................................. 31

Figure 37. Flood mapping in Júcar River as a result of GISPLANA model(Estrela and Quintas, 1996) ................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 38. SPI values for annual precipitations in the Júcar RBD........................................................... 33

Figure 39. Annual deviations for the years corresponding to the 1991-1995 drought................ 33

Figure 40. Surface water monitoring network ................................................................................................ 34

Figure 41. SAIH river flow monitoring network .............................................................................................. 35

Figure 42. Current piezometric monitoring network .................................................................................... 36

Figure 43. Programmed piezometric monitoring network......................................................................... 37

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página VII

VIII

List of figures

Figure 44. Integral Water Quality (ICA) monitoring network .................................................................... 38

Figure 45. Biological quality monitoring network .......................................................................................... 39

Figure 46. Groundwater quality monitoring network ................................................................................... 40

Figure 47. Ephemeral water course Rambla de la Castellana ................................................................. 41

Figure 48. Categories of rivers according to the irregularity of flows .................................................... 42

Figure 49. Preliminary surface water bodies: significant rivers ................................................................ 43

Figure 50. Altitude and size typologies according System A classification.......................................... 43

Figure 51. Ecotypes for rivers according to System A classification....................................................... 44

Figure 52. Geological classes ................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 53. Preliminary ecotypes by CEDEX ..................................................................................................... 47

Figure 54. Hierarchical cluster analysis carried out with the 12 selected variables. ....................... 48

Figure 55. Preliminary ecotypes by Júcar RBA ............................................................................................... 49

Figure 56. Perimeter of the water surface in the Pego-Oliva marsh..................................................... 50

Figure 57. Preliminary surface water bodies: Lakes (heavily modified)............................................... 50

Figure 58. Channels connecting L’Albufera Lake to the sea .................................................................... 51

Figure 59. Examples of marshes in the Júcar RBD...................................................................................... 53

Figure 60. The Metropolitan Area of Valencia and the Natural Park of L’ Albufera ........................ 54

Figure 61. L’ Albufera Lake .................................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 62. Preliminary coastal waters ................................................................................................................ 55

Figure 63. Preliminary surface water bodies: Heavily modified coastal lakes.................................... 56

Figure 64. Estany de Cullera (coastal lake)..................................................................................................... 57

Figure 65. Preliminary HMWBs............................................................................................................................. 59

Figure 66. Reservoirs included in the category “Heavily modified rivers” ........................................... 60

Figure 67. Cortes de Pallas-La Muela Reservoir ............................................................................................ 61

Figure 68. Preliminary surface water categories ............................................................................................ 62

Figure 69. Preliminary surface water bodies................................................................................................... 63

Figure 70. Natural and artificial areas (left side) and percentage of naturalness inwater bodies (right side) .......................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 71. Water bodies affected by abstractions and discharges ......................................................... 65

Figure 72. Water bodies affected by regulation dams................................................................................ 66

Figure 73. Pristine and non-pristine water bodies........................................................................................ 67

Figure 74. Slightly altered water bodies and biological monitoring network...................................... 68

Figure 75. Values of high status limit for IBMWP superimposed on ecotypes ................................. 70

Figure 76. ZEPIM sites for establishing reference conditions for coastal waters at Júcar RBD... 74

Figure 77. Hydrogeological Units (HGUs)........................................................................................................ 75

Figure 78. Preliminary delineation of aquifers within each HGU............................................................ 80

Figure 79. Springs...................................................................................................................................................... 81

Figure 80. Remote sensing image of the Mancha Oriental aquifer and identification ofclassified crops.............................................................................................................................................. 82

Figure 81. Annual irrigated surface and agricultural abstractions at Mancha Oriental aquifer..... 82

Figure 82. Monthly abstractions per well at the Mancha Oriental aquifer .......................................... 83

Figure 83. Aquifer water levels in the Mancha Oriental aquifer.............................................................. 83

Figure 84. Implementation of a three-dimensional groundwater model of theMancha Oriental aquifer ........................................................................................................................... 84

Figure 85. Effect of pumping on the Júcar River flow discharges. ......................................................... 84

Figure 86. Almenara Wetland. Aerial Image on the left, land cover on the right............................. 85

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página VIII

IX

List of figures

Figure 87. Preliminary map with location of points for abstractions(greater than 1 000 m3/day) intended for human water consumption .............................. 88

Figure 88. Surface inland water bodies under quality standards for bathing (EU legislation).... 89

Figure 89. Vulnerable areas subject to nitrate pollution............................................................................. 90

Figure 90. Sensitive areas as referred to in the provisions of Directive 1991/271/EEC ............. 91

Figure 91. Proposed areas for the Natura Network 2000 ........................................................................ 92

Figure 92. Surface water monitoring networks and Natura 2000 sites ............................................... 93

Figure 93. Cyprinid reaches reported to EC.................................................................................................... 94

Figure 94. Total population (permanent plus equivalent from tourism) in the Júcar RBD ......... 95

Figure 95. Unit water demand by municipality (litres/inhabitant/day) ................................................ 96

Figure 96. Sprinkler irrigation................................................................................................................................. 96

Figure 97. Drip irrigation ......................................................................................................................................... 97

Figure 98. Irrigated surface in the Júcar RBD ................................................................................................. 97

Figure 99. Distribution of irrigated crops within the Júcar RBD (year 2002). ................................... 97

Figure 100. Water demands at ADUs (m3/ha/year). .................................................................................. 98

Figure 101. Hydropower stations ........................................................................................................................ 99

Figure 102. Hydropower production in the Júcar RBD............................................................................... 99

Figure 103. Water demands in the Júcar RBD .............................................................................................. 100

Figure 104. GIS model of water abstraction for urban/industrial supply ............................................ 101

Figure 105. GIS model of irrigated areas ......................................................................................................... 101

Figure 106. GIS model of surface water abstraction for agricultural use ............................................ 102

Figure 107. Precipitation versus agricultural demand patterns................................................................ 102

Figure 108. Ratio between water storage capacity and mean annual runoff.................................... 103

Figure 109. Monthly inflows and outflows to/from Alarcón Dam in the Júcar River ..................... 104

Figure 110. Monthly inflows and outflows to/from Ulldecona Dam in the Cenia River............... 104

Figure 111. Small weir for irrigation ................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 112. Traditional weir (azud de Sueca) in the Júcar River ........................................................... 106

Figure 113. Small weirs........................................................................................................................................... 107

Figure 114. Number of weirs classified by height........................................................................................ 107

Figure 115. Channelled river reaches................................................................................................................ 108

Figure 116. Validation of channelling data taken in the fieldwork......................................................... 108

Figure 117. Turia River canalisation in the city of Valencia....................................................................... 109

Figure 118. Canalisation at the Turia river mouth ........................................................................................ 109

Figure 119. Proposed steps for carrying out the IMPRESS qualitative analysis ................................ 110

Figure 120. Urban discharges locations with (blue colour) and without (red colour)large wastewater treatment plants........................................................................................................ 111

Figure 121. Industrial discharges (left side) and IPPC discharges (right side).................................. 112

Figure 122. Industrial discharges locations in the metropolitan area of Valencia ............................ 112

Figure 123. Fish farm facilities and accumulated pollution on surface water bodies .................... 113

Figure 124. Accumulated urban discharge on water surface bodies.................................................... 114

Figure 125. Accumulated industrial discharge pollution volume on watersurface bodies (hm3/year) ...................................................................................................................... 114

Figure 126. Irrigated and non irrigated agricultural land ............................................................................ 115

Figure 127. Simplified nitrogen cycle in agricultural soils .......................................................................... 116

Figure 128. Nitrogen excess in the Júcar RBD municipalities (kg of N per ha)............................... 117

Figure 129. Pressure in rivers from nitrogen diffuse pollution from agrarian sources ................... 118

Figure 130. Irrigation return flows from agricultural activity ...................................................................... 119

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página IX

X

List of figures

Figure 131. Global pressure indicator on surface water bodies ............................................................. 120

Figure 132. Monitoring stations showing sure impact. Water intended for humanconsumption (left) and support fish life standards (right) ......................................................... 121

Figure 133. Monitoring stations showing sure impact locations. Substances enclosedin list I (left) and list II (right) ................................................................................................................. 122

Figure 134. Chemical indices. Dissolved oxygen index for supporting cyprinid fishlife (left) and the chlorine index (right).............................................................................................. 122

Figure 135. Oxygen dissolved in “Los Frailes” control station in the Júcar River. ............................ 123

Figure 136. Chemical indices. Phosphorous index (on the left) and eutrophication index(on the right)................................................................................................................................................. 123

Figure 137. Biological indices ............................................................................................................................... 124

Figure 138. Biological IBMWP index in “Los Frailes” control station at the Júcar River ................. 124

Figure 139. IBMWP index (left) and combination of 4 biological indices (right) ............................ 125

Figure 140. Combination of indicators defined in the WFD..................................................................... 125

Figure 141. Biological (left) and chemical (right) impacts........................................................................ 126

Figure 142. Methodology to establish the ecological status .................................................................... 127

Figure 143. Basic principles for classification of ecological status based onEcological Quality Ratios ........................................................................................................................... 127

Figure 144. Pressures (reaches) and impacts (points) using IBMWP.................................................. 128

Figure 145. Combination of pressures and impact to obtain a preliminary risk ofnot achieving good status ........................................................................................................................ 129

Figure 146. Preliminary surface water bodies at risk of not reaching good status.......................... 130

Figure 147. Preliminary surface water bodies at risk considering vulnerable and sensitiveareas as zones with sure impact........................................................................................................... 131

Figure 148. Preliminary surface water bodies at risk and Natura 2000 sites ................................... 132

Figure 149. Scheme of the final reach of the Júcar River......................................................................... 133

Figure 150. Circulation flows in the final reach of the Júcar River (Tous-Antella Weir) ................ 133

Figure 151. Circulation flows in the final reach of the Júcar River(Huerto Mulet-Cullera Weir).................................................................................................................... 133

Figure 152. Nitrate concentration (mg/l) in the final reach of the Júcar River................................. 134

Figure 153. Concentration of oxygen dissolved (mg/l) in the final reach of the Júcar River. .... 134

Figure 154. Available groundwater resource (hm3/year) in the HGUs................................................ 137

Figure 155. Abstractions (hm3/year) in the HGUs....................................................................................... 139

Figure 156. Exploitation index for the HGUs .................................................................................................. 142

Figure 157. Preliminary assessment on quantitative status for GW bodies ....................................... 143

Figure 158. Groundwater demands projection up to year 2015........................................................... 143

Figure 159. Water quality parameters in HGUs............................................................................................. 144

Figure 160. Values of the mean water quality parameters in HGUs.................................................... 145

Figure 161. Preliminary assessment of the status of water quality parameters ............................... 146

Figure 162. Preliminary assessment on chemical status ........................................................................... 147

Figure 163. Temporal evolution of chemical parameters at different HGUs..................................... 148

Figure 164. Preliminary assessment on GW bodies at risk of not reaching good status ............. 148

Figure 165. Location of pressures on the Júcar RBD littoral .................................................................... 150

Figure 166. Location of eroded reaches on the Júcar RBD littoral........................................................ 151

Figure 167. Hydraulic infrastructure facilities for water supply ................................................................ 155

Figure 168. Evolution of the structure of total costs of water services provided bythe Júcar RBA, in euros............................................................................................................................. 155

Figure 169. Comparative analysis of several amortisation models in the Júcar RBD (€) ........... 156

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página X

XI

List of figures

Figure 170. Evolution of the different proportions of costs attributed to each servicein the Júcar RBD .......................................................................................................................................... 157

Figure 171. Invoices by type of users in the Júcar RBD (€) ................................................................... 158

Figure 172. Evolution of water services cost allocation in the Júcar RBD .......................................... 158

Figure 173. Cost recovery (€/m3) of water services in the Júcar RBD............................................... 161

Figure 174. Investment in urban water services in the Júcar RBD. 1992-2002 ............................. 161

Figure 175. Cost recovery in a sample of Irrigation Associations........................................................... 162

Figure 176. Benageber-Loriguilla hydraulic system and associated water users.............................. 163

Figure 177. Cost recovery for the city of Valencia(urban user of the Benageber-Loriguilla system) ........................................................................... 165

Figure 178. Cost recovery for the Campo del Turia channel(agricultural use of the Benageber-Loriguilla system)................................................................... 165

Figure 179. Cost recovery for users of city of Valencia (urban use) and Campo del Turia(agricultural use) at Benageber-Loriguilla system........................................................................... 166

Figure 180. Cost of a cubic meter for water services from groundwater in HGUs......................... 167

Figure 181. Cost of a cubic meter for water services (agricultural and urban)from groundwater in HGUs ..................................................................................................................... 168

Figure 182. Scheme of hydro-economic models for the Júcar River ................................................... 169

Figure 183. Annual disaggregated demand economic functions ........................................................... 169

Figure 184. Approximation to the pumping cost variable of groundwater in theMancha Oriental aquifer. .......................................................................................................................... 170

Figure 185. Time evolution of MOCR upstream (blue) and downstream (red)the main reservoirs. .................................................................................................................................... 170

Figure 186. Updated GVA according to the productive activities in the seven provincesrelated to the Júcar RBD........................................................................................................................... 172

Figure 187. Employment according to the productive activities in the seven provincesrelated to the Júcar RBD........................................................................................................................... 172

Figure 188. Productivity (updated GVA/employment) according to the productiveactivities in the seven provinces that lie within the Júcar RBD ................................................. 173

Figure 189. Economic characterisation (€/m3) of agriculture demand in specific areas asa function of volume (m3/ha/year) ..................................................................................................... 173

Figure 190. Foreign residents in the Valencian Autonomous Community ......................................... 177

Figure 191. Dwellings built in the Júcar RBD (1993-2002).................................................................... 178

Figure 192. Economical curve for urban users .............................................................................................. 178

Figure 193. Employment in the tourism sector in the Júcar RBD ......................................................... 179

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página XI

XIII

List of tables

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Land Cover in the Júcar RBD .............................................................................................................. 12

Table 2. Júcar RBD Lithology................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 3. Classification and length of coastal types within the Júcar RBD ........................................... 14

Table 4. Treated and direct reused volume of water (year 2002) in Júcar RBD............................ 28

Table 5. Desalination plants .................................................................................................................................. 29

Table 6. Minimum environmental flows set out downstream reservoirs by the JHP..................... 30

Table 7. Watercourses surveillance length (km) for water standards within Júcar RBD (2001) .... 31

Table 8. Typologies according to System A of river classification........................................................... 42

Table 9. The 15 ecotypes in the preliminary typology developed by CEDEX................................... 46

Table 10. Preliminary ecotypes for Júcar RBD............................................................................................... 48

Table 11. Preliminary surface water bodies: Heavily modified lakes .................................................... 51

Table 12. List of Wetlands included in the JHP (CHJ,1998)................................................................... 52

Table 13. Ramsar Wetlands within the Júcar RBD....................................................................................... 53

Table 14. Preliminary surface water bodies: Heavily modified coastal lakes..................................... 56

Table 15. Definition of ecotypes at coastal waters with the System A................................................ 57

Table 16. Definition of ecotypes at transitional waters with the System A ........................................ 58

Table 17. Characteristics of naturalness of the ecotypes defined by the Júcar RBD ..................... 69

Table 18. Values of Macroinvertebrate (IBMWP) index for each ecotype.......................................... 69

Table 19. Values of IBMWP thresholds proposed for each ecotype..................................................... 70

Table 20. Values of DI for each ecotype ......................................................................................................... 71

Table 21. Values of MI for each ecotype......................................................................................................... 71

Table 22. Values of EI for each ecotype .......................................................................................................... 72

Table 23. Main physical data of HGUs within the Júcar RBD.................................................................. 76

Table 24. Main pressures data of HGUs within the Júcar RBD .............................................................. 78

Table 25. Summary of data of HGUs within the Júcar RBD.................................................................... 79

Table 26. Bathing water areas selected in the District regulated by Directive 76/160/CEE ...... 88

Table 27. Bathing water according JHP (CHJ, 1998) ................................................................................. 89

Table 28. Values of kg N/ha by crop type and irrigation system recommended bythe Valencian Autonomous Government........................................................................................... 90

Table 29. Definition of the different levels of hydromorphological alteration causedby regulation works (Montana’s method) ......................................................................................... 105

Table 30. Definition of the different degrees of hydromorphological alteration of dams(Montana’s method) .................................................................................................................................. 105

Table 31. Main point sources pollution ............................................................................................................ 111

Table 32. Nitrogen inputs and outputs for year 2002 within the Júcar PRB .................................... 116

Table 33. Criterion for risk assessment on surface water bodies........................................................... 129

Table 34. Available groundwater resource (hm3/year) in the HGUs of the Júcar RBD................ 135

Table 35. Abstractions (hm3/year) in the HGUs of the Júcar RBD....................................................... 138

Table 36. Exploitation index in the HGUs of the Júcar RBD .................................................................... 140

Table 37. Definition of exploitation levels........................................................................................................ 141

Table 38. Type of pressures being considered for coastal waters......................................................... 149

Table 39. Relationship between coastline regression and erosion........................................................ 150

Table 40. Number of eroded reaches and degree of erosion on the Júcar RBD littoral.............. 151

Table 41. Institutional map of water services, responsibilities and applied tariffs. .......................... 154

Table 42. Cost of flood prevention..................................................................................................................... 157

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página XIII

XIV

List of tables

Table 43. Equivalent coefficients to obtain a theoretical volume in charges calculationin the Júcar RBD .......................................................................................................................................... 158

Table 44. Cost of water purification and distribution services - 2002 (80% of the population) ... 159

Table 45. Wastewater treatment costs in the Júcar RBD 2002(% of the total treated wastewater) .................................................................................................... 160

Table 46. Total income (€) of the Júcar RBA from user charges to irrigation farmers(current costs) .............................................................................................................................................. 162

Table 47. Main characteristics of Benageber and Loriguilla reservoirs ................................................. 164

Table 48. Irrigated area (ha) and average net margins (euros/m3)for different crops in the Júcar RBD..................................................................................................... 174

Table 49. Economic Indicators: Relative Growth of Agriculture, Cattle,Forestry and Fishery (1995-2003) ...................................................................................................... 174

Table 50. Scenarios of Total Gross pressures of Agriculture in 2015 in the Júcar RBD............... 175

Table 51. Animal stock by type in the Júcar RBD and evolution ........................................................... 175

Table 52. Scenarios of Total Gross pressures of Cattle in the Júcar RBD .......................................... 176

Table 53. Average municipal consumption by province in the Júcar RBD......................................... 176

Table 54. Inter annual growth rate of dwellings built in the Júcar RBD (1991-2001)................. 177

Table 55. Average system efficiencies in the Júcar RBD ........................................................................... 179

Table 56. Tourist accommodation in the Júcar RBD (year 2002) ........................................................ 180

Table 57. Number of visitors, day stays and average stay in Hotels in the Valencian Region(year 2003)................................................................................................................................................... 180

Table 58. Seasonality index in the Valencian region ................................................................................... 180

Table 59. Other tourist accommodation and associated services in the Júcar RBD for 2002 .. 181

Table 60. Water use in hotels in Benidorm (2001-2003)....................................................................... 181

Table 61. Water use in other accommodation in the Júcar RBD (l/space/day) ............................. 182

Table 62. Water use in tourist apartments in Benidorm (2001-2003) .............................................. 182

Table 63. Trend scenario of gross pressures from tourism in 2015 in the Júcar RBD................. 183

Table 64. General characteristics of the industry in the Júcar RBD (constant euros of 2002) . 183

Table 65. Economic significance of industrial activity by production sectors in the Júcar RBD . 184

Table 66. Estimated indicators of economic water use in the Júcar RBD.......................................... 184

Table 67. Scenarios of total pressures of industry in 2015 in the Júcar RBD.................................. 185

000-INDICES EPTISA 1/10/04 11:48 Página XIV

1

Foreword

FOREWORD

The Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Par-liament and of the European Council of 23 Octo-ber 2000 establishes a framework for Communi-ty action in the field of water policy. It is the so-called Water Framework Directive 2000/60/ECor WFD, and it introduces a new perspectivefrom a modern water policy view to all MemberStates (MS) of the European Union (EU).

Key concepts of this comprehensive legislativepiece are: good water status, quality objectivesfor surface and groundwater, water protectionmeasures, sustainable use, maintenance ofaquatic ecosystems, free-pollutant aquatic envi-ronment, cost-recovery-based use, water man-agement plans and public participation.

The text of the WFD is not an easy one, andmuch less is the exercise of its implementation,which raises broad challenges and requirementsto MS, in addition to a highly demanding sched-ule.

Shared interpretation by all countries is the willof the Union, and common issues as diversity ofpossible solutions to scientific, technical andpractical questions require further elaborationand resolution to make the transition from princi-ples and general definitions to a practical imple-mentation successful.

For this reason, in May 2001 all MS and Norway,by means of the EU Water Directors, agreed todevelop a Common Implementation Strategy(CIS) to provide a common understanding andawareness of the Directive. The key tool of theCIS is the development of Guidance Documents(GD) on different subjects of the Directive andtheir subsequent integrated testing in a Pilot Riv-er Basins (PRB) network, which was set up forthis purpose. In addition, the CIS has other func-tions such as setting up working groups of ex-perts from MS and candidate members, as wellas from stakeholders and non-governmental or-ganisations (NGOs) on different subjects. Thesegroups have, among other tasks, to develop theGDs, exchange information and develop a Euro-pean information management system calledCIRCA. More information on the CIS can befound on the European Commission’s web site:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/wa-ter/water-framework/implementation.html

The PRB network has as its main objective test-ing the GDs, and assuring their coherence andcrossed application.

Various international and national PRBs havebeen selected for this purpose. The internation-al basins are the River Basin of Scheldt in Bel-gium, France and Netherlands, the Moselle-Sarre, in Germany, France and Luxembourg,the Somos in Rumania and Hungary, and thebasin of Neisee in the Czech Republic, Ger-many and Poland. In Portugal, the Portuguesedrainage area of the Guadiana River Basin wasselected. Finally, the basins that are locatedwithin just one MS are the basins of Odense inDenmark, Oulujoki in Finland, Suldalvassdragetin Norway, Ribble in the UK, Marne in France,Shannon in Ireland, Pinios in Greece, Júcar inSpain and the basins of Cecina and Tevere inItaly.

Spain assumed the highest level of involvementin this working group, by proposing to verify andto evaluate, in the territorial area of the Júcar RiverBasin District (RBD), all GDs that are being devel-oped, and by working on the development of aplatform of a Common Geographic InformationSystem.

All Guidance Documents are going to be appliedand evaluated, including: 1) pressures and im-pacts, 2) designation of heavily modified waterbodies, 3) classification of continental waters sta-tus and identification of reference conditions, 4)types and systems of classification of transitionalcoastal waters, 5) intercalibration network and in-tercalibration exercise, 6) economic analysis, 7)monitoring, 8) tools for evaluating and classifyinggroundwater, 9) best planning practices for theRiver Basin and 10) development of a CommonGeographic Information System.

The development of activities prior to the WFDimplementation is considered a key element forthe observance of the different Directive require-ments and for developing basin hydrologicalplans in accordance with the criteria establishedby this Directive.

The WFD came into force on 22 December2000 and MS had to approve laws, regulationsand administrative provisions necessary to com-ply with this Directive three years after the adop-tion of the WFD, which occurred on 22 Decem-ber 2003.

By December of 2004, Member States shouldhave developed, in each RBD, the following is-sues: analysis and characteristics of the RBD, re-view of the environmental impact of human ac-tivity, economic analysis of water uses and theregister of protected areas.

001-006 FOREWORD 1/10/04 11:49 Página 1

2

Foreword

The legal implementation of the WFD into theSpanish national legislation occurred on Decem-ber 31, 2003 by means of amending the WaterAct 1/2001, of July 20. The Act 62/2003 of fis-cal, administrative and social measures, of De-cember 30 gives fulfilment in its Title V, ChapterV, Article 129, to the requirements of the WFD interms of establishing the River Basin Districts, in-cluding supervision of inland, transitional andcoastal waters. In addition, a new administrativebody called the Committee of Competent Au-thorities is created, where national, regional andlocal administration are devised for fostering theinter administrative cooperation in the applica-tion of the protective water legislation.

Another aspect of the transposition of the Direc-tive is the new regulation that arises for contents,provisions, objectives and procedures for theelaboration of the River District ManagementPlans. This new regulation meets the require-ments of the WFD by fixing the environmentalobjectives for surface and groundwater, protect-ed areas, and artificial and heavily modified wa-ters and by establishing associated deadlines forthose purposes. Finally, public participation pro-cedures have also been incorporated into thenew regulations.

This report aims at putting into perspective thosetasks developed by the Júcar RBD up to date re-garding the implementation of the WFD, andmore concisely, each of them pursuant to article5, which should be developed by all EU RiverBasin Districts by the end of 2004. It is also amain objective of this document to spread theknowledge acquired on this subject by the JúcarPRB during the short, but otherwise intense, peri-od since the year 2002. This report aims atshowing to other river basins the steps and pro-ceedings that have been adopted in order to im-plement the Directive, the tools and techniquesused, where and when the difficulties arose,where efforts should be focused based on thisexperience, and in summary, its purpose is to ex-pose the path followed and the findings ob-tained as a PRB.

Although each river basin has its own identity,similar and comparable basins to the Júcar casewill have in this material a reference point to

start working towards the achievement of article5 analyses; and for those with a different profile,will find here a document with approaches thatwill help to tackle distinctive issues of each RBD.It is the wish of the Júcar RBD that many otherRiver Basins may find in this report assistanceand guidance for their water management.

Moreover, it is also a major objective of this re-port to transmit to the broad public and stake-holders the preliminary outcomes of the applica-tion of article 5, as a mean to ensure the infor-mation supply, since background information,such as the one presented in the document,should be available for anyone at any time.

It is worth mentioning that the results of this re-port were obtained thanks to a multidisciplinaryworking staff, comprised, among others, by engi-neers, biologists, hydro geologists, economistsand computer experts, from the Júcar RBD’s per-sonnel and from external consultants, who havedone their best in order to deal with the diversityof technical and practical questions raised by theWFD. It is clear that the task entailed by the im-plementation of the new water policy is nolonger relying on a single-unique discipline, buton interdisciplinary teams that take into accountinteractions between water issues and their intri-cate technical and social complexity.

The main characterisation and analysis require-ments of article 5 encompass the following activ-ities:

• Delineation and characterisation of surfaceand groundwater bodies;

• Establishment of Reference Conditions forsurface water bodies;

• Identification of Pressures;• Impact of human activity on the status of sur-

face and groundwater bodies, by means of apreliminary assessment of the risk of failingto meet the environmental objectives;

• Conducting an economic analysis of water use.

Section 3 of this report also includes a descrip-tion of the Register of Protected Areas. Althoughthis is actually regulated by article 6, it is includedhere since the deadline for its establishment isalso the end of 2004.

Júcar River Basin Authority, September 2004

001-006 FOREWORD 1/10/04 11:49 Página 2

3

Summary and conclusions

SUMMARY ANDCONCLUSIONS

The Júcar River Basin District (RBD), with an areaof 42 989 km2, has an irregular hydrology verycharacteristic of Mediterranean basins. Droughtsand floods episodes are highly common withinits territory, even during the same year, and thebalance between water supply and demand isvery fragile. Agricultural water demand accountsfor nearly 80% of water demand (2 852hm3/year for almost 400 000 ha of irrigatedcrops in year 2001). In general, agricultural de-mand appears to be stabilised or is decreasing,whereas urban/industrial demand (653 hm3 for4.3 million inhabitants) is forecasted to rise. Thissituation has triggered an increased use of non-conventional resources in recent years such asreuse of wastewater or desalination of seawater.

The Júcar PRB exercise started at the end of2002 and since then, much of the benchmarkinformation on the provisions of article 5 of theWFD concerning the current status of the basin,has been acquired, processed, organised andanalysed.

The first step of the characterisation process wasto identify and delineate surface and groundwa-ter bodies. Intended for the former, several typesof geometric and hydrologic criteria had to bejointly considered given the distinctiveness ofMediterranean basins. To apply these criteria, apowerful nationwide GIS (Geographic Informa-tion System)-tool model was created by theSpanish Ministry of Environment with the collab-oration of a Spanish Research Centre, Centro deEstudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas(CEDEX). This model has been designed as aninstrument that will make possible conductingand updating spatial analyses easily for any givenvariable, if suitable information on the basin isavailable. Although much effort has been con-sumed on the creation of the model, it is consid-ered worthwhile for its potential, since it hasbeen a key tool for developing the “pressureanalysis”.

The process of grouping water bodies (rivers,lakes, transitional and coastal) into distinctivegroups of water bodies has to be done by defin-ing, in a preliminary way, the ecotypes (a groupof water bodies that present similar characteris-tics) present within the District with regard to theWFD system B of Annex II. CEDEX, through a na-tionwide scope, is also developing this process.The Júcar PRB is collaborating on testing and im-

proving those methods being developed to de-fine ecotypes. Some variables of system Badopted for that purpose were chosen after de-veloping semi-hierarchical analyses. By using thissystem, CEDEX has identified 15 ecotypes forthe Júcar case. To improve these results avail-able data in the Júcar RBD have been used and14 ecotypes have been established. The applica-tion of this process to transitional and coastalwaters has not been completed yet.

To establish an initial characterisation for ground-water, the concept of the hydrogeological unit(HGU, group of aquifers set for an efficient watermanagement) is used. According to this concept,the configuration of the Júcar RBD has been di-vided into 52 HGUs adopted from the Júcar Hy-drological Plan (JHP), approved by Royal Decree1664 of 1998 (CHJ, 1998). Nevertheless, thedefinition of HGU is not completely adequate todevelop the further characterisation required bythe WFD, thus the units will be redefined in com-ing months. In order to do this, the Júcar RBD isconducting an investigation to delineate themain aquifers within the HGUs, which will in turnhelp to estimate their water balances, and to es-tablish more accurate relationships with associat-ed water dependant ecosystems of surface wa-ters (rivers, springs, etc).

Concerning coastal and transitional waters, theGeneral Directorate of Coasts, jointly with theCEDEX and the Júcar RBD, is developing the ap-plication of GD 2.4 on Typology, Reference Con-ditions and Classification Systems for Transition-al and Coastal Waters. The coming into force ofthe WFD will positively affect the development ofcoastal water works because of the creation offuture RBD Water Councils, as well as, the Com-mittee of Competent Authorities. These new en-tities will be in charge of unifying all administra-tive divisions, improving the coastal water man-agement.

The next step of the characterisation process isto establish reference conditions for the 14 eco-types defined using available data in the JúcarRBD. For setting these conditions, a spatial basedapproach seems to be the most desirable way toproceed since it is considered a direct, suitableand trust worthy approach. However, the maindrawback for this approach, besides requiringrecords from monitoring networks, lies on findingwater bodies within all the ecotypes with little orno deviation from undisturbed conditions ashappens with pristine waters, which may be diffi-cult. Pressure analysis has been very valuable forlocating these water bodies. The definition of ref-

001-006 FOREWORD 1/10/04 11:49 Página 3

4


erence conditions for ecotypes in which all waterbodies present a disturbed status is an ongoingprocess that will be finally based on expert judg-ment and modelling methods. Analyses ofcoastal and transitional waters are being carriedout in a parallel way.

Heavily modified waters and artificial watersmust receive special treatment. The criteria fordefining these types of water bodies have notbeen completely specified. Although it is clearwhich are the driving forces altering natural wa-ters, it remains unclear how to establish thethresholds for characterising this type of waters.Moreover, there is the feeling that it should notbe a particular or specific decision of each dis-trict, but rather a consensus resolution adoptedin externals forums for providing uniformity,equivalence and consistency among similarbasins. This process would be, in a way, compa-rable to the intercalibration exercise of ecologicalstatus to start by 2006. In this sense, the Gener-al Directorate of Water (GDW) of the Ministry ofEnvironment is presently conducting a nation-wide study concerning hydromorphological alter-ations of watercourses that should provide ho-mogeneous criteria.

Surface water bodies include the following cate-gories: rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal wa-ters, and heavily modified and artificial waterbodies. The number of preliminary surface waterbodies is 268, of which 255 are rivers, 10 areheavily modified lakes, 2 are heavily modifiedcoastal lakes and 1 is an artificial water body.The total length of surface water bodies isaround 5 600 km, of which 5 095 km are rivers,479 km are HMWB and 1 500 km are pristinewater reaches, which represents 27% of all wa-ter bodies. Those reaches are the most adequateto establish reference conditions for the eco-types to which they belong.

Since an important number of water bodieswith slight anthropogenic alteration are left outof the pristine reaches, a second phase for theidentification of water bodies with “no or slightanthropogenic alteration” has been developedtaking into account the pressures analysis. Thisaction allows broadening the range of referenceconditions to almost the total number of eco-types identified in the Júcar RBD, agreeing withthe information obtained through the chemicalwater quality and biological measuring networksexisting in the Júcar RBD. The total length ofthese reaches is about 3 600 km, representing71% of the total length of rivers defined as wa-ter bodies.

The next step of the characterisation practice en-compasses the analysis of pressures and impactsdue to anthropogenic activities. Indispensable in-formation needed to proceed at this point, is theprecise spatial and temporal featuring of wateruses for the different demand units (either agri-cultural, urban or industrial) enclosed within theRBD. Once this data is available, it is then feasi-ble to conduct a pressure analysis that includessignificant water abstraction, regulation worksand others hydromorphological alterations, dif-fuse and point source pollution, as well as landuse and other anthropogenic effects.

The pressures and impact assessment related topoint source and diffuse pollution of surface wa-ter bodies has been carried out following themethodology of the Impact and Pressure Manualconcerning surface water pollution (MIMAM,2003). This Manual was elaborated by the GDW,based on the IMPRESS guidance (made by theCIS working group 2.1 of experts from EU Mem-ber States constituted to identify and characterisepressures and impacts according to the WFD).

Mathematical models, based on GIS techniquesintended for the assessment of runoff depletionalong watercourses due to water abstraction,show that the central and southern part of theMediterranean coastal strip are subject to consid-erable stress. The middle and final stretches ofthe main rivers are suffering high levels of pres-sure compared with other water bodies withinthe RBD.

Flow regulation analysis reveals that major rivers,the Júcar as well as its main tributary the Cabriel,the Turia and the Mijares River, are strongly regu-lated from the upper/middle river stretches tothe mouth. Upper parts of rivers and short water-courses are less affected by regulation structures.Since the scope for heavily modified water bod-ies is not precisely defined, the quantitative as-sessment of this type of pressure is vague in ab-solute terms as well as associated impact.

GIS models indicate that point source pollutiondue to industrial and wastewater discharge areaffecting in greater extent middle and final seg-ments of the main rivers (Júcar, Turia and Mi-jares) that cross the coastal plains, where mostof developed areas are established. Furthermore,diffuse source pollution, due to the use of fertilis-ers, presents similar circumstances, as the vastmajority of the crop irrigation area concentrateson coastal plains. However, the degree of dis-semination of this pollution is much larger thanin the case of point source pollution, since the

001-006 FOREWORD 1/10/04 11:49 Página 4

5


disturbance is spread through every watercourseending at the sea. To sum up the pressure oc-curring throughout the watercourses due to dif-ferent sources of pollution, a global indicator offive categories was created using adequateweights to each type of pollution.

The assessment of impacts is based mostly onthe comparison of the water body status versusthe terms of reference or environmental objec-tives. The use of monitoring surface water net-works (quality and biological) is crucial for classi-fying the type of impact as “sure” or “probable”.As a general criterion, a “sure impact” takes placewhen an effect or status resulting from a pres-sure is in breach of the legislation in force,whereas a “probable” impact occurs when quali-ty standards and environmental objectives de-fined by the WFD, or by expected future environ-ment legislation, are not being met. At this earlystage of the WFD development, necessary inter-pretations of the text and some assumptions areneeded, as well as adopting terms of referenceor specific environmental objectives.

Similarly to the case of pressure analysis, chemicaland biological indices have been formulated andcombined to assess the impact level of waterbodies. The combination approach preserves theWFD principle, which states that the final status isgiven by the worst possible status, either chemicalor biological. However, the work carried out untilnow is incomplete and must be improved byadding the hydromorphological and water abstrac-tion components as soon as their assessment isset by the ongoing nationwide studies. Naturally,pressures and impacts are coupled in a cause-ef-fect relationship, and expected results appearedwhen combining the results of their separateanalyses, being those few locations found withdisparities mostly due to the lack of data.

The final stage for the characterisation process isto evaluate the likelihood of failing to meet theestablished environmental objectives. At thisstage, this goal has been changed to achieve a“good status”, since those objectives are not welldefined and will be defined in the near future.This risk appraisal is represented through a com-bined pressure and impact condition that hasthree associated levels of pressures: high, medi-um and low.

Pressure and impact analysis for groundwaterconsists of a quantitative part and a qualitativepart. The first one includes the application of thenew WFD concept of “available resource”. AnnexV, section 2.3.2, of the WFD has been consid-

ered for developing the qualitative assessment.After the analysis carried out, a significant propor-tion (around 50%) of groundwater bodies withinthe Júcar RBD are at risk of not reaching a “goodstatus”. Nevertheless, these studies basically setthe basis for a further and more complete char-acterisation needed in all those water bodies atrisk of failing to achieve a “good status”, which isbeing carried out nowadays.

Moreover, present piezometric and quality moni-toring networks must be adapted and extendedwithin the District to provide the level of reliabili-ty, density and guarantee required by the WFD.In this sense, the construction of new controlpoints has recently started.

An economic characterisation of water uses isbeing carried out to provide inputs into theanalysis of cost-effectiveness of measures. Forthis study, four main sectors are taken into ac-count: agriculture, industry, energy and publicservice, in which the evolution of variables in thelast years, such as the Gross Value Added (GVA)and the employment, is studied. Both of thesevariables are increasing and have more impor-tance in the industry and public service sectors.In addition, average values of volumes of watersupply and discharges and averages of concen-trations of polluting agents are estimated when-ever they are considered relevant.

From these analyses, the future trends of thefour sectors are studied, based on the extrapola-tion of the evolution of analysed variables, futureplans and different meetings with interested par-ties. In this way, there will be a future vision tofacilitate the analysis of cost-effectiveness ofmeasures.

An economic analysis of cost recovery has beenperformed as a study for a single surface hy-draulic system with its associated users. Thiscase has been selected among others, since it isconsidered highly representative of the wholedistrict, and encompasses two large dams and aconveyance channel as basic infrastructure, inaddition to a large metropolitan area and an as-sociation of irrigation users. The basic purpose ofthis study is to assess the accomplishment of thecost recovery principle for water services.Prospective future scenarios concerning the long-term forecasts of supply and demand have beendeferred and will be developed in forthcominganalyses.

Two levels of the water supply system have to beincluded for this analysis and for the interpretation

001-006 FOREWORD 1/10/04 11:49 Página 5

6


of the results: high and low supply level. Large hy-draulic works, such as dams, channels andpipelines, run by River Basin Authorities (RBA)constitute the high supply level. Municipalities andIrrigation Associations run the low level, which iscomprised of urban and agricultural distributionnetworks and water treatment facilities that supplywater to the final user: households and farmers.

The methodology used for this economic studyis based, for the most part, on carrying out anappraisal between cost and fees charged to thedifferent types of users for every service meas-ured by unit of volume. To make this calculation,much of the effort has been focused on gather-ing and processing information from IrrigationAssociations, local water suppliers and Municipal-ities, since the low level of supply is not a juris-diction of the Júcar RBD.

Cost recovery of water services of abstraction,storage, regulation and conveyance of water bymeans of large dams, channels and pipelinesprovided by the Júcar RBA was 57.8% in 2001;12.5% of costs not charged are attributable towarranty for future users; and 29.7% of total

costs are subsidised capital costs (2.493 millioneuros) not charged to users.

On the other hand, one of the outcomes of theanalysis reveals that the total cost of the waterservices is not fully recovered through users’ pay-ments. The rate of recovery in the two examplesstudied, urban and agricultural uses of the Be-nageber-Loriguilla system, is about 90% for theformer and about 45 % for the latter; thoughthese figures must not be generalized to thewhole territory of the RBD, where higher figuresof cost recovery are being obtained. Completestudies for all unit demands defined at JúcarRBD are presently being carried out and somepreliminary results are also presented in this re-port.

Regarding groundwater, the outcome of a studyon financial cost commissioned by the GeneralDirectorate of Hydraulic Public Works and WaterQuality (present General Directorate of Water) isenclosed in this document. This study showshow the Júcar River Basin District’s average costis 0.06 and 0.09 euros/m3 for urban and irriga-tion water supply respectively.

001-006 FOREWORD 1/10/04 11:49 Página 6

1. Júcar Pilot River Basin District

1. JÚCAR PILOT RIVERBASIN DISTRICT

1.1. Administrative framework

The Júcar River Basin District (RBD), located inthe eastern part of Spain (figure 1), is made of agroup of river basins and covers an area of42 989 km2. From the 17 Autonomous Com-munities in the Spanish Territory, the Júcar RBDencompasses part of four of them: Valencia,Castilla-La Mancha, Aragón and Cataluña, just in-cluding a small area from this latter.

The present population within the District isabout 4 360 000 inhabitants (year 2001), whichmeans that about one out of every ten Spaniardslives in the Júcar RBD. In addition to this number,about 1 400 000 equivalent inhabitants have tobe added due to the tourism occurring primarilyin the Valencian Autonomous Community. Never-theless, the Júcar RBD is an area of great contrastsince population density ranges from over20 000 inhabitants per square kilometre in themetropolitan area of the city of Valencia at theMediterranean coast, to less than 2 inhabitantsper square kilometre in the mountainous areas ofthe province of Cuenca at the western part of theDistrict.

Concerning the jurisdictional aspect, since thetransposition of the WFD into the Spanish law onDecember 2003, a Committee of CompetentAuthorities (CCA) is presently running the JúcarRBD. This Committee is comprised, among otherunits, of National Administration, Regional andLocal Offices in charged of the management ofall kinds of waters (inland, transitional andcoastal waters) in addition to competencies un-der the Directive’s scope.

Among the CCA members, the Júcar River BasinAuthority (RBA) stands out because of its legalcompetence over surface inland waters andgroundwater. The nature of this organisation ispublic, it belongs to the chart of the Ministry ofEnvironment, and it is within the national admin-istration but functionally autonomous. This or-ganisation carries out the mission of providingpublic service linked to water resources manage-ment over the entire area covered by the District.The principal activities in which this public institu-tion is engaged in are: managing water re-sources, administrating the hydraulic public do-main, elaborating, monitoring and updating thehydrological plan, and constructing and operatinghydraulic infrastructures.

National legislation applies to the entire JúcarRBD with respect to inland waters, since its sur-face lies in more than one Autonomous Com-

7

Figure 1Territorial area of the Júcar RBD

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 7

1.1. Administrative framework

munity. The Spanish Constitution determinesthat the National Administration will be in chargeof the management of the hydraulic public do-main whenever the river basin lies in more thanone Autonomous Community, which is the caseof the Júcar RBD.

Nevertheless, the administrative division of theDistrict territory into several Autonomous Com-munities causes activities related to water man-agement to be regulated under different regionallegislations, also in agreement with the SpanishConstitution. Therefore, issues related to territoryplanning, agriculture, cattle, forestry resources,fishing and wastewater treatment, are regulatedby regional acts, since these are exclusive com-petency of the different Autonomous Communi-ty Governments. This multi-jurisdictional feature

could be considered as a drawback for water re-sources management within the Júcar RBD.However, so far, all these regulations have notresulted in difficulties that hamper the Districtwater management, on the contrary, they haveallowed the development of legislation particular-ities accordingly to regional identities.

In concern to coastal waters, since the ValencianAutonomous Community is the only Au-tonomous Community with coastline, the multi-jurisdictional aspect does not take place. Similarlyto the former case, the Spanish Constitution dic-tates that the maritime public domain must bemanaged by means of the National Administra-tion and entitles Autonomous Communities withsome degree of management authority on pro-tection zones and water quality aspects.

8

Figure 2 Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

High: 2013 m.

Low: 0 m.

Source: Spanish ArmyGeographic Service

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 8

1.2. Physical framework


The Júcar RBD, due to its peculiar landscape andthe vast area it covers, is characterised by havingdiverse climates and landforms. Major geomor-phic features found are: mountain systems, acontinental plateau and the coastal plain. Theorography of the area favours the discharge ofwaters into the Mediterranean Sea, and thus, theformation of river basins. All the rivers in the Jú-car RBD therefore flow into this sea and themain ones are called Cenia, Mijares, Turia, Júcar,Serpis and Vinalopó.

The mountain range found in the Júcar RBD isknown as the Iberian System, and it extends be-yond the District limits, running from the neigh-bour Ebro and Duero RBDs to the coastal plainof Valencia, following a 120 km rough coursefrom Northwest to Southeast. The highest peakin the Júcar RBD is called Peñarroya, and it isfound in this range with an altitude of 2 024 me-ters over the sea level.

The Iberian System plays an important role onthe water resources cycle in the Júcar RBD. The

range acts as a barrier for sea fronts, forcingclouds carrying moist air to rise to colder upperlayers of the atmosphere. Once the air is liftedand cooled, it causes drop condensation andeventually, precipitation. The mountain range notonly gives birth to the main river of the District:the Júcar (figure 3), which in turn gives name tothe District, but also to the Turia and the MijaresRivers. The three of them provide jointly 80% ofthe average runoff. Most part of the territory ofthe Teruel and the Cuenca provinces are locatedwithin this mountain range.

Over the South and Southwest part of the Dis-trict the last mountains of the Betic range ex-tends, and at that point, they somehow disperse.This range runs from the South of Spain (Gibral-tar) to the Mediterranean Coast point of the Pa-los Cape, following then a South-Northeastcourse. This resultant mountain area also playsan important role in the water supply of thesouthern part of the District, and it is where theSerpis and Vinalopó Rivers rise (figure 3).

The coastal plain is an alluvial platform alongthe coastal strip, and it is over 400 km long and

9

Figure 3River Basins

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 9


40 km broad in its widest section. This plain isdelimited by the Iberian System on the North-west part, the continental plateau on the Westand the Betic Range on the South. The coastalplain provides a highly nutrient rich soil thatsupports the vast majority of the agricultural irri-gated production of the Júcar RBD, and it ischaracterised by the fact that more than 80%of the total population of the District lives on itsshore strip.

Finally, the so-called Mancha area is charac-terised by having a relatively flat surface with anaverage height of 650 m, and it is located in thewestern part between the aforementioned

mountain ranges. This plateau is featured fornestling a large aquifer called the ManchaAquifer that is connected to the Júcar River alongthe plain. The aquifer and the river highly affecteach other in terms of drainage and recharge.The Castilla-La Mancha Autonomous Communityand more precisely, the province of Albacete to-gether with some parts of the Valencian Com-munity lie over the Mancha plateau.

The Júcar River, the main river in the District,takes its name from the ancient Arabic word “Xu-quer”, which means “the destroyer”. It was la-belled with such an adjective due to the numer-ous and devastating flood events the populationsuffered during those times mainly at its finalreach. This river is 512 km long and presents dif-ferent types of stretches along its course accord-ing to the diverse orography it travels by: fromthe Iberian System, through the Mancha plateauand finally to the coastal plain. Figure 4 showsthe river passing through the town of Alzira, inthe middle of the coastal plain and 25 km awayfrom the mouth of the river.

The upper river courses are the stretches featur-ing the highest ecological value. Orography, ge-omorphology, climate, hydrology, vegetation,fauna and scenery make these areas unique.These rivers are usually born in the highestpeaks, close to the limits of the RBD, and act asecological passageways or corridors connectinghigh mountain areas with plains in the middleriver courses. Frequently, these rivers run acrossrugged areas or narrow mountain valleys withhardly any or a very small portion of floodplains,and riverbanks are sometimes just hillsides.These characteristics create incredible defiles.The upper reach of the Cenia River, which fol-lows the administrative border between theCatalonian and Valencian Autonomous Com-munities, is a clear example of a pristine waterbody (see figure 5).

Another important characteristic of the basin isthe considerable vast coastline, with a total of481 km, giving the District a ratio of coastline /surface area of 0.01 km/km2. Moreover, thereare a large number of small inlands, such as theColumbretes or Tabarca, belonging to the Ad-ministrative territory of the Valencian Au-tonomous Community. The Columbretes islands,of volcanic origin and not inhabited, are located30 miles off shore from the Castellón Provinceand include a cluster of small islands and emerg-ing rocks that in total have an extension of 2 500ha. These islands are protected by the environ-mental legislation due to the sea bird diversity

Figure 4 Júcar River at Alzira

Figure 5 Cenia River at Font de Sant Pere (Castellón)

10

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 10


they host. The Island of Tabarca is located 11miles off the shoreline of the city of Alicante andlikewise has a volcanic origin. This island is theonly one populated within the Júcar RBD, whichhas become a tourist resort, and has recentlybeen declared Marine Reserve for its richness insea life diversity.

Land use in the Júcar RBD largely depends onthe types of human activities that are developedin each area and the extent to which the land isfarmed (figure 6). Both factors have given rise toartificial landscapes that are to a greater or lesserextent unlike the natural landscapes that were aresult of climatic, geological and morphologicalfactors specific to each area.

The dominant land use within the District is for-est and semi natural areas, which cover 50% ofthe territory (table 1). This percentage is of greatsignificance and shows that there is natural her-

itage that still covers large areas in the JúcarRBD. This use is followed by agricultural non-irri-gated areas, covering 40% of the territory andby agricultural irrigated areas with an 8 %, be-ing predominant uses in the coastal areas and inthe Mancha area. Figure 7 shows typical Mediter-ranean scenery made of orange tree fields, andexample of an agricultural irrigated area. Urbanand industrial zones cover 1.8% of the territoryand finally, a very small area, which does noteven account for 0.6% of the area, is covered bywetlands and water surfaces.

Table 1 summarises land uses according to theCorine Land Cover 1990, a digital map devel-oped by the European Environmental Agency(EEA) based on satellite data. For future works,Corine Land Cover 2000 (not yet available) willbe used. The comparison of both maps will al-low studying the evolution of land uses in thatpast decade of intense changes.

11

Land use map Figure 6

Artificial surfaceAgriculturalirrigated areasAgricultural non-irrigated areasForests andseminatural areasWetlandsWater surfaces

Source: EEA, CorineLand Cover 1990

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 11

12

Another important aspect of the physical frame-work of the Júcar RBD is the lithology existing inthe area. Different lithographic groups can beidentified in the District’s map as it is shown inFigure 8 and table 2. Calcarenites and marls arethe predominant groups, although significantproportions of limestone and alluvial material arefound, this latter mainly in areas close to themouth of major rivers (Mijares, Júcar and Turia).

The 481 km of shoreline belonging to Júcar RBDare featured by several geomorphological ele-ments as beaches, strings of dunes, cliffs androck bottoms, with very different profiles andwhich support a high number of rich ecosystemsspread all along the coast. It has to be noted thatterrestrial systems by means of sedimentary ma-terials, such as sand, clay and pebbles, feed themarine environment located close to the shore.This material is mainly conveyed by the flow ofrivers and coastal lakes and once it reaches theshore, sea currents rapidly disseminate it. In thissense, the predominant marine current on thecoast goes from North to South, being the EbroRiver (out of Júcar RBD limits) the principalsource of sedimentary materials.

The basic distinctiveness of the Júcar RBD coast isthe coexistence of two types of primary ecosys-tem, which are characterised by the nature of thesubstratum: sandy coast with soft bottom, andcliffs with rock bottom (table 3). On the otherhand, because of the unstable shoreline due tocoastal erosion, some parts of the shore havebeen protected with man-made structures. Thisdefended coastal structural frontage accounts ap-proximately for 65 km, and two major types ofdefences (rock armour and offshore breakwater)prevent from erosion and encroachment of sedi-ments.

An example of characterisation of the coastal ge-omorphologic types is shown in figure 9. Focus-ing on the stretch around the city of Benidorm, itis possible to notice ports (in black), differenttypes of beaches (yellow, orange), chain ofdunes (fuchsia), and cliffs (dark blue).

The harbour of the city of Alicante and the near-by coastline is an example of heavily modifiedcoastal area that is shown in figure 10.

Land use Area (ha) %

Artificial surface 76 723 1.8%

Agricultural areas 2 049 939 47.7%

Irrigated areas 357 455

Non-irrigated areas 1 692 484

Forest and seminatural areas 2 144 314 49.9%

Water surfaces and wetlands 28 784 0.6%


Table 1 Land Cover in the Júcar RBD

Figure 7 Orange tree fields

Source: EEA, Corine Land Cover 1990

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 12

13


Figure 8Lithological map

CalcareniteLimestoneMarlGypsum claysAlluvial materialSlate

Table 2Júcar RBD Lithology

Lithological classes Area (km2) Percentage

Alluvial material 4 648 11%

Limestone 9 106 21%

Marl 11 710 27%

Gypsum clays 561 1%

Calcarenite 15 906 37%

Slate 835 2%

Source: EUROSTAT

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 13


Source: Regional Government: Valencian Autonomous Community

Figure 9

Source: RegionalGovernments

Emergent flat rockAluvial depositPortPebbles beachSand beachBeach with fossildunesEmergent abruptrockCliffFloodplain anddejection coneChain of dunes

Geomorphological types around the Benidorm coast

Table 3 Classification and length of coastal types within the Júcar RBD

Type of Coast Length (km)

Natural Coast Sedimentary Sand beaches 146

Sand-pebbles beaches 36

Pebbles beaches 31

Erosive High cliffs 33

Medium cliffs 32

Low cliffs 82

Very low cliffs 9

Defended Coast by rock armour 26

by offshore breakwater 35

by filling of materials 4

Heavily modified coast Harbours 47

Total length 481

Source: RegionalGovernment: ValencianAutonomousCommunity

Figure 10Harbour of the city of Alicante and nearbycoastline

14

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 14

Foreword

1.3. Climatic conditions

The Júcar RBD is located between latitudes 38ºand 40º north and enjoys a Mediterranean cli-mate with hot-dry summers and mild winters. Thisis the result of a high-pressure mass covering theIberian Peninsula coming from the Azores Islandsin the Atlantic Ocean, which provides placid

weather for most of the year but little precipitationas a normal basis. As an exception to this generaldescription, there is the so-called cold drop event,which occurs during autumn, most likely duringOctober or November. This phenomenon occurswhen hot masses of water vapour arise from theMediterranean Sea once summer is over, and arestroked by cold polar currents of air coming from


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Year

mm

/ye

ar

194

0-41

194

2-43

194

4-45

194

6-47

194

8-49

195

0-51

195

2-53

195

4-55

195

6-57

195

8-59

196

0-61

196

2-63

196

4-65

196

6-67

196

8-69

197

0-71

197

2-73

197

4-75

197

6-77

197

8-79

198

0-81

198

2-83

198

4-85

198

6-87

198

8-89

199

0-91

199

2-93

199

4-95

199

6-97

199

8-99

2000

-01

2002

-03

Figure 12Annual precipitation in the Júcar RBD (mm/year)

Figure 11Mean annual temperature map (ºC)

9101112131415161718

15

Mean annualprecipitation(1940-41/2002-03)Mean annualprecipitation(1990-91/2002-03)

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 15


Figure 13 Mean annual precipitation in the Júcar RBD (mm/year)

Figure 14 Water cycle in natural regime (hm3/year)

< 300300 - 400400 - 500500 - 600600 - 700700 - 800> 800

16

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 16


Figure 15Flood in the Júcar River

the North. The result is the formation of thickclouds, which provoke sudden and violent precipi-tation that cause devastating floods.

The long periods of sunshine, together with thecontinuous circulation of hot air masses give riseto high temperatures, ranging the mean annualvalues (figure 11) from 9º C in the Northwestmountainous areas, to 18º C in the Southerncoastal part of the basin.

The rainfall in the Júcar RBD shows a high spatialand temporal variability. Mean annual precipita-tion for the whole basin is about 500 mm, rang-ing from 300 mm in the driest years to 800 mmin the most humid ones (see figure 12). Thepersistence of dry years produces significantdrought periods, as the one that has occurred inpast years (marked with a red line).

As mentioned, precipitation in the Júcar RBD pres-ents a strong spatial variability. Mean annual valuesvary from 250 mm/year in the South to about900/year mm in the North of the basin (figure13). This variation occurs because the Júcar RBDis comprised between two climatic regions highlydifferent from each other: the European and theNorth African. These climates provoke differentiat-ed responses in the river basin weather behaviour.

The amount of 500 mm/year corresponds to avolume of 21 220 hm3/year over the wholeland surface of the territory. About 85% of thisprecipitation is consumed through evaporationand transpiration by the soil-vegetation complex.The remaining 15% comprises the annual runoffof 3 251 hm3 /year (figure 14).

Another important aspect concerning rainfall andaffecting the Júcar RBD is the temporal concen-tration of the rainy events. In some coastal areas,the maximum rainfall recorded in only one day isclose to the mean annual rainfall. Furthermore,short and intense storms often occur locally, andthis phenomenon gives rise to extremely highrainfall rates that have a direct effect not only onflooding effects (figure 15), but also in soil ero-sion. Convective rainfall produces maximum val-ues in autumn, when it is common to exceed300 mm in 24 hours.

According to the UNESCO climatic index, thereare three types of climatic regions in the JúcarRBD: semiarid, sub-humid, and humid. These re-gions are defined by means of an index that re-lates precipitation and potential evapotranspira-tion. Figure 16 shows the importance of thesemiarid region that extends throughout most ofthe Southwest area of the RBD.

17

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 17

1.4. Biotic framework


The biological framework of the Júcar RBD ischaracterised by presenting a great number ofecosystems that include different habitats andspecies. Besides the river fluvial network there isa large number of wetland habitats: fluvial envi-ronment and associated coastal areas at themouths of the rivers, such the ones found in theMijares and the Júcar Rivers, coastal wetlandsand associated environment, as L’Albufera of Va-lencia. Springs, such the ones of the Verde River,inland lakes as Laguna de Uña and coastal salineenvironment as the Salinas de Santa Pola arealso found.

Each ecosystem or habitat has characteristic as-sociated vegetation that varies depending on thelithology, geomorphology and climate. The con-trast between the North of Júcar RBD with amore humid climate, and the drier South with avaried lithology, determines a great richness offlora. The riparian forest is, in most riversides, themaximum expression of its biological diversity.Different kinds of trees are distributed in the ri-parian zones in arrays of diverse species or form-

ing groups, according to the hydrology, altitudeand soil type. Riversides with permanent water-courses are formed by willows (Salix fragilis, Sal-ix alba, Fraxinus angustifolia), poplars (Populusalba, Populus nigra, figure 17) and elm groves(Hedero-Ulmetum minoris), while in those oneswith no permanent fluvial regime, the vegetationis dominated by saltcedar (Tamarix gallica,Tamarix canariensis) and oleander (Nerium ole-ander, figure 18).

Currently, the quality of the riverside environ-ment in some river reaches is not in good statusand measures of protection will have to be takento avoid their deterioration. One of the main ob-jectives of the Júcar RBD is restoring those river-side and riverbanks in worse conditions, in orderto recover the natural processes of erosion andsedimentation and the ecological functioning ofthe fluvial system.

The most common macrophytes in the area areenea (Typha domingensis), reeds (Phragmitessp.), rushes (Juncus sp., Scirpus sp.), and waterspikes (Potamogeton sp.). There is also a greatnumber of species of algae (Chlorophyceas,

18

Figure 16 UNESCO humidity index

< 0.02Arid0.02 - 0.49Semiarid0.50 - 0.74Sub-humid≥ 0.75Humid

007-040 CAPITULO 1 5/10/04 11:06 Página 18


Cyanophyceas, Charophyceas, Diatoms), mossesand liverworts, which play an important role asbio indicators of freshwater quality and of transi-tional and coastal waters. Aquatic vegetation inthe final reach of the Júcar is shown in figure 19.

The zoological communities respond, similarly tovegetation communities, to these factors thatshape and alter their habitat: environmental, cli-matic, biological, etc. In the case of aquatic organ-isms, other important factors are the quantity andquality of water. In addition, the geologic historyof the territory has determined the appearance ofa high number of autochthonous species as wellas endemic, since many fluvial basins have re-mained isolated for a long time.

There is a rich and diverse ichthyofauna in theRBD rivers mainly comprising cyprinids of thegenera Barbus, Chondrostoma and Squalius. Inthe case of the salmonids it must be empha-sised the presence of the autochthonous troutspecies Salmo trutta, with populations genetical-ly differentiated from the rest of the Europeanpopulations. Other species with strict and verysensitive environmental requirements are theloaches (Cobitis sp.) and blenidos (Salaria fluvi-atilis). There is a reduced number of migratoryspecies, being the most important the eel (An-guilla anguilla). However, numbers of thisspecies have been greatly reduced in past yearsdue to the degradation and contamination of thelowlands of rivers. It is also remarkable, the pres-ence of two small freshwater toothcarp speciescharacteristic of the littoral freshwater habitats:the Aphanius iberus and the Valencia hispanica(figure 20), both endemic of the Mediterraneancoast and in danger of extinction. It deserves aspecial mention the presence of exotic fishspecies, finding a great diversity in the Júcar RBDso much from the taxonomic point of view as forits origin and antiquity of their introduction. Mostof the species have been introduced for sportfishing and their major impact is the resulting in-crease of competition that takes place with au-tochthonous species.

Júcar RBD plays an important role in preservingEuropean wet areas, since it presents a largenumber that stands out qualitative and quantita-tively. Only in L’Albufera Lake, 250 species ofbirds use regularly this ecosystem, and morethan 90 for reproducing. One of the most inter-esting species is the red duck (Netta rufina) withmore than 10 000 individuals, which makes ofL’Albufera one of the most important places forbird hibernation of Western Europe. The popula-tions of black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus) are

Figure 17Riparian forest in the middle course of

the Júcar River (Alcalá del Júcar)

Figure 18Riparian vegetation in an ephemeral water

course (Rambla de Bolbaite)

Figure 19Aquatic vegetation in the final

reach of Júcar River

19

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 19


also of high importance, reaching 60 000 indi-viduals in some years. In rivers with relevant ri-parian forests, there are mallards (Anasplatyrhyncos), common coots (Fulica atra) orcommon moorhens (Gallinula chloropus). How-ever, the most characteristic species are the king-fisher (Alcedo atthis) (figure 21), the sand mar-tin (Riparia riparia) and the dipper (Cinclus cin-clus).

The otter (Lutra lutra) is the biggest wild carnivo-rous found in Júcar RBD, but it has suffered oneof the greatest decreases in recent decades be-cause of its dependence on fluvial ecosystems,and their degradation (pollution, canalisation andalteration of riverbanks).

Within the group of macroinvertebrates, we findthe most important group of organisms used aswater-quality bio indicators in aquatic ecosys-tems, especially in rivers. There are a great num-ber of different fauna groups: annelids, molluscs,crustaceous and insects. The success of themacroinvertebrates group as bio indicators lies intheir quick response to the sightless alterationsof the environment quality. Up to date, morethan 500 different taxa (families, genuses,species) have been identified in the studies car-ried out in the framework of the Júcar biologicalmonitoring network. Within this group, we mayfind endemic species as the shrimp Dugastellavalentina, the mollusc Theodoxus velascoi orspecies with a very restricted distribution as themayflies Torleya major and Prosopistoma pen-nigerum. There has been a critical decrease ofautochthonous species due to the introductionof exotic species and other factors. Some exam-ples of important losses are found in speciessuch as the crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes(figure 22) and the freshwater mussel Anodontacygnaea.

Two primary types of ecosystems are found inthe coastal areas of Júcar RBD, being both highlyrelated to the nature of the substratum: sandycoast with soft bottom, and cliffs with rock bot-tom.

The first type of ecosystem, presenting sedimen-tary features, is associated to shores with a lowprofile, as beaches, strings of dunes and evencoastal wetlands. These shallow waters, in whichsunlight reaches the marine bottom, are a goodhabitat for some plant species as sea grass bedsof Posidonia oceanica (phanerogam) (figure23), which is endemic of the Mediterranean Sea.This species forms extensive communities thatgive up large amounts of dissolved oxygen and

Figure 21 Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis)

Figure 22Autochthonous crayfish(Austropotamobius pallipes)

Figure 20 Samaruc (Valencia hispanica)

20

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 20


21

Figure 23Posidonia oceanica

support other animals and marine plants. Thus,contribute with an ideal habitat for reproduction,breeding and sheltering of a great number of fishand selfish species.

The sea grass beds of Posidonia oceanica are lo-cated in a variable extension of the marine bottomand are formed by rhizomes and leaves. In theMediterranean coast the inferior limit of sea grassbeds is usually located 25 m deep. This type ofsee grass beds is one of the richest in species di-versity and one of the most productive ones.

The second type of coastal ecosystem, of erosivefeature, is related to shores with abrupt profiles,such as cliffs and emerging bedrocks, over whichseawater waves produce mechanical erosion.Because of the calcareous nature of the rock,which is predominant at the Júcar RBD, shore

where practically only limestone is present, therate of rock dissolution is comparatively higherthan in other places with siliceous rock, as it oc-curs in the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula.The energy of the stroke between wave and rockoriginates sprays of seawater that reach terrestrialzones, leading to an environment of high salinity,sunshine and wind. This environment representsan important habitat for a high number of plantand animal endemic species (lichens, alga andplants of the genus Limonium or Daucus, inver-tebrates as shellfish and birds). Moreover, therock bottom conditions are regulated by variablesas the intensity of sunshine, temperature of wa-ter, and physico-chemicals factors, which inducea growing or shrinking effect in biotic species ofthe submarine communities. Two communitiesthat are commonly found in this type of seabedare coral formations and caves.

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 21

1.5. Water resources

22

Figure 25 Mean annual runoff (mm/year)

< 5050 - 100100 - 200200 - 300> 300

Figure 24 Annual runoff in the Júcar RBD (hm3/year)

2002

-03

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

194

0-41

194

2-43

194

4-45

194

6-47

194

8-49

195

0-51

195

2-53

195

4-55

195

6-57

195

8-59

196

0-61

196

2-63

196

4-65

196

6-67

196

8-69

197

0-71

197

2-73

197

4-75

197

6-77

197

8-79

198

0-81

198

2-83

198

4-85

198

6-87

198

8-89

199

0-91

199

2-93

199

4-95

199

6-97

199

8-99

2000

-01

Year

hm3 /

year

Mean annualrenewable waterresources(1940-41/2002-03)Mean annualrenewable waterresources(1990-91/2002-03)

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 22



The precipitation volume over the Júcar RBDproduces a mean annual runoff of about 80mm, which represents approximately 15% of thetotal precipitation. The mean annual renewableresources are 3 251 hm3/year (data for the peri-od that ranges between the hydrological years1940/41 and 2002/03, as shown in figure 24).This mean value has decreased to 2 700hm3/year during the last ten years, what has pro-duced difficulties on satisfying water demands.

The runoff is distributed spatially as it is shown infigure 25, where two regions with high runoffvalues are observed, the upper basin of the JúcarRiver in the western area, and the Marina Altaarea in the eastern one.

23

Figure 26Acequia Real del Júcar irrigation channel

Figure 27Main channels in the Júcar RBD

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 23


Júcar-Vinalopó water transferFigure 28

24

Júcar - VinalopóChannelUsage Areas(Irrigation)

Water resources of the area come from both sur-face and groundwater origins. Surface water re-sources have been used historically, and this usegoes back to the Roman and Arab times. As anexample, the Acequia Real del Júcar, an irrigationchannel, is dated from the XIII century (figure26)

Main channels present throughout the JúcarRBD are shown in figure 27. The Tajo-SeguraAqueduct carries water from the Tajo RBD tothe Segura RBD passing through the Júcar Dis-trict and its conveyance is about 30 m3/s. TheCanal Júcar-Turia connects the Júcar and TuriaRivers and it is used for public water supplyand for irrigation. The Acequia Real del Júcardistributes water for irrigating mainly orangetrees and rice fields in final reach of the JúcarRiver. Other significant channels are the CanalCota 220, the Canal Cota 100, the Canal Cam-po del Turia, the Canal Manises-Sagunto, theCanal de Forata, the Canal Júcar-Turia, the wa-ter supply to Albacete, the Canal Bajo del Algar,the Canal Rabasa-Amadorio, and the Canal delTaibilla.

Nowadays, a water transfer project between theJúcar River and the Vinalopó-Alacantí and Mari-na Baja area is being developed (figure 28). Itis an intra-river basin water transfer, which wasincluded in the list of infrastructures of the JúcarHydrological Plan (JHP). After that, this projectwas included in Annex II of the National Hydro-logical Plan passed by Act 10/2001.

The purpose of the transfer is to mitigate the over-exploitation and water deficit in the areas ofVinalopó-Alacantí and Marina Baja. This projectmust be considered jointly with two other projectsto be meaningful: the groundwater substitution ofthe Mancha Oriental Aquifer, and the modernisa-tion of irrigation techniques in the Acequia Real delJúcar, which is expected to save 100 hm3/year ina first phase. While the maximum volume of waterto be annually transferred through this channel is80 hm3, the average water transfer is around 70hm3, although in dry periods this volume could belower. The construction works started in 2003 andinclude 67 km of pipelines, 26 kilometres in tun-nel and 41 kilometres in siphons (double pipelineof 1.80 m. of diameter).

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 24


Surface water resources in the Júcar RBD areregulated through large dams (figure 29). Thetotal reservoir capacity in the District is about3 300 hm3, being Alarcón (figure 30), Contrerasand Tous (figure 31) in the Júcar River and Be-nageber in the Turia River, the largest reservoirs.

Groundwater resources, 2 361 hm3/year, repre-sent approximately 73% of the total water re-sources. These numbers reflect the importanceof this type of resources in the basin. A typicalwell for abstraction of water from an aquifer isshown in figure 32.

25

Figure 29Reservoirs in the Júcar RBD

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 25

The conjunctive use of superficial water andgroundwater is quite common, with clear exam-ples as the ones of La Plana de Castellón, La Ma-rina Baja or La Ribera del Júcar (Sahuquillo,1996). On the other side, the intensive use ofgroundwater has produced overexploitation insome of the hydrogeological units (HGU), suchas those from the exploitation system ofVinalopó-Alacantí, from the coastal plains of theprovince of Castellón or from the HGU of theMancha Oriental aquifer.

Regarding the use of non-conventional re-sources, it is important to mention the high po-tential for reusing treated wastewater, action thatrepresents one of the highest achievements inSpain. Only within the Valencian Region morethan 300 wastewater treatment facilities werefully operating in 2002 with a total treated efflu-ent of 389 hm3/year. The water treatment car-ried out at the Valencian Region is of great signif-icance since it supports nearly 90% of the popu-lation of the RBD.

Table 4 shows the basic figures on reuse oftreated wastewater. From 389 hm3/year of totaldischarge, about 26% was being reused in year2002, which it is considered a satisfactory rate.The results of water reuse, in the vast majority ofthe cases, benefit agricultural irrigation, environ-mental and recreational practices (for instance,the irrigation of golf courses).


Figure 30 Alarcón reservoir

26

Figure 31 Tous reservoir

Note: storage capacity of 1 112 hm3

Note: storage capacity of 370 hm3

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 26


Figure 34 shows the locations of wastewatertreatment facilities with direct reuse of the efflu-ent. As shown, most of these water treatmentplants are located within the coastal strip, whichis indicative of the water scarcity in this area.

Seawater and brackish waters desalination is theother non-conventional resource available to-gether with water reuse. Though it is generallyagreed that annual production of desalinated wa-ter volume is relatively small in comparison to to-tal water demand, this relatively small productiondoes play an important role at the local scale,meeting part of the municipal and industrial wa-ter requirements of several demand units in wa-ter shortage areas along the Mediterraneancoast. Currently, there are 17 desalination plantswithin the Júcar RBD between seawater andbrackish waters, 7 of them are used for urbansupply (Canal de Alicante, Jávea, Denia, Teulada,Benitaxell, Vall D’Uixó and Moncofar), 2 forrecreational uses (Alicante-II and San Vicente), 2for agricultural irrigation (Jacarilla and El Campi-llo), and finally, the other 6 plants (using brack-ish waters) are for industrial uses (Benferry,Unión Cervecera, Siderurgia del Mediterraneo,Central de Escatrón, Sivesa and Cofrentes Nu-clear Plant). Table 5 summarises the characteris-tics of desalination plants within the RBD.

The Canal de Alicante desalination plant is themost recent plant developed to obtain new re-sources of water in the Júcar Basin. This planttreats about 18 hm3/year of seawater and pro-duces fresh water for around 600 000 people ofthe towns of Alicante, Elche, Santa Pola and SanVicente del Raspeig

27

Figure 32Well in operation

Figure 33Wastewater treatment plant

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 27


Table 4Treated and direct reused volume of water(year 2002) in Júcar RBD

System Treated volume Equivalent Volume of (hm3) inhabitants reused

waters (hm3)

Cenia-Maestrazgo 4.6 59 294 0.0

Mijares-Plana Castellón 42.0 504 398 14.0

Palancia-Los Valles 7.0 95 110 4.0

Turia 177.2 2 179 480 35.0

Júcar 35.5 594 045 2.0

Serpis 29.1 380 778 4.0

Marina Alta 14.7 185 590 2.5

Marina Baja 16.1 359 156 12.0

Vinalopó-Alacantí 62.6 1 393 576 28.0

TOTAL 388.8 5 751 427 101.5

Figure 34 Wastewater direct reuse (hm3/year)

28

0 - 1

1 - 10

10 - 20

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 28


29

Table 5Desalination plants

Management WaterName Municipality System Purpose Type Production

[m3/year]

Canal de Alicante MCT Alicante/Alacant Vinalopó Urban Seawater 18 250 000Javea Jávea/Xàbia Marina Alta Urban Seawater 6 500 000Denia Denia Marina Baja Urban Brackish water 5 256 000Teulada Teulada Marina Alta Urban Seawater 2 190 000Benitaxell Benitachell Marina Alta Urban Seawater 1 460 000Vall D'Uixó Vall d'Uixó Mijares Urban Brackish water 974 144Moncófar Moncófar Mijares Urban Brackish water 654 504Total urban 35 284 648

Alicante II Alicante/Alacant Vinalopó Recretional Seawater 400 000San Vicente del Raspeig Alicante/Alacant Vinalopó Recretional Brackish water 126 945Total recreational 526 945

Jacarilla Alicante/Alacant Vinalopó Agricultural Brackish water 2 299 000El Campello Campello (el) Vinalopó Agricultural Brackish water 1 439 340Total agricultural 3 738 340

Benferry Alicante/Alacant Vinalopó Industrial Brackish water 2 044 000Unión Cervecera S. A. Quart de Poblet Turia Industrial Brackish water 525 600Siderurgia del Mediterraneo Sagunto/Sagunt Palancia Industrial Brackish water 383 000Central Escatrón Teruel Turia Industrial Brackish water 205 000Sivesa Manises Turia Industrial Brackish water 182 500Central Nuclear Cofrentes Cofrentes Júcar Industrial Brackish water 43 800Total industrial 3 383 900

Total 42 933 833

Figure 35Canal de Alicante desalination plant

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 29

1.6. Environmental flows

1.6. Environmental flows

The Júcar Hydrological Plan (JHP) currently inforce (CHJ, 1998) sets out environmental restric-tions applicable to watercourses, wetlands andaquifers to allow the preservation and recoveryof natural ecosystems, by establishing differenttypes of requirements:

• Specific minimum flow on rivers downstreamof nine (9) significant reservoirs.

• General minimum flow criterion for the restof the river network.

• Minimum annual flows for wetlands, whichcorrespond to 12 500 m3/ha unless furtherdetailed study determines otherwise, to pro-tect and maintain their significant environ-mental values.

• Groundwater outflow required to preventseawater intrusion into the coastal aquifersystem.

Table 6 shows specific river flows established bythe JHP downstream of reservoirs. It is importantto note that the minimum flow is a constant rate

set out for any period throughout the wholeyear, independently of the current season, theclimate type of the year (dry/wet) or any otherhydro-meteorological variable. Therefore, it isnecessary to analyse, in the next years and fol-lowing the WFD criteria, which is the most appro-priate flow regime for the right functioning ofecosystems.

Moreover, for the rest of the river network, theJHP establishes that the environmental flow foreach segment must be obtained through specificstudies based on biological and hydrological cri-teria taking into account the specific features ofassociated hydrologic system, flora and fauna. Bydefault, in the case that no specific study is avail-able, the Plan adopts a provisional solution givenby a general criterion that sets the upper limit ofthe environmental flow as a minimum naturalriver flow with a maximum of 1 m3/s. This isadopted, although the interpretation of this termmay not always be clear or easy.

However, it is difficult to assign environmentalflows, especially on lower stretches of water-courses within the Júcar RBD. This happenssince rivers are vastly altered after their coursereaches the populated coastal plains. For in-stance, the hydrological regime of the lowerreaches of the Júcar River downstream the Tousreservoir are highly influenced, and are charac-terised by having diverse natural and artificialmechanisms as regulation infrastructures, weirs,irrigation canal intakes, point returns, diffuse re-turns and groundwater outflow. These alterationsresult in a very irregular regime even in consecu-tive reaches, and are responsible for very strongflow changes in short distances along thiscourse. The criteria to establish the environmen-tal flows (as flow, renovation time of water,depth, mean slope, water quality, good hydrosystem performance, thickness of the marinewedge, etc.) are being considered by expertsand users, but in any case, there must be atrade-off between human benefit and protectionof ecosystems.

Table 6Minimum environmental flows set outdownstream reservoirs by the JHP

Minimumenvironmental flow

Reservoir (m3/s)

Ulldecona 0.150

Sichar 0.200

Benageber 0.700

Loriguilla 0.500

Alarcón 2.000

Contreras 0.400

Forata 0.200

Tous 0.600

Guadalest 0.100

30

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 30

1.7. Water demands

1.7. Water demands

The gross water demand (year 2001) in the Jú-car RBD is 3 625 hm3/year, being distributedinto 653 hm3/year for urban use, 2 852hm3/year for agricultural use and 120 hm3/yearfor industrial use, including this latter 35hm3/year for refrigerating energy plants. As it isshown in figure 36, the agricultural demand isthe major one in the Júcar RBD representing79% of the total demand.

The territorial area of the Júcar RBD is charac-terised by having, in general terms, a very fragileequilibrium between renewable resources andwater demands (CHJ, 1998), occurring watershortages in some areas, especially in the oneslocated in the coastal strip of the province ofCastellón, the Mancha Oriental aquifer and theexploitation systems of Vinalopó-Alicantí and Ma-rina Baja.

Concerning the quality aspect of surface waters,it can be stated that there is a general positivetrend for most water standards (drinking watersand fish life support). Only a few locations are inbreach of the National/European Legislation.During 2001 there were up to 4 073 km of wa-tercourses under surveillance, of which 424 kmcorrespond to safe drinking water, 2 272 to fishsupport life and 1 377 to aptitude control foragricultural irrigation.

The water quality monitoring network is calledICA, which is the Spanish acronym for IntegralWater Quality, and is comprised of 364 monitor-ing sites or control stations from which networkworkers obtained 1 863 samples and carried out3 203 laboratory tests during 2001 (the testshad a 90-95% confidence interval).

In addition, a biological network was developed,and has been functioning since 1999. This net-work provides the assessment of biological in-dices along watercourses based on the presenceof macroinvertebrates, macrophytes, diatomsand fish life in two annual campaigns of commu-nities, as well as hydromorphological and physi-co-chemical data. Through the results obtainedto date, it is known that half of the 246 fixedsampling sites have an excellent or good biologi-cal status. These sites are normally located in theupper reaches of rivers and present high degreeof biodiversity and good hydromorphological andphysico-chemical profiles. However, less thanone fifth of the sites present an unsatisfactory orinadequate status, and these are usually locatedin lower reaches. In these areas, there is a cer-tain degree of pollution due to discharges; there-fore, they present low biodiversity and only re-sistant-pollution species survive.

Moreover, there are some specific complemen-tary networks as the control of hazardous and ra-dioactive substances networks designed to de-tect these types of discharge in strategic sites.

Figure 36Water demands in the Júcar RBD

Agriculture

Industry

Urban

79%

18%

3%

31

Table 7Watercourses surveillance length (km) for water standards within Júcar RBD (2001)

SAFE DRINKING WATER FISH SUPPORT LIFEIRRIGATION TOTAL

A1 A2 A3 Total Salmonid Cyprinid Total

19.7 302.9 100.9 423.5 967.8 1 304.6 2 272.4 1 377.4 4 073.3

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 31

1.8. Extreme events: floods and droughts

Figure 37Flood mapping in Júcar River as a result of GISPLANA model(Estrela and Quintas, 1996)

RailwayRoadsConstruction

Depth of water0 - 0.50.5 - 11 - 1.51.5 - 22 - 33 - 5> 5 m

32

1.8. Extreme events: floods anddroughts

A characteristic type of flood in the Mediter-ranean regions, and specifically in the Júcar RBD,is the so-called flash flood, which is featured byhaving a quick response to rainfall, what makes itdifficult to apply early warning measures to pro-tect the population.

The precipitation that causes flood events is usu-ally very intense and has a short duration. For in-stance, on October 1982 a peak intensity ofnearly 1 000 mm in 15 hours was recorded onthe Ayora Valley within the Júcar RBD. This wasthe result of a typical Iberian meteorological phe-nomenon named the cold drop (see section1.3), which usually takes place every year fromSeptember to November.

The most important floods have occurred in theJúcar River, two particular historical events arethe major floods that have taken place since1600: the San Carlos Flood on November 4-5,1864, with an estimated peak flow of 13 000m3/s, and the one that occurred on October 20,1982, which caused the Tous Dam to breakdown and had a peak flow of about 10 000m3/s. This last event had devastating effectsfrom the collapse of the dam. During the 1982flood, about 100 000 people were evacuated,and a surface area of 24 000 hectares of farm-

land were affected. The direct damage of thisflood was estimated to be 1 450 million of eu-ros (at the 1998 value), as a result of the highpopulation density and the large number of in-frastructures in the area.

After the flooding that occurred in October 1982,the decision of studying different structuralmeasures was taken, in order to reduce the ef-fects of flooding on the Júcar riverbank. This de-cision led to the creation of the General FloodPrevention Plan in the Júcar River Basin (“PlanGeneral de Defensas contra Avenidas en laCuenca del Júcar”) (CHJ, 1985), which includedthe Escalona, Tous and Bellús Reservoirs.

The construction of these infrastructures did notresolve the flood risk in the Júcar riverbank com-pletely, and therefore, in 1998, it was decidedto start a series of further technical studies.These studies were intended to determine nec-essary actions to develop a process in which thegeneral public would be involved, so that thedifferent administrative authorities and socialbodies could voice their opinions on the matterand reach a consensus and a common solution.

To obtain the most effective protection strategies,it is recommended to combine both types ofmeasures, taking into account local circumstances.In this sense, the Global Plan for Flood Preventionon the Júcar riverbank (CHJ, 2000b) “sets certain

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 32

1.8. Extreme events: floods and droughts

suitable structural protection thresholds as targetsthat will make it possible to reach homogeneoussafety levels throughout the territory and deal withthe major risks by means of programmes contain-ing non-structural measures”.

The Global Plan has defined return periods rang-ing from 100 to 250 years for the flows in urbanzones, and from 25 to 50 years for the ruralzones when contemplating the structural protec-tions against flooding.

For achieving these objectives, the actions com-prised in the Global Plan for Flood Prevention in-clude structural measures, as the constructionsof three news dams (on Sellent, Cáñoles andMagro Rivers), the arrangement of riverbeds, hy-drological and forestal recovery, and improve-ment of the drainage for the transport networks.Moreover, non-structural measures have beenadopted: flood risk mapping, civil protection, ter-ritorial organisation, and insurance of goods andproperty.

33

Figure 38SPI values for annual precipitations in

the Júcar RBD

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20002.502.001.501.000.500.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50

-----

Figure 39Annual deviations for the years corresponding to the 1991-1995 drought

-100 - -75-75 - -50-50 - -25-25 - 0

0 - 2525 - 5050 - 7575 - 100

100 - 125125 - 150150 - 175175 - 225

Note: These mapsrepresent thepercentage of variationof the mean annualprecipitation respect tothe mean value ofperiod 1940-2000

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 33

1.9. Monitoring networks

The drawing up of identical mapping that is com-mon to both local and regional authorities, willmake possible a better development of the Mu-nicipal Plans of Action in face of flood risk. ThesePlans will have to be prepared in accordancewith the Special Flood Risk Plan of the ValencianAutonomous Community and the Basic Directivefor Planning Civil Protection on flood risk. Fur-thermore, this mapping will be extremely usefulto Authorities involved in territorial organisationand urban planning.

In opposition to floods, multi-year droughts haveoccurred during the periods of 1998-2000,1993-95, and 1980-83, which can be seen infigure 38. The most devastating flood occurringin the Júcar RBD recent history, as mentionedpreviously, took place on October 1982. Thisshows that flood conditions are not necessarilyindicative of wet years and gives an idea of theirregularity of the Mediterranean hydrology.These drought periods establish the criteria com-monly used to design hydraulic infrastructuressystems to meet water demand and assess thereliable level of supplies.

Some of the Júcar RBD drought periods mayreach, in some cases, 10 years. An index that re-flects the annual deviation from the mean annu-al rainfall is the Standard Precipitation Index(SPI), shown in figure 38. It is a normalized in-dex that it is used for quantifying the deficit inthe volume of precipitation for any given periodof time.

The spatial deviation maps for the years corre-sponding to the 1991-1995 drought period areshown in figure 39. These maps represent, foreach year, the percentage of variation of themean annual precipitation respect to the meanvalue of period 1940-2000.


The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establish-es, in art. 8, that Member States (MS) must de-sign monitoring programmes to provide informa-tion for the assessment of water bodies in orderto obtain an overview of the water body statuswithin the River Basin District (RBD). These pro-

Figure 40 Surface water monitoring network

RiverChannelReservoir

34

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:54 Página 34


Figure 41SAIH river flow monitoring network

grammes shall include, for surface waters, themonitoring of volume, flow level, and ecologicaland chemical status. For groundwater bodies, theprogrammes must include the monitoring ofchemical and quantitative status. These monitor-ing programmes, as described in the Directive,must be designed in accordance with the re-quirements included in Annex V.

In the following sections, the existing monitoringand surveillance networks within the Júcar RBDare described, distinguishing between the twomain water body types, superficial and ground-water, and within these types, between quantita-tive and qualitative aspects.

Surface water monitoring networks forwater quantity

The official water surface monitoring network pro-vides information on levels and volumes for se-lected points of rivers and on the main reservoirsand channels. This network takes measures con-tinuously, and consists of 44 gauging stations inrivers, about 19 control points in reservoirs biggerthan 10 hm3, and around 19 control points inchannels, as shown in figure 40.

There is also the Automatic Hydrologic Informa-tion System (SAIH) network (figure 41), whichprovides information on the basin’s hydrometeo-rological and hydrological status in real time. Theoldest data recorded by this network in the Júcarbasin is from 1988.

35

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:55 Página 35


36

Figure 42 Current piezometric monitoring network

HydrogeologicalUnitsImpervioussurface or localaquifers

Groundwater monitoring networks forwater quantity

Concerning groundwater, the piezometric andhydrometric networks provide data on water lev-els in the aquifers and on springs flows respec-tively. The hydrometric network occasionally in-cludes flow measures in some streams in addi-tion to the springs.

The hydrometric network consists of 25 points,and some of them have records from the 70’s.Nowadays, the Júcar basin has a fully function-ing piezometric network with 130 measuringpoints (figure 42) from which the RBD obtainsmeasurements at least once a month. This net-work was established on the 60’s by IGME(Spanish Geological and Mining Institute). Now-days it is operated by Júcar River Basin Authority.

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:55 Página 36


37

Figure 43Programmed piezometric monitoring network


Recently, the Spanish Administration has pro-grammed a number of measures to establishnew monitoring networks, which will make upthe Groundwater Surveillance Official Network.Within this program, the Júcar RBD has designeda piezometric network, which aims to cover allWFD requirements for groundwater bodies (fig-ure 43). This network has been designed takinginto account the most representative points ofeach hydrogeological unit (HGU), and makinguse of all historical records available in prior net-works when it was possible. The project hasbeen already developed and the construction ofnew points (a total of 287) is now starting.

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:55 Página 37


38

Figure 44 Integral Water Quality (ICA) monitoring network

Surface water monitoring networks forwater quality

The physico-chemical and ecological status ofthe surface water bodies belonging to the JúcarRBD are surveyed by the combined action of dif-ferent networks, as it is described below.

Different networks are used to monitor thephysico-chemical status of the water bodies,mainly the Integral Water Quality (ICA) network(figure 44), which is operational since 1993, theAutomatic Alert Stations network that providesdata in real time (its implementation started in1993-94 and the first measures date from1995), the toxic substances surveillance net-work, which is now being projected and the ra-dioactive substances network.

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:55 Página 38


39

Figure 45Biological quality monitoring network

The Biological Quality Indicators network (ICAB)(figure 45) measures the biological status in eachone of the river reaches by means of BiologicalIndices. The analysed biological communities aremacroinvertebrates, diatoms, macrophytes andfish. Now that the design stage is almost conclud-ed, the total number of sampling stations thatmake up the biological network is 246.

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:55 Página 39


40

Figure 46 Groundwater quality monitoring network


Groundwater monitoring networks forwater quality

The main goal of the following networks is to as-sess the qualitative status of aquifers and theirpossible marine intrusion problems.

The groundwater quality monitoring network (fig-ure 46) analyses every two months the followingparameters: pH, temperature, conductivity, oxy-gen chemical demand, dissolved oxygen, dry re-mains, turbidity, majority elements, nitrogencompounds, heavy metals and hydrocarbures.This network was established in the 70’s by theIGME, and it is made up of 150 control points.

As it happens with the piezometric network, dur-ing 2004 it is programmed to improve the cur-rent groundwater qualitative network with theconstruction of new control points.

The Marine Intrusion Monitoring Network identi-fies aquifers with marine intrusion problems. Itcarries out weekly sampling and analyses of con-ductivity and chloride content. This network wasestablished in the 70’s by IGME and there aremany points that have historical data. Currentlydata is being gathered from 40 points.

007-040 CAPITULO 1 1/10/04 11:55 Página 40

2. Characterisation of Júcar Pilot River Basin

2. CHARACTERISATION OFJÚCAR PILOT RIVERBASIN

2.1. Characterisation of surfacewater bodies

2.1.1. Surface water body types

Delineation of surface water bodies and theirclassification into ecotypes is being carried outfor the whole Spanish territory following the cri-teria established in the different Guidance Doc-uments (EC, 2002 and 2003). The Centre forStudies and Experimentation in Public Works(CEDEX) of Spain is developing this task. ThisCentre is an organisation that provides assis-tance to the Spanish Ministry of Environment insome technical aspects of the WFD. The JúcarRBD has collaborated with CEDEX on testingand improving the methodologies that are be-ing developed.

2.1.1.1. Rivers

The first step in the characterisation stage con-sists on delineating the “significant rivers” of theJúcar RBD. Rivers have been derived automati-cally from a 100 m x 100 m Digital ElevationModel (DEM) provided by the Spanish Army Ge-ographic Service, using algorithms developedspecifically for this action by CEDEX. In the caseof the Júcar RBD the official digital river networkof the Spanish National Geographic Institute(IGN) with scale 1:25 000 was used in theburning-in process.

A first map was obtained assuming that the ori-gin of a river starts when it has a draining basingreater than 10 km2, a WFD criterion. The resultsshowed that a high number of courses that areusually found dried, appeared forming part ofthe river network, especially in the driest south-ern areas of the Júcar RBD territory. Figure 47shows the Rambla de la Castellana at Lliria(province of Valencia), place with a drainagearea above 250 km2 and where no flow usuallycirculates.

A high time-consuming fieldwork was developedby river guards of the Júcar RBD in order toelaborate a map that classifies, according to theirregularity of flows, the water courses into twomain categories: continuous flow and ephemer-al flow (figure 48). Wide criteria have been fol-lowed for doing this classification, since many

rivers defined as continuous do not flow mosttime of the year, for natural reasons or due tohuman activities.

The process of delineating the significant rivernetwork may be an easier task in countries withmore uniform rivers and higher flows. However,in Spain it has required to carry out an impor-tant process of analysis and characterisation,which has been developed by CEDEX and withthe participation of the River Basin Districts(RBDs) and the Júcar RBD. The criterion basedon the basin area (10 km2) was not enough todefine the significant river network, because, asmentioned before, in many areas of the District,there are no rivers flowing given this drainingbasin size. Additional variables to the basin sizehad to be considered: mean annual flow, varia-tion coefficient and percentage of months withno flow. The results were then tested with thedifferent monitoring networks in the District(quantitative, qualitative and biological), which,in some extent, reflects the management inter-est of the RBD.

A significant river network for the Júcar PRB wasobtained from the DEM. This map was then ad-justed to the map of watercourses with continu-ous flow derived from the fieldwork and themonitoring networks formerly mentioned. Thespecific criterion adopted was to define the riv-er’s origin when they had a basin greater than10 km2 and received a mean annual inflowgreater than 100 l/s (3.2 hm3). The flows belowthe defined thresholds are considered intermit-tent or ephemeral, and consequently not signifi-cant as water bodies for the WFD purposes.

Figure 47Ephemeral water course Rambla de la Castellana

41

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 41

2.1. Characterisation of surface water bodies

The preliminary delineation of significant riversfor the Júcar RBD according to the mentionedcriteria is shown in figure 49. The total length ofsignificant rivers in the Júcar RBD is about5 600 km.

The preliminary typology for rivers in Spain hasbeen developed by CEDEX using a DEM with a500 x 500 m resolution derived from the origi-nal 100 x 100 m model. Annex II of the WFD es-tablishes two possible systems of classificationfor surface water bodies: System A and SystemB, both of them have been used to determinatethe ecotypes.

System A allows defining the different typeswithin each Ecological Region defined in map Aof Annex XI. The resulting types are a combina-tion of three characteristics and their classes (seetable 8). Three classes of altitude (lowland, mid-altitude and high), four classes of size (small,medium, large and very large) and only oneclass of geology (calcareous) are found in the Jú-car RBD (figure 50).

The classification according to System A gives amap with 12 possible classes, finding just 11 inthe Júcar RBD (figure 51). All ecotypes found arecalcareous.

The results obtained, showed some of the prob-lems of using System A. For instance, not havingincluded climatic variables or flows variationsmade that rivers of different bio-geographical en-vironments were included in the same class. Inaddition, the three levels proposed for geology(calcareous, siliceous and organic) provided anexcessive simplification of the geologic character-isation, given that for the whole territory of theJúcar RBD only 1 class was found (calcareous),while materials are highly diverse in the District.

Figure 48 Categories of rivers according to the irregularity of flows

Altitude Catchment area Geology

High: > 800 m Small: 10 to 100 km2 Calcareous

Mid: 200 to 800 m Medium: 100 to 1 000 km2 Siliceous

Lowland: < 200m Large: 1 000 to 10 000 km2 Organic

Very large: >10 000 km2

Table 8Typologies according to System A of riverclassification

ContinuousEphemeral

42

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 42


Figure 49Preliminary surface water bodies: significant rivers

Source: CEDEX

Figure 50Altitude and size typologies according System A classification

Altitude criteria Surface criteria

Altitude criteria

Surface criteria

LowlandMidHigh

SmallMediumLargeVery large

43

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 43

Lowland-smallLowland-mediumLowland-largeLowland-verylargeMid-altitude-smallMid-altitude-mediumMid-altitude-largeMid-altitude-verylargeHigh-smallHigh-mediumHigh-large

Note: all ecotypes arecalcareousSource: CEDEX


Due to these serious limitations of System A,CEDEX decided to use System B to characteriserivers. This system offers a list of five mandatorydescriptors and fifteen optional ones. The WFDdoes not specify the way of combining these de-scriptors, but it indicates that at least the samedegree of discrimination as it would be achievedby using System A must be reached.

It must be considered the importance of geologyand its influence in the mineralisation of water inriver biological communities. Therefore, one ofthe first steps to apply system B was to reclassifythe geologic map. The result was a 500 m x 500m resolution raster map with 6 geologic cate-gories: carbonated, siliceous, evaporitic, mixescarbonate-siliceous, mixes carbonate-evaporitic,and sedimentary of mixed origin (figure 52). Inabsence of human impacts, the lithology of thebasin reveals the ionic composition of water.Siliceous basins, for example, are characterisedby presenting a weak mineralisation in the water(low conductivity), while in calcareous ones, the

conductivity is high, with presence of carbonates.Finally, in evaporitic basins, sulphates are pre-dominant. According to the studies carried out inFrance by Meybeck (1986) and those carriedout by CEDEX on chemical composition of wa-ters in mono-lithological basins, different valueswere obtained for the conductivity and the alka-linity as a function of the dominant lithology.

The preliminary system B of classification ob-tained by CEDEX is based on the application of asemi-hierarchical classification with a few select-ed variables: specific mean annual flow, meanannual flow, slope, altitude corrected with lati-tude values, and conductivity.

The procedure of this classification establishesthresholds for the different variables, which aresequentially applied in order to differentiate eco-types. The classification proposed by CEDEX hasbeen carried out through a model based on aGIS river network. Several variables have beenused in the model to divide significant rivers in

44

Figure 51 Ecotypes for rivers according to System A classification

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 44


successive levels to finally obtain 29 different en-vironmental types for the Spanish rivers of thePeninsula and the Balearic Islands. The classifica-tion consists in the progressive segregation ofsubsets of the river network, by means of the es-tablishment of thresholds for the variables. Thesubsets are identified by means of a key numberof six digits. The value of the first digit indicatesthat the river reach belongs to one of the sub-sets of the first level of segregation of the hierar-

chical tree. The second digit determines that theriver reach belongs to a subset of the secondlevel and so on, until the sixth digit of the code.An ecological type can be defined by a maxi-mum of six variables, although most of the typeshave been defined using just five variables. As aresult of this classification, 15 different ecotypeshave been obtained for the Júcar RBD, as can beobserved in figure 53. The variables and thethresholds used are shown in table 9.

45

Figure 52Geological classes

Source: CEDEX

CarbonatedEvaporiticMasses of waterMixed carbonate-evaporiticMixed carbonate-siliceousSedimentary ofmixed originSiliceous

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 45


Type Code Denomination Variables

1 111.110 Lowland rivers, low Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

mineralisation, in Mediterranean Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

environment Slope < 2%Altitude (corrected) < 700 m (S)Conductivity < 320 µS cm-1

2 111.120 Lowland rivers, high Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

mineralisation Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope < 2%Altitude (corrected) < 700 m (S)Conductivity >320 µS cm-1

4 111.221 High mineralisation, Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

sedimentary plains of the North Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Plateau rivers Slope < 2%Altitude (corrected) > 700 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1

Mean annual temperature < 12 ºC5 111.222 High mineralisation, Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

sedimentary plains of the South Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Plateau rivers Slope < 2%Altitude (corrected) > 700 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1

Mean annual temperature > 12 ºC6 112.110 Low mineralisation, Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

low Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) < 400 m (S)Conductivity < 320 µS cm-1


low Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) < 400 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1

8 112.210 Low mineralisation, Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

low-mid Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) 400-950 m (S)Conductivity < 320 µS cm-1


low-mid Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) 400-950 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1


high-mid Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) 950-1650 m (S)Conductivity < 320 µS cm-1


high-mid Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) 950-1650 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1


high Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) > 1650 m (S)Conductivity < 320 µS cm-1


high Mediterranean mountain Mean Q < 9.5 m3s-1

Slope > 2%Altitude (corrected) > 1650 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1

15 121.120 High flow, Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

high mineralisation, lowland Mean Q > 9.5 m3s-1

in Mediterranean environment Order (Stralher) < 6Altitude (corrected) < 400 m (S)Conductivity > 320 µS cm-1

17 121.220 High flow, high Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

mineralisation, high-mid Mean Q >9.5 m3s-1

Mediterranean environment Order (Stralher) < 6Altitude (corrected) > 400 m (S)Conductivity < 320 µS cm-1

18 122.000 Large size rivers Specific Q < 0.0165 m3s-1km-2

Mean Q >9.5 m3s-1

Order (Stralher) > 6

Table 9 The 15 ecotypes in the preliminary typology developed by CEDEX

46

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 46


More details about the procedures followed byCEDEX (2004b) can be found in the draft docu-ment entitled “Tipología de ríos (River typolo-gies)”.

The analysis of the distribution of the 15 eco-types in the Júcar RBD shows the following pre-liminary conclusion: ecotypes 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17and 18 are widely represented in the Júcar RBD,while the rest are hardly represented. All eco-types are characterised by presenting high min-eralisation values, which seems to be one of themost important variables within the Júcar RBD.

As can be observed in figure 53 some ecotypeshave a broad distribution, this is the case of eco-type “112120” that contains rivers along all theMediterranean littoral area. Although this riversshare some characteristics, there are also sub-stantial differences among them.

To make a more precise typology, data from thebiological monitoring network of the Júcar RBDthat is not available to the whole Spanish territo-ry has been used in addition to other data. Twotypes of variables were selected, the variables

derived from geographic and hydro-meteorologi-cal maps: altitude (m), specific slope (ºac km-2),air temperature range (ºC), mean annual tem-perature (ºC), river longitude (km), Latitude (ºN),Longitude (ºW), surface (km2), specific Q(m3/s/km2); and the mean values of the vari-ables measured from 1999 to 2003 at the bio-logical monitoring sites: conductivity (µS/cm),flow (m3/s), width (m), depth (m), dissolvedoxygen (mg/l), pH, water temperature (ºC), sul-phates (mg/l), alkalinity (meq/l), ammonium(mg/l), calcium (mg/l), chlorides (mg/l), bio-chemical oxygen demand (mg/l), chemical oxy-gen demand (mg/l), total hardness (mg/l),phosphates (mg/l), magnesium (mg/l), nitrates(mg/l), potassium (mg/l), silica (mg/l) and sodi-um (mg/l). All variables were normalised bymeans of a process of standardisation, and later,an exploratory analysis was carried out to deter-minate the most relevant variables.

In the first place, a simple lineal correlation analy-sis between all the couples of variables was ob-tained. The results were expressed by means ofthe coefficient R of Pearson that indicates thecorrelation degree among all variables. The vari-

Figure 53Preliminary ecotypes by CEDEX

111110111120111221111222112110112120112210112220112310112320112410112420121120121220122000

47

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 47


ables selected were: altitude, air temperaturerange, conductivity, latitude, specific slope, meanannual temperature, surface, river longitude, lon-gitude, conductivity, sulphates and alkalinity.These variables had been used to look for ho-mogeneous groups or conglomerates of casesby means of a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. As ameasure of vicinity, the Euclidian distance wasobtained and the dendrogram was made usingaverage linkage between groups (figure 54).

Finally, the stations have been grouped taking intoconsideration these variables, and 14 ecotypeshave been established (table 10 and figure 55).

In general terms, the typology developed in theJúcar RBD has similarities with the one devel-oped by CEDEX. However, the Júcar RBD classifi-cation shows significant differences between themore humid northern areas, and the driestsouthern ones. A variation of gradient with thelatitude, that explains the presence of differentecotypes, is present. The great influence of thelithology of the basin is also observed in thisclassification, since it shows the existence of wa-ters with high conductivity and the importance ofsulphates in specific areas.

2.1.1.2. Lakes

WFD defines lake as a body of standing inlandsurface water, and specifies a size typologybased on a surface area with a lower limit of 0.5km2. In the approach presented here, the cate-gory of lakes includes not only what it is under-stood commonly as lakes, but also the marsheswith a defined water surface.

The preliminary criteria defined by CEDEX in-clude a water body into the category lake if thewater surface is greater than 50 ha (0.5 km2), orif the water surface is greater than 8 ha and itsmaximum depth is greater than 3 m. In case thata water body is affected by infrastructures for irri-gation or drainage or it is regulated by gates, or ifit has been used as a salt pan and is still affectedby the hydromorphological modifications, or ifthe water level fluctuates artificially, then the wa-ter body will be considered as a heavily modifiedwater body (HMWB).

All water bodies within the preliminary definedlake category in the Júcar RBD have been con-sidered HMWB (figure 57 and table 11). It is tonote that in case of lakes included in wetlands,only the water surface has been represented,and not the area defining the associated naturalecosystem.

Marshes have been included in this category ifthey contain a water surface that meets thespecified dimensions for lakes. Aerial photo-graphs can be used to determine the surfacethat is occupied by water during the wet sea-son as can be seen in figure 56. This figureshows the Pego-Oliva marsh, where the orangeperimeter belongs to the protected area andthe preliminary determination of the area thatcan be occupied by water has been drown inblue.

L’Albufera, near the city of Valencia, is a rele-vant example of a heavily modified lake. Al-

48

Figure 54Hierarchical cluster analysis carried out with the12 selected variables

Ecotype Description

1 Large river (Júcar)

2 Alicante rivers

3 Castellón and north Valencia rivers

4 Júcar lowland tributaries

5 Turia lowland

6 Small coastal rivers

7 Júcar and Cabriel mid-altitude

8 Júcar upper tributaries

10 Mancha rivers

11 Júcar mid-altitude tributaries

13 Mijares headwater and tributaries

14 Alfambra headwater

15 Turia and Alfambra mid-altitude

16 Júcar, Turia and Cabriel headwaters and tributaries

Table 10 Preliminary ecotypes for Júcar RBD

Source: Júcar RBA

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 48


though it is connected to the sea, the lake isfed by freshwater inflows (the average salinity is2 g/l) and for that reason, it is proposed to beincluded within the category of lake. These in-flows come from surface and groundwaterrunoff and from returns produced in urban, in-dustrial and agricultural areas. L’Albufera mustbe considered as a HMWB due to the presenceof hydromorphological alterations, as gates (go-las in Spanish), that affect the natural flow ofthe lake and its interaction with the sea. In thewetlands and lake section, L’Albufera is charac-terised with further detail.

The appropriated analysis to develop a preliminarytypology and to define the reference conditionsfor the Spanish lakes is now in course. The criteriafor the establishment of ecotypes with System Aof the WFD are: altitude, mean depth, surfacearea and geology. Also some optional factors aregiven with system B including: mean water depth,shape, residence time, mean air temperature, airtemperature range, mixing characteristics, acidneutralising capacity, background nutrient status,mean substratum composition and water levelfluctuation. CEDEX is now developing a nation-wide study to define ecotypes for lakes.

49

Figure 55Preliminary ecotypes by Júcar RBA

12345678101113141516

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 49


50

Figure 57 Preliminary surface water bodies: Lakes (heavily modified)

Figure 56 Perimeter of the water surface in the Pego-Oliva marsh

Wetland perimeterWater surface

Source: CEDEX andJúcar RBA

041-086 CAPITULO 2 5/10/04 11:08 Página 50


ChannelsChannels to theseaAlbufera NaturalPark

51

2.1.1.3. Wetlands

Wetlands are not considered water bodies ac-cording to the WFD. However, if they include awater surface that fulfils the requirements to beincluded in the category of lake, they will be con-sidered as water bodies within this category, as itis the case of some marshes described in theprevious section.

The Júcar Hydrological Plan (JHP) (CHJ, 1998)includes a list of 53 wetlands, which are shownin table 12 jointly with their location and estimat-ed area. The total surface covered by wetlands isapproximately 45 000 ha. This surface does notcorrespond just to the water surface, but also tothe surface defined for the whole wetland, in-cluding the associated terrestrial ecosystem.

Lake denomination

Laguna de Uña

Laguna de Salinas

Prat de Cabanes

Marjal y Estanys d’Almenara

Marjal dels Moros

Marjal Rafalell y Vistavella

L’ Albufera Lake

Marjal de Pego Oliva

Marjal de la Safor

Els Bassar - Clot de Galvany

Table 11Preliminary surface water bodies: Heavily

modified lakes

Figure 58Channels connecting L’Albufera Lake to the sea

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 51


Wetland name Autonomous Community Area (ha)

Balsa del Pinar o de Rubiales ARAGÓN 3.60

Laguna de Bezas ARAGÓN 9.04

Laguna del Carpillo ARAGÓN 0.31

Laguna del Tortajada ARAGÓN 1.61

Salinas de Arcos de la Salinas ARAGÓN 4.88

Laguna del Acequión CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 24.76

Laguna del Arquillo CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 522.34

Sistema El Bonillo-Lezuza-El Ballestero CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 7 885.49

Pantano de Fuente Albilla CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 7.03

Laguna de Ontalafia CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 41.68

Laguna de Riachuelos CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 2.32

Laguna Ojos de Villaverde CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 339.74

Laguna de Sugel CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 11.66

Laguna del Pozo Airón CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 0.44

Lagunas de Cedazos CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 84.35

Laguna del Marquesado CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 5.06

Laguna de Uña CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 21.42

Salinas de Monteagudo CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 6.23

Complejo lagunar Torcas de Cañada Hoyo CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 181.68

Complejo Lagunar de Arcas/Ballesteros CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 275.03

Laguna de Navarramiro CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 0.90

Torcas de Cuenca CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 576.29

Complejo lagunar de Fuentes CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 43.19

Laguna de las Zomas CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 1.42

Torcas de la Maya del Chorro CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 56.57

Surgencia del Río Ojos de Moya CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 40.70

Cuevas del "Tío Manolo" y "El Boquerón" CASTILLA-LA MANCHA 9.60

Parque Natural de L'Albufera VALENCIA 21 120.02

Parque Natural de las Salinas de Santa Pola VALENCIA 2 496.50

Parque Natural del marjal Pego-Oliva VALENCIA 1 290.50

Parque Natural del Prat de Cabanes-Torreblanca VALENCIA 811.79

Lagunas de Mata y Torrevieja VALENCIA 3 700.00

Marjal de Almenara VALENCIA 1 487.68

Marjal de La Safor VALENCIA 1 228.83

Marjal del Sur del Júcar VALENCIA 3 373.95

Marjal de Aigua Amarga VALENCIA 207.87

Marjal de "El Moro" VALENCIA 618.85

Prat de Peñíscola VALENCIA 104.91

Balsares-Carabassí VALENCIA 177.11

Salinas de Calpe VALENCIA 40.86

Laguna y Salinas de Villena VALENCIA 717.98

Laguna de Salinas VALENCIA 284.07

Desembocadura del río Mijares VALENCIA 321.95

Marjal de Rafalell y Vistabella VALENCIA 103.08

Navajos de Sinarcas VALENCIA 24.43

Salinas de Cofrentes VALENCIA 2.67

Dehesa de Soneja VALENCIA 2.48

Laguna de San Mateo VALENCIA 11.15

Clot de la Mare de Deu VALENCIA 7.50

Nacimiento del "Riu Verd" VALENCIA 3.48

Estany de Nules VALENCIA 531.18

Embalse de Embarcaderos VALENCIA 393.34

Embalse de Elda VALENCIA 24.17

Table 12 List of Wetlands included in the JHP (CHJ,1998)

52

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 52


Figure 59Examples of marshes in the Júcar RBD

The most characteristic wetlands in number andextension are the marshes. Generally, they arelarge flooding surfaces fed by groundwater, andto a lesser extent, by surface water. Their delin-eation is a difficult task, and usually, only a pro-tection perimeter much bigger than the watersurface is available. The protected marshes ofthe District will be included in the Register ofProtected Areas.

Presently, four wetlands are included in the Ram-sar Convention List of Wetlands of InternationalImportance (List first signed in Ramsar, Iran on1971, currently with an overall of 1 328 sitesworldwide). By being in this list, wetlands acquirea new status, not only at regional, but also at na-tional and international levels. These wetlands be-come recognised by the 138 members of the

Ramsar Agreement as being of significant valuefor the region or country in which they are locat-ed, and also for the international community as awhole. These four wetlands names and date ofinclusion in the Ramsar list are shown in table 13.

Among these wetlands, L’Albufera Lake standsout for its uniqueness. It is a lagoon within thelimits of a Natural Park declared by means of theEnvironmental Regional Legislation (Decree89/1986). The Reserve consists mainly on awetland of 21 120 ha located 10 km South fromthe city of Valencia, and includes not only thelake but also its surroundings (figure 60). Thearea around the lake is comprised of large exten-sions of rice fields, and a protective coastal stringof dunes next to the Mediterranean Sea. Themost relevant feature of L’Albufera is a shallow la-

Table 13Ramsar Wetlands within the Júcar RBD

Ramsar Wetland Date of inclusion Autonomous Community Area (ha)

L’Albufera de Valencia 05/12/89 Valencia 21 120

Pego-Oliva 04/10/94 Valencia 1 290

Prat de Cabanes-Torreblanca 05/12/89 Valencia 812

Salinas de Santa Pola 05/12/89 Valencia 2 496

53

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 53


54

Figure 60 The Metropolitan Area of Valencia and the Natural Park of L’ Albufera

goon of 2 433 ha of free surface covered by wa-ter with an average depth of 0.88 m.

The ecosystem has been considered so valuablefor the region, that in 1989 it was designated bythe Spanish Government for inclusion in theRamsar List, and on 1991 was designated by theValencian Autonomous Community as an space

protected by the Directive 79/409/CEE, whichpromotes the conservation of birds, and the Di-rective 92/43/CEE that supports the protectionof the EC natural heritage.

The role played by this wetland in the migrationof birds between Europe and Africa has beengreatly documented. More than 250 differentspecies of birds make use of the Park in a regu-lar year for resting, feeding and sheltering, and90 more species used the area for breeding.Furthermore, its environment holds a great vari-ety of habitats, which support an extensive bio-diversity of additional fauna and flora. Thesesignificant data, led the Autonomous Govern-ment in 1995 to formulate a Protective Plan forits Natural Resources, passed by Decree96/1995.

Moreover, as the environment of the Park is ex-tremely fragile and self-dependant on water re-sources, it is crucial to know and understand itswater needs and water balance, as well as thequality aspects and reference conditions featuredby the lake. This is the reason why the Júcar RBDis presently conducting a thoroughly and com-prehensive study that intends to give answer toall these questions.

Figure 61 L’ Albufera Lake

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 54

2.1.1.4. Coastal waters

The “coastal waters” definition according to theWFD is surface water on the landward side of aline every point of which is at a distance of onenautical mile on the seaward side from thenearest point of the baseline from which thebreadth of territorial waters is measured, ex-tending where appropriate up to the outer limitof transitional waters.

Spanish Law 10/1977 of January 4 establishes inarticle 2 that the internal limit of the maritime ter-ritory is determined by the maximum low tide lineand, in its case, by the base straight lines that areestablished by the Government. This Law speci-fies that straight base lines established by the De-cree included in Law 20/1967 of April 8, will con-stitute the internal limit of the territorial sea.

The Royal Decree 2510/1977, of August 5, es-tablishes straight base lines for the delimitationof Spanish jurisdictional waters. This Decree es-tablishes, in article 1, geographic coordinates (re-ferred to nautical charts corresponding to thoseeditions from the 50’s and 60’s on a scale of

1:100 000/150 000) for those points that de-fine the straight base lines.

The geometrical definition on a GIS system ofthe base lines for the whole Spanish territory hasbeen carried out by CEDEX. For the Júcar RBD,the associated coastal strip has defined basestraight lines that have been used to determinethe external delimitation of coastal waters. Thestraight lines were obtained by connecting exter-nal coastal points, which were usually capes. Themain problem for delimitating coastal waters liedon the low precision of the location of thosepoints, which were initially calculated from a verysmall scale, and made necessary the correctionof the coordinates in some of the points to lo-cate the correct geographic positions.

The addition of 1 nautical mile to the straightbase lines in the Júcar RBD defines the externallimit of coastal waters as seen in figure 62.

The WFD does not clarify how the terrestrial lim-its of coastal waters must be determined. TheGD developed by the COAST working group (EC,2003e), indicates that, since the structure of the


Figure 62Preliminary coastal waters

55

Note: Preliminarycoastal waters in greenSource: CEDEX

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 55


“inter-tidal” zone is one of the elements of hy-dromorphological quality, it is recommended toinclude this area in the category consideringmaximum level tides.

The use of the coastal line coming from nauticalcharts is sufficiently representative of the terres-trial limit of coastal waters in the Júcar RBD,since in this area the effect of tides is considerednegligible.

A special case included in the coastal waters cat-egory is the “coastal lake”, possibility consideredin the GD on coastal waters (EC, 2003e, section2.6.1). These lakes are water bodies very close

to the sea and highly influenced by it, and sea-waters enter them frequently.

Water bodies preliminarily defined as “coastallakes” have been considered as heavily modifiedwater bodies in Júcar RBD and are showed in fig-ure 63 and table 14.

An example of a coastal lake identified in the Jú-car RBD is the Estany de Cullera. It is a brackishlagoon with a surface of about 21 ha and a max-imum depth of 7 m. This Estany is a naturalfloodway of the Júcar River ending in the sea. Itis connected to a wetland of 3 439 ha and avast area of rice fields and orange tree crops (fig-ure 64). This example of water body is quite un-usual and unique, since no permanent surfaceflow is reaching the sea as it happens with rivers.

CEDEX is developing the classification of coastalwaters by ecotypes for the General Directorate ofCoasts. The criteria for the establishment of eco-types in coastal waters with the WFD System Aare just two, and are shown in table 15.

Coastal lake denomination

Estany de Cullera

Salinas de Santa Pola

Table 14Preliminary surface water bodies: Heavilymodified coastal lakes

Figure 63 Preliminary surface water bodies: Heavily modified coastal lakes

56

Source: CEDEX andJúcar RBA

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 56


The results of System A application to the coastalwaters of the Júcar RBD are the following:

• The ecoregion assigned is the Mediterraneanone.

• Coastal water average salinity fluctuates be-tween 30 and 40 g/l.

• Most of Júcar’s coastal waters are shallow(<30m), to a lesser extent intermediate (30– 50 m), sometimes they are deeper than50 m, but they never reach 100 m.

This is very much the case for the whole Mediter-ranean ecoregion, and following System A onlytwo types of coastal water bodies are found: shal-low and intermediate. Due to this simple catego-rization, it seems necessary to apply System B toobtain a more diversified classification.

According to System B mandatory factors, coastalwaters in the Júcar RBD belong to one singletype within the Mediterranean ecoregion with atidal range below 1 m and salinity concentrationfrom 30 to 40 g/l.

Optional factors are also given by System B thatdetermine characteristics of coastal waters andhence, the biological population structure andcomposition: current velocity, wave exposure,mean water temperature, mixing characteristics,turbidity, retention time (of enclosed bays),mean substratum composition and water tem-perature range. As previously mentioned, it isnecessary to apply the optional factors to definespecific type characteristics. GD on coastal wa-ters (EC, 2003e) suggests the following orderwhen choosing these factors: wave exposure,deepness and other ecologically relevant factors.

For the Júcar case, it is appropriate to use waveexposure, deepness and substratum composi-tion, but it is also possible to use the rest of theoptional factors. Currently, the ongoing analysis istrying to establish the final factors to be used.

2.1.1.5. Transitional waters

The WFD defines “Transitional waters” as bodiesof surface water in the vicinity of river mouthswhich are partly saline in character as a result oftheir proximity to coastal waters but which aresubstantially influenced by freshwater flows.

In the ecological Mediterranean region, tides arenot considered appreciable (<1 m) and in mostcases, the sparse incursion of saline water re-duces the extension of transitional waters. Onthe other hand, Mediterranean rivers do not usu-

ally present sufficient freshwater outflows toform plumes that extend into the sea, being thisphenomenon very infrequent.

Different possibilities to establish transitional wa-ters are being studied at present by the GeneralDirectorate of Water (GDW) and by the GeneralDirectorate of Coasts. As a general rule, the de-lineation of transitional waters will be defined bymeans of the limit between the hydraulic publicdomain and the public maritime terrestrial do-main. This limit, according to the Coastal Law, ex-tends upstream by the river shores until the tideeffect is noticeable. This system agrees with theone proposed by GD on transitional and coastalwaters (EC, 2003e). For the Júcar RBD case, thereduced extension and significance (less than 5km) of these transitional waters may lead to thedecision of not considering them as differentiat-ed water bodies.

57

Figure 64Estany de Cullera (coastal lake)

Table 15Definition of ecotypes at coastal waters with the

System A

Type based on mean annual salinity Type based on mean depth

<0.5‰: freshwater shallow waters: <30 m

0.5 to <5‰: oligohaline intermediate: 30 to 200 m

5 to <18‰: mesohaline deep: >200 m

18 to <30‰: polyhaline

30 to <40‰: euhaline

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 57


The criteria for the establishment of ecotypeswith the WFD System A are just two, as shown intable 16:

Optional factors are given once more with Sys-tem B to determine the characteristics of thetransitional water and hence the biological popu-lation structure and composition: depth, currentvelocity, wave exposure, residence time, meanwater temperature, mixing characteristics, turbidi-ty, mean substratum composition, shape andwater temperature range. Similarly to the eco-types for coastal waters, this kind of analyses arecurrently being carried out by CEDEX and the Jú-car RBD.

2.1.1.6. Artificial and heavily modified waterbodies

According to the GD elaborated by the HeavilyModified Water Bodies Working Group on “Iden-tification and designation of heavily modifiedand artificial water bodies” (EC, 2003d), theoverall goal of the WFD for surface waters is toachieve “good ecological and chemical status” inall surface water bodies by 2015. Some waterbodies may not achieve this objective for differ-ent reasons. Under certain conditions, the WFDallows Member States to identify and designateartificial water bodies (AWB) and heavily modi-fied water bodies (HMWB) according to Article4(3) of the Directive. By making this designation,less rigorous objectives are applied to water bod-ies and an extension of the timing for achievingthe objectives is given. These derogations aredescribed in Articles 4(4) and 4(5) of the WFD.

HMWB are water bodies, which, as a result ofphysical alterations by human activity, are sub-stantially changed in character and cannot meeta “good ecological status” (GES). AWB are waterbodies created by human activity. Instead of aGES, the environmental objective for HMWB and

AWB is achieving a “good ecological potential”(GEP), which has to be met by 2015.

The designation of HMWB and AWB is optionaland must be carried out by each RBD. In thoseplaces where modified or artificial waters are notdesignated, the objective will consist on achiev-ing a good ecological status. This optional desig-nation is not an opportunity to avoid achievingecological and chemical objectives, since GEP isan ecological objective, which may often, in itself,be challenging to achieve.

The designation may, in some instances, help toprotect wider environmental interests; e.g. the re-moval of a human alteration may lead to the de-struction of valuable environmental features.

The concept of HMWB was introduced into theWFD in recognition that many water bodies inEurope have been subject to major physical al-terations to allow a wide range of water uses. Ar-ticle 4(3)(a) lists the following types of activities,which were considered likely to result in a waterbody being designated as a HMWB:

• Navigation, including port facilities, or recre-ation;

• Activities for the purposes of which water isstored, such as drinking-water supply, powergeneration or irrigation;

• Water regulation, flood protection, landdrainage;

• Other equally important sustainable humandevelopment activities.

These specified uses tend to cause considerablehydromorphological changes in water bodies ofsuch scale, that restoration and the achievementof GES may not be possible even in the long-term, without preventing the continuation of thatspecific use. The concept of HMWB was thuscreated to allow for the continuation of theseuses, which provide valuable social and econom-ic benefits, while allowing mitigation measures toimprove water quality.

The WFD takes a very similar approach for AWBand HMWB. AWB were created for the samespecified uses listed in Article 4(3)(a). A keyquestion, in order to differentiate between AWBand HMWB, is the meaning of the word “creat-ed” as used in Article 2(8). More specifically, thequestion is whether “created” refers to creating anew water body from previously dried land (e.g.a canal), or whether it could also denote a waterbody that has changed in category (e.g. river intoa lake as a consequence of the construction of a

58

Type based on mean annual salinity Type based on mean tidal range

<0.5‰: freshwater <2m: microtidal

0.5 to <5‰: oligohaline 2 to 4 m: mesotidal

5 to <18‰: mesohaline >4m: macrotidal

18 to <30‰: polyhaline

30 to <40‰: euhaline

Table 16Definition of ecotypes at transitional waters withthe System A

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 58


dam, or coastal water into a freshwater lake dueto reclaiming). The criterion followed by CEDEXhas been to define AWB as water bodies locatedwhere there was not a previous water surface.

In the case of Júcar RBD, HMWB and AWB arestill not totally designated, and criteria for theiridentification are being developed by CEDEX aspart of the characterisation that is being carriedout at national scale.

Some of the proposed criteria by CEDEX to de-fine the HMWB are:

• Reservoirs: They are considered as heavilymodified rivers because water bodieschange their category due to the construc-tion of a dam (from river to lake). To be in-

cluded in this category, the water body is re-quired to be located inside a “significant riv-er”, according to the criteria previously de-fined and to have a water surface greaterthan 50 ha.

• Canalised rivers: They are considered heavilymodified rivers when an alteration of a lengthgreater than 5 km is produced in a river reach.

• Heavily modified lakes: Water bodies mustbe studied case by case in order to establishif they must be considered heavily modifiedlakes. For the Júcar RBD case, as mentioned,all lakes have been included in this category.

• Ports: Although the final criteria has not beendecided, it is very probable that only thegreatest ports are going to be consideredHMWB. Other ports may be considered aspressures.

59

Figure 65Preliminary HMWBs

CanalizationReservoirsHeavily modifiedlakes

Source: CEDEX

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 59


Figure 66 Reservoirs included in the category “Heavily modified rivers”

HMWB according to the above criteria are shownin figure 65 (coastal heavily modified water bod-ies are not represented).

All reservoirs included in this category are shownin figure 66.

CEDEX is developing those works necessary totypify reservoirs. To develop these works, 12variables are being used. Among them, thereare: geographic variables (altitude, longitude, andlatitude), morphometric variables of reservoirs(depth, surface and volume), variables related towater geology and mineralisation (alkalinity andconductivity), variables related to the drainagebasin of the reservoir (basin surface and time re-tention) and climatic variables (mean air temper-ature and variation of air temperature).

Procedures used for the calculations use GIS for-mat variables and determine the variable accumu-lated value in the fluvial network point in whichthe reservoir is located. This process uses thesame GIS coverages than the ones used for river

typology, except for the morphometric variables inwhich databases from CEDEX have been used.

A statistic treatment has been developed for thedata in different stages, and it includes: studiesof factorial analysis of the main components andsuccessive trials of classification that combine dif-ferent options of the cluster analysis. For theanalyses base, it was decided to reduce thenumber of variables to 8 in order to eliminate re-dundant information, being those variables thefollowing: altitude, latitude, longitude, depth, sur-face, and alkalinity, as mandatory factors of Sys-tem B, and drainage area and air mean tempera-ture as optional factors.

Reservoirs are classified mainly depending on theirmineralisation, drainage basin size (which distin-guishes reservoirs of high river sections or smallfluvial networks from reservoirs of lower river sec-tions, or main flows), altitude and reservoir size.Currently, limits for these former variables are be-ing looked for as well as characteristics, such asthe thermo dynamic of the reservoir, and some

60

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 60


other climatic factors, that allow differentiateamong groups of reservoirs with different ecologicreference potential. The obtained results will becompared with the available biological information.

Other examples of HMWB are the harbours locat-ed in the coastal stretch. On the Júcar RBD coast-line, three great ports are present, one for eachcapital of province: Valencia, Alicante and Castel-lón. These ports provide accommodation for largevessels and are vital nexus between terrestrial andmarine transport of goods. Eight other ports ofmedium size are exploited for commercial, fishingand recreational activities. The Valencia port standsout among all these ports since 20% of the annu-al Spanish exports is directed through it, being cur-rently the biggest cargo container port in Spain.

Regarding the definition of AWB, some of the cri-teria proposed by CEDEX are:

• Reservoirs: They are considered artificial wa-ter bodies when they are located off limits ofthe “significant river network” and they havea water surface greater than 50 ha.

• Canals: Only main canals with valuable eco-logical status should be considered. No deci-sion has been taken yet on the inclusion ofcertain canals.

Only a reservoir is going to be considered asAWB in the Júcar RBD, and it is La MuelaReservoir (figure 67). This reservoir is part ofan important hydraulic reversible complex, asdescribed in section 4. It is located in the topof a mountainous massif and has a storage ca-pacity of 22 hm3 with a net jump of around500 meters.

Figure 67Cortes de Pallás-La Muela Reservoir

61

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 61


2.1.1.7. Surface water bodies

Surface water bodies include the categories de-scribed in preceding sections: rivers, lakes, transi-tional and coastal waters, and heavily modifiedand artificial water bodies.

A preliminary map of surface water categories isshown in figure 68. From this map, some impor-tant data are obtained. For example, the totallength of surface water bodies is around 5 600km, of which 5 095 km are rivers and 479 areHMWB. There are ten heavily modified lakes,two heavily modified coastal lakes and onereservoir designated as artificial water body(AWB); channels that could also be designatedas AWB are under study. Transitional waters havenot been defined yet, but it seems that there are

not going to be significant water bodies includedwithin this category in the Júcar RBD.

In addition, criteria established by the WFD and theGD (EC, 2003a) have been applied by CEDEX toobtain a preliminary classification of surface watersinto water bodies.

The defined network of significant rivers hasbeen fragmented in water bodies according tochanges of categories, typologies and other as-pects. By doing this fragmentation river reachesthat are too short are often obtained. These riverreaches are not identified as water bodies, sincethey are not considered significant. The criterionadopted to define a river reach as a water bodyconsists of presenting a minimum length of 5km, which is consistent with the one established

Figure 68 Preliminary surface water categories

RiverHM RiverHM LakeCoastal watersHM Coastal lakeArtificial waterbody

62

Source: CEDEX

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 62


63

HM LakesCoastal watersHM Coastal lakesArtificial waterbody

Figure 69Preliminary surface water bodies

by WFD for reservoirs (a reservoir of 0.5 km2 isequivalent to 5 km-long and 100 m-wide). Fig-ure 69 shows the surface water bodies that havebeen defined in the Júcar RBD. The number ofpreliminary surface water bodies is 268, ofwhich 255 are rivers, 10 are heavily modifiedlakes, 2 are heavily modified coastal lakes and 1is an artificial water body.

2.1.2. Establishment of type-specificreference conditions for surfacewater bodies

According to Annex II of WFD, for each surfacewater body type characterised, type-specific hy-dromorphological, physico-chemical and biologi-cal reference conditions must be establishedrepresenting the values of the hydromorphologi-

cal, physico-chemical and biological quality ele-ments specified in Annex V for that surface waterbody type at high ecological status.

These type-specific conditions may be eitherspatially based or based on modelling, or maybe derived using a combination of these meth-ods. Whenever it is not possible to use thesemethods, MS may use expert judgement to es-tablish such conditions.

2.1.2.1. Rivers

The determination of the reference conditionscan be carried out through different methods,and the establishment of a reference networkstands out among them. The reference networkis obviously the most reliable method, but it will

Source: CEDEX

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 63


not be always possible to establish referencemonitoring stations for all typologies, due to theconditions the reference water bodies must fulfil.

Therefore, the first step in the establishment oftype-specific reference conditions has been theselection of river reaches under undisturbed orslightly disturbed conditions. These portionsshould be understood as reaches with no or veryminor anthropogenic alterations over the valuesof the physico-chemical, hydromorphological andbiological quality elements.

In order to identify the degree of alteration of thedifferent water bodies in the Júcar RBD, an analy-sis has been developed with two consecutive andcomplementary phases. The first phase consists infixing the pristine water bodies, which are waterbodies in full natural conditions or with no anthro-pogenic alteration. This identification has beendone following the criteria defined by CEDEX. As asecond phase, and as part of a more detailedprocess, a preliminary analysis of pressures andimpacts focusing on ecological and chemical as-pects and considering effects, such as the auto-depuration of organic discharges, has been donein the Júcar RBD. The results of this analysis al-lowed a broader identification of water bodies witha small degree of alteration (slightly altered wa-ters). Data coming from the monitoring network inthese reaches were used to determine the prelimi-nary reference conditions for the defined ecotypes.

The first phase has been developed following thecriteria defined by CEDEX (2004a) in the draftdocument entitled “Preliminary selection of pos-sible river reaches of the reference network”, andhas consisted in the identification of pristine wa-ter bodies, or those that are currently preservedin their natural status. The methodology that wasused aimed at identifying the main pressures act-ing on water bodies and defining those thresh-olds from which it can be determined that thenatural conditions of water bodies are altered.

The identification of main pressures comes fromthe selection of a series of indirect pressure indi-cators estimated from homogeneous cartograph-ic information of the whole District. These indica-tors are as follows:

• Naturalness basin indicator, based on landuses;

• Indicator of the most important human activi-ties that may affect the physico-chemicalcharacteristics of water bodies, based on ur-ban, industrial and agricultural demands;

• Indicator of the consequence of water flowregulation, based on reservoirs storage capac-ity;

• Morphological alterations indicator, based onland uses.

Although selected indicators are not as detailedas the ones used in the pressures and impactsanalysis, they are sufficient to obtain a first esti-mate and they gather those main anthropogenicpressures identified by the WFD in Annex II(1.4).

The determination of thresholds that charac-terise the disturbance or alteration of naturalconditions was done by CEDEX by contrastingdifferent values of these thresholds with infor-mation gathered in the proposed referencestations network of project GUADALMED1. Theresults obtained through this process were fair-ly confident. Thresholds are described as fol-lows:

1) Degree of alteration of the basin drainagesurface (figure 70), based on the land useinformation of the map obtained through theCORINE LAND program. Alteration of the nat-ural status is produced when the basin’s sur-face that is preserved natural is lower than70% of the draining basin and slight alter-ation is produced when this percentage isbetween 70% and 80%.

1 GUADALMED is a research project, which aims to study in detail a broad group of Spanish Mediterranean Rivers in order to solvedifficulties that may arise when determining their ecological status. In this project, many entities participate including the Universi-ties of Barcelona, Balears Islands, Vigo, Murcia, Almería and Granada, as well as other organisms and institutions as CEDEX, Min-istry of Environment, The Regional Council of Barcelona, The Regional Board of Andalusia, and the Catalonian Water Agency. In itsfirst phase (1999-2002), five reference places were chosen for each monitored basin, only considering each area's experts,which is a criterion described in the WFD. The outcome expected from this project is the establishment of general methodologybases that could be used for selecting and validating reference conditions in the project GUADALMED-2 (2002-2004).

64

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 64


Figure 70Natural and artificial areas (left side) and percentage of naturalness in water bodies (right side)

Natural areasModificated areas

0 - 7070 - 8585 - 100

Non AffectedAffected

Figure 71Water bodies affected by abstractions and discharges

65

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 65


2) Alteration due to abstractions, discharges andwater returns produced by the use of water(figure 71):

• Alteration due to domestic uses, the alter-ation threshold is fixed when urban demandis greater than the natural resource by 3%;

• Alteration due to agricultural uses, the alter-ation threshold is fixed when agricultural de-mand is greater than the natural resource by10%;

• Alteration due to industrial uses, the alter-ation threshold is fixed when industrial de-mand is greater than the natural resource by1.5%.

3) Morphological alteration due to water flowregulation (reservoirs). There is a morpholog-ical alteration when regulation capacity of ex-

isting upstream reservoirs exceeds natural re-source by 25%.

4) Morphological alterations of riverbeds, due toanthropogenic activity in the vicinities of wa-ter bodies, and mainly due to the existenceof channelling. The definition of altered areashas been derived from superimposing agri-cultural activities or the population settle-ments on the water body.

This analysis and establishment of threshold, hasallowed identifying pristine water bodies in theJúcar RBD (figure 73). The total length of pristinewater reaches is about 1 500 km, which repre-sents 27% of all water bodies. Those reachesare the most adequate to establish referenceconditions for the ecotypes to which they be-long.

Figure 72 Water bodies affected by regulation dams

66

Dam Volume (hm3)0 - 5051 - 200> 200

Regulation Index0 - 0.10.1 - 0.90.9 - 1.21.2 - 22.0 - 3

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 66


However, since the main objective of the prioranalysis, is to identify all pristine waters, an im-portant number of water bodies with slight an-thropogenic alteration are left out of the naturalcondition areas. This is the reason why the sec-ond phase for the identification of water bodieswith “no or slight anthropogenic alteration” hasbeen developed taking into account the pres-sures analysis described later in this report. Thisaction allows broadening the range of referenceconditions to almost the total number of eco-types identified in the Júcar RBD, agreeing withthe information obtained through the chemicalwater quality and biological measuring networksexisting in the Júcar RBD.

The combination of both types of results allowsidentifying not only pristine waters (Phase I ofthe analysis), but also water bodies with “no orslight anthropogenic alterations” (Phase II of theanalysis).

As a result of the analysis of significant pressuresdescribed in section 4.1 of this document, figure74 shows the reaches with “non or slightly al-tered water bodies” in blue, and the controlpoints of the biological monitoring network.These reaches have been obtained by groupingthe classes corresponding to “very low pressure”(in blue) and “low pressure” (green) shown inthe map of figure 131. The total length of thesereaches is about 3 600 km, representing 71% ofthe total length of rivers defined as water bodies.

67

Figure 73Pristine and non-pristine water bodies

Pristine waterbodiesNon-pristinewater bodies

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 67


From a total of 247 measurement points of the bi-ological monitoring network, a total of 116 are lo-cated on reaches with “no or slight alteration”,which means that there is abundant data to carryout this kind of analysis. By superimposing the“non or slightly altered” reaches map with the eco-types map (figure 74, and 55) it is concluded thatfrom those 14 ecotypes defined in Júcar RBD, 13have representation in this type of waters. Alteredconditions are found in ecotype 1 located in thelast reach of the Júcar River, areas that are usuallymuch more affected by anthropogenic alterations.

Table 17 shows the number of reaches belong-ing to each ecotype, those with “no or slight al-teration”, the number of monitoring stations andthose station located on reaches with “non orslightly altered” waters. In the reaches located onecotype 1 it is not possible to find this kind ofwaters.

The calculation of a commonly used biologicalindex, the Iberian Macroinvertebrate Index(IBMWP), has been carried out to define, in apreliminary way, the reference conditions foreach ecotype where “non or slightly altered” wa-

ters are represented and at least one monitoringstation exists.

Conditions of reference should not be limitedjust to some values of classic indexes that sup-pose the maximum alteration that can be found,but they could be accompanied by a populationpattern. In this same line, classic indexes couldbe modified in the near future to follow the WFDcriteria. The IBMWP index was developed in atime when the main objective of indexes was toassess water quality, understood as a generalconcept to be applied equally to all water bodies.This index establishes a scale of species valorisa-tion that may appear in the ecosystem, being itsvalue the sum of all values assigned to eachspecies. Under current circumstances, where themaximum quality is considered at natural condi-tions, species could at least be assigned a differ-ent value in different ecotypes and could evenbe valued negatively if present in some ecosys-tems. In any case, the following paragraphs de-scribe the work developed with classic indicators.

Therefore, the values of the IBMWP index havebeen obtained in the “non or slightly altered” wa-

68

Figure 74 Slightly altered water bodies and biological monitoring network

Non or sltightlyaltered waterbodiesAltered waterbodiesBiologicalstations

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 68


ter reaches with monitoring stations. This proce-dure allows obtaining values of that indicator for13 of the 14 ecotypes defined in the Júcar RBD.Consequently, these values could be assumedequivalent to high status. For those ecotypeswithout monitoring station in “non or slightly al-tered” water, different analyses are currently incourse.

Reference conditions have been established foreach ecotype corresponding to “non or slightlyaltered” waters. Keeping in mind the values ofthe macroinvertebrate index in the reference sta-tions, the ranges of quality can be calculated foreach ecotype using mean values obtained as thethresholds of quality. Following the recommen-dations of the REFCON Guidance (EC, 2003f),the mean or median values from the referencesite is considered the best starting point whenestablishing the classification schemes for eco-logical status. Table 19 shows for each ecotypethe thresholds proposed.

Table 17Characteristics of naturalness of the ecotypes defined by the Júcar RBD

Ecotype Number of reaches Number of reaches Number of Number of with “non or biological biological slightly altered” monitoring stations monitoring stations waters on reaches with

“non or slightlyaltered” waters

1 10 0 8 0

2 31 13 16 6

3 61 31 38 20

4 95 53 42 18

5 13 2 12 5

6 9 1 6 1

7 20 10 14 8

8 14 8 7 3

10 26 17 7 3

11 33 17 16 5

13 33 20 31 19

14 3 1 3 1

15 7 6 9 7

16 125 86 36 21

Table 18Values of Macroinvertebrate (IBMWP) index for

each ecotype

Ecotypes Number of stations Mean value of in “non or slightly macroinvertebrate altered” waters index

1 0 -

2 6 42

3 20 81

4 18 59

5 5 59

6 1 20

7 8 68

8 3 61

10 3 117

11 5 65

13 19 106

14 1 138

15 7 44

16 21 120

69

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 69


The values corresponding to the high status limitfor the IBMWP are shown in figure 75 superim-posed on ecotypes. A strong consistence in thespatial behaviour pattern is observed.

Different biological indicators have been studiedin the Júcar RBD, based on the analysis of di-atoms, the identification of macrophytes (aquaticor semi-aquatic plants) and the analysis of thepopulations of fish species in selected points ofthe District. The use of these biological groupshas been experimental and its methodologiesare being improved. Nevertheless, the results ob-tained among the different indicators used canbe compared to have a first approach to the eco-logical status of the Júcar RBD’s rivers. Three in-dexes based on the three biological communi-ties have been used: Diatoms index (DI), Macro-phytes index (MI) and Ecotrophyc index (EI).The methods of calculation are described in thestudy of the design of the biological network forthe Júcar RBD (CHJ, 2000a).

In order to establish a classification of ecologicalwater quality using diatoms as water quality indi-cators, a specific index has been elaborated forJúcar RBD based on the indicative value of the

Ecotypes IBMWPthresholds

1 42 (*)

2 42

3 81

4 59

5 59

6 42 (*)

7 68

8 61

10 117

11 65

13 106

14 138

15 44

16 120

Table 19Values of IBMWP thresholds proposed for eachecotype

* expert judgement

Figure 75 Values of high status limit for IBMWP superimposed on ecotypes

70

High Status IBMWP42445961656881106117120138

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 70


different species. The classification is the follow-ing one: ≥ 7 (Excellent); 6-7 (Good); 5-6 (Medi-um); 4-5 (Poor) and <4 (Bad). Table 20 showsfor each ecotype the number of stations in “nonor slightly altered” waters and the mean value ofthe DI.

The MI is based on the indicative value of thedifferent macrophytes taxa present in the water,settling down five classes of quality: >30 (classI); 20-28 (class II); 12-18 (class III); 6-10 (classIV) and <4 (class V). Table 21 shows for eachecotype the number of stations in “non or slight-ly altered” waters and the mean value of MI.

The EI is based on the study of freshwater fishspecies and it is calculated as the ratio of the av-erage biomass and the production obtained foreach of the captured species. The average bio-mass is obtained through the biomass of eachage class (fish weigh / surface unit of riverreach) and its instantaneous rate of mortality,while the production is the mass generated byfishes that integrate the population of one year.The average biomass is calculated in thosepoints where the existent populations in the mo-ment of the sampling have a significant pres-ence, or what is the same, in those ones wherethe populations have certain biological and nu-meric characteristics to consider them stabilisedthrough time. The relationship between averagebiomass and production is delimited in threeclasses: ≥ 1 (high); 0.5-0.9 (medium); <0.5(low). Table 22 shows for each ecotype thenumber of stations in “non or slightly altered”waters and the mean value of EI.

71

Table 20Values of DI for each ecotype

Ecotypes Number of stations Mean value of in “non or slightly Diatoms indexaltered” waters

1 - -

2 3 5.7

3 10 6.2

4 11 6.0

5 2 6.6

6 - -

7 4 7.0

8 2 5.6

10 3 6.2

11 3 5.8

13 10 6.6

14 - -

15 3 5.8

16 11 6.6

Table 21Values of MI for each ecotype

Ecotypes Number of stations Mean value of in “non or slightly Macrophytes indexaltered” waters

1 0 -

2 3 12

3 7 12

4 6 18

5 1 18

6 1 8

7 3 17

8 1 26

10 3 23

11 3 22

13 8 26

14 0 -

15 1 20

16 7 23

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 71


2.1.2.2. Lakes

According to the WFD, the type-specific condi-tions may be either spatially based or based onmodelling, and if it is not possible to use thesemethods, MS may use expert judgment to estab-lish such conditions. This is the situation in mostof the ecotypes corresponding to the category of“lake”, where usually no systematic monitoringnetwork exists.

A special case where the experts are defining thereference conditions is L’Albufera Lake, whichwas defined as a heavily modified water body(HMWB). This case is described in the followingparagraphs.

L’Albufera has experienced an evolution from abrackish system, which is documented from atleast the 12th century, to a fresh-water system,which started in the 17th century. The transitionbetween both systems was accelerated by hu-man factors such as the development of irriga-tion lands. The construction of the second sec-tion of the channel Acequia Real del Júcar in the18th century introduced a change in the hydro-logical balance of the wetland, consolidating thefresh-water system. Large amounts of waterwere diverted each year to L’Albufera, fromwhich only a small part was used for irrigation

purposes. This action generated a huge volumeof “excess” water that dramatically and definitelychanged the nature of the former ecosystem.The brackish lake, with scarce water vegetation,was transformed into a shallow fresh-water sys-tem dominated by dense submerged zones ofmacrophytes and large areas covered with reeds.

This situation continued with small variations un-til recently. At the beginning of 1970 the systemwas still close to its ecological optimum stage:clean waters, large areas of water macrophytes,marshes, great biodiversity and scarce anthropi-sation.

The effects of wastewater inflows and of fertilis-ers and herbicides on the natural populations ofthe wetland became increasingly evident. In1972, the macrophytes suddenly started disap-pearing from the lake, as well as most of the as-sociated fauna, marking a point of inflection in aprocess of environmental degradation.

There are two main factors that explain waterdegradation and the subsequent loss of biodiver-sity within the wetland: the worsening quality ofthe resource as a consequence of serious struc-tural deficiencies in the water treatment system(particularly in the Municipalities located at theSouth of Valencia) and the reduction of water in-flow from the Júcar River through the AcequiaReal del Júcar.

The wetland still receives water from differentsources and with different characteristics. Thecentral lake, or L’Albufera Lagoon, is a hyper-trophic system result of the excessive nutrientscoming from agricultural, urban and industrialwater dumping (Soria et al., 1987). In addition, itis subject to hydric manipulation by means ofthe gates or sluices that permit the control of thewater levels depending on the needs of ricecrops surrounding the marshy area.

These sluices are installed in the sea-outlet chan-nels (golas) and their influence on the water be-haviour of the system is very important. Three ofthe channels, Pujol, Perellonet and Perelló are di-rectly connected to the sea (as seen in previousfigure 58). The other two, Mareny and SantLlorenç, are connected to the channel system ofthe rice fields in the South of the park. The artifi-cial nature of the golas is significant and all ofthem, except for the Perelló gola, are equippedwith pumping systems.

In addition, the lake is undergoing an acceleratedprocess of aggradation (Benet, 1983) mainly

72

Ecotypes Number of stations Mean value of in “non or slightly Ecotrophyc indexaltered” waters

1 0 -

2 0 -

3 2 0.49

4 0 -

5 0 -

6 0 -

7 1 1

8 0 -

10 0 -

11 0 -

13 2 0.71

14 0 -

15 0 -

16 1 0.61

Table 22 Values of EI for each ecotype

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 72


caused by the sediments from the flooding ofthe Poyo and Beniparrell “barrancos” (Mediter-ranean ravines).

In October 2003, the Ministry of Environmentcontracted a study on the sustainable develop-ment of L’Albufera of Valencia. This is being car-ried out under the direction of the Júcar RiverBasin Authority (RBA). The objectives of thestudy can be summarised in three main aspects:to characterise the pre-operational state of theenvironment, to develop a tool for the predictionand assessment of environmental impacts andto propose an action plan.

As the starting point for the study, a discussionmeeting was held with different experts. Prior tothe meeting, the experts were asked to sendtheir personal comments on the sustainable de-velopment of L’Albufera, based on three mainquestions:

• What is the analysis of the state of L’Albuferaas a consequence of its historical circum-stances?

• What elements are relevant to characterise asustainable and feasible scenario for L’Al-bufera?

• What measures and actions must beanalysed in order to reach that scenario?

Concerning the characterisation of a sustainableand feasible scenario for L’Albufera, the conclu-sions of the experts meeting can be summarisedas follows.

The ecological quality of the system in the 60’sconstitutes a model to be reached although it isnot feasible to reproduce its boundary condi-tions. The sustainable scenario of L’Albufera willbe a new scenario that, in the first place, it isnecessary to define. Some aspects should be in-cluded in this definition:

• Clear water and oxygenated superficial sedi-ment.

• Typical phytoplankton for coastal lagoons withdiatoms and other algae species, but withoutcyanobacterian blooms. Chlorophyll concen-trations corresponding to a mesotrophic lake(Chlorophyll maximum bellow 50 mg/l).

• Zooplankton integrated by big filteringspecies. Seasonal domination by cladocerans.

• Regeneration of the marshy and submergedvegetation (Myriophyllum, Ceratophyllum,Potamogetum and characea) with its associ-ated fauna: shrimps or gambetes (Atyae-phyra desmaresti, Dugastella valentina and

Palaemonetes zariqueiyi); typical benthos forcoastal lagoons, etc.

• Recovery of characteristic and endemicspecies of L’Albufera, as some cyprinids, crus-taceans and molluscs.

• Improvement of the fishing resource in thelagoon: basses (Dicentrarchus labrax), eels(Anguilla anguilla), in reasonable and bal-anced proportions together with those ofmullets (Mugil cephalus).

• Good state of the riparian formations in riversand ravines. Reduction of altered riverbanks.

• Adequate flow and residence times. Goodquality inflows in order to prevent both eu-trophication and salinisation. Superficial in-flows from the North and West to balancethe dominance of inflows from the South.

• Maintenance of the biodiversity reservoirssuch as the ullals or ponds.

• Sustainable sedimentation rates as a conse-quence of the control and reduction of con-tamination, erosion, transport and sedimenta-tion processes.

2.1.2.3. Coastal and transitional waters

Within the Mediterranean ecoregion, where theJúcar RBD belongs, it is possible to establish ref-erence conditions for coastal waters using thefirst of the suggested approaches in section4.5.1. of Guidance on Transitional and CoastalWaters (EC, 2003e). According to this section,sites under minor alterations can be used to es-tablish the reference conditions.

The Protocol concerning Mediterranean SpeciallyProtected Areas (ZEPIM) is very useful to selectthese ecological important sites. (This Protocolwas signed in Geneva on April 3, 1982, in agree-ment with the Barcelona Convention for the Pro-tection of the Mediterranean against Pollution-1976). One of the main goals of listing areas un-der ZEPIM is to protect, preserve and manage ina sustainable way the areas of cultural and/ornatural special interest, and the flora and faunaspecies in danger of extinction.

The following areas in the Spanish territorial watersare included in the ZEPIM list: Island of Alboránand nearby sea areas, the Gata-Nijar Cape, MarineBottoms of the Almeria Levant, Maro-Cerro Gordocliff (Málaga-Granada), Mar Menor and its sur-roundings, Columbretes Islands, Creus Cape, Cabr-era Islands and the Medas Islands.

As these areas are distributed along a broad geo-graphical extension, they enclose the vast majori-ty of ecotypes and biological indices of the Span-

73

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 73

2.2. Characterisation of groundwater

74

Figure 76ZEPIM sites for establishing reference conditions for coastal watersat Júcar RBD

ish Mediterranean ecoregion. A further analysison these sites will determine if they are suitableto establish the reference conditions and the cor-responding biological indices for the differentecotypes.

Three ZEPIM highly representative sites of the Jú-car coastline have been selected to develop theanalysis: The National Park of the Archipelago ofCabrera, the Medas Islands and the ColumbretesIslands. Their location is showed in figure 76.

2.2. Characterisation ofgroundwater

2.2.1. Initial characterisation

Member States (MS) must carry out an initialcharacterisation of all groundwater bodies to as-sess their uses and the degree to which each ofthem is at risk of failing to meet the environmen-tal objectives established by the Directive.

The Directive establishes specific aspects to beconsidered for the characterisation of GW bodiesin article 5 and annex II.2.1. These aspects are: lo-cation and boundaries, pressures (abstractions, dif-fuse and point source pollution, artificial recharge),the general character of the overlying strata in thecatchment area from which the GW body receivesits recharge, and finally the dependence of surfacewater ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems.

Following the WFD indications, groundwater bod-ies can be grouped for the purposes of the initial

characterisation, the unit of analysis used in the Jú-car RBD for GW bodies is the hydrogeological unit(HGU). In the Spanish legislation, this concept cor-responds to one aquifer or a group of them suit-able to be managed as a single administrative unitby means of a rational and efficient water use.

The adopted GW bodies are the 52 HGUs de-fined in the Júcar Hydrological Plan (JHP). TheseHGUs are based in the project carried out in1989 by the Spanish Geological and Mining In-stitute (IGME) at national level. This study is theresult of aggregating and interpreting a largenumber of previous hydrogeological analysesavailable at that time and new ones that werecommissioned when needed.

The mapping of the HGUs was the result of con-sidering different lithographic groups, as carbonat-ed, detritic and alluvial aquifers. This process wasfollowed by a thoroughly study for the determina-tion and clustering accordingly to the aspects oflithology of pervious materials. The study alsomeasured physical properties of the aquifers re-lated to hydrodynamics (unconfined, partly con-fined or confined), composition (simple or multilayer), mean thickness and hydraulic parameters(e.g. hydraulic conductivity), and the storability ofaquifers. All these characteristics were taken intoaccount with the purpose of differentiating clearlyall GW bodies. Finally, HGUs were represented byclosed polygons defined by coordinates acrossthe Spanish mainland and islands.

The location and boundaries of the 52 HGUs de-fined within the Júcar RBD are shown in figure

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 74


77. It is worth mentioning that 6 of them (darkcoloured) are shared with other RBDs and man-aged jointly with them (Ebro, Guadiana andTajo). The management criteria correspond tothose defined in the Spanish Act 10/2001 bywhich the National Hydrologic Plan (NHP) wasapproved. The Act establishes the limits ofshared aquifer and assigns water resources toeach basin (MIMAM, 2000a).

The works carried out for the JHP and for theNHP make necessary the application of criteriaestablished by the Guidance Document on Iden-tification of River Basin Districts in MemberStates. Overview, criteria and current state ofplay (EC, 2002b), to assign each portion of theshared aquifer to one RBD. By applying this crite-rion, it follows that the external territory of the Jú-

car RBD would have to be taken out, and onlythe overlapping domain with the Júcar RBDshould be considered for the purpose of this Dis-trict management.

Main data corresponding to the initial characteri-sation of HGUs are shown in tables 23 and 24.Table 23 shows the disproportion of HGU sizes.For instance, the minimum and maximum GWbody sizes correspond to the HGUs of Peñarru-bia and Mancha Oriental (34 and 7 660 km2 re-spectively). These tables also show that a highnumber of the GW bodies are of carbonated na-ture and unconfined. Many GW bodies presentdependence from the aquatic ecosystems,which gives an idea of the limitation of waterabstraction, and the associated environmentalrestrictions.

75

Figure 77Hydrogeological Units (HGUs)

HydrogeologicalUnitsImpervioussurface or localaquifersSharedHydrogeologicalUnits

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 75


76

Code Name Polygonal Pervious Type Lithology Dependence size (km2) surface with aquatic

(km2) ecosystem

8.01 CELLA-MOLINADE ARAGON 233.43 188.72 Multilayer Carbonated No

8.02 MONTESUNIVERSALES 1 350.37 1 072.69 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.03 ARQUILLO-TRAMACASTIEL-VILLEL 428.19 142.40 Unconfined Carbonated Yes

8.04 VALLANCA 397.06 214.92 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.05 JAVALAMBRE 1 578.55 818.00 Unconfined Carbonated Yes

8.06 MOSQUERUELA 2 395.21 1 797.85 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.07 MAESTRAZGO 1 934.43 1 201.47 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.08 PUERTOS DE BECEITE 189.69 145.18 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.09 PLANA DECENIA-TORTOSA 95.63 77.21 Unconfined Detritic No

8.10 PLANA DEVINAROZ-PEÑISCOLA 126.13 125.34 Unconfined Detritic Yes

8.11 PLANA DE OROPESA-TORREBLANCA 106.37 105.42 Unconfined Detritic Yes

8.12 PLANA DECASTELLON 585.25 554.40 Unconfined Detritic Yes

8.13 ONDA 456.10 377.86 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.14 ALTO PALANCIA 999.77 791.33 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.15 ALPUENTE 1 098.57 633.26 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.16 OLMEDA 92.34 54.96 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.17 SERRANIA DE CUENCA 5 137.58 2 712.86 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.18 LAS SERRANIAS 1 529.27 1 050.55 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.19 ALCUBLAS 299.27 204.38 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.20 MEDIO PALANCIA 690.24 520.60 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.21 PLANA DE SAGUNTO 133.54 132.72 Multilayer Detritic Yes

8.22 LIRIA-CASINOS 493.67 445.86 Multilayer Mixed Yes

8.23 BUÑOL-CHESTE 634.11 343.68 Multilayer Mixed Yes

8.24 UTIEL-REQUENA 1 487.11 653.02 Unconfined Mixed Yes

8.25 PLANA DEVALENCIA NORTE 328.91 326.61 Unconfined Detritic Yes

8.26 PLANA DEVALENCIA SUR 561.94 537.20 Unconfined Detritic Yes

8.27 CAROCH NORTE 1 266.90 773.59 Unconfined Carbonated Yes

8.28 CAROCH SUR 1 406.79 862.57 Unconfined Detritic Yes

Table 23 Main physical data of HGUs within the Júcar RBD

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 76


Data from table 24 have been extracted from theanalysis of pressures described in section 4.3 Im-pact on groundwater. As seen in the data, diffusepollution is affecting a relative low number of GWbodies, and those seriously impacted are also suf-fering a high pressure from the quantitative side.This combination of pressures occurs because the

coastal plain in which these GW bodies are locat-ed, is subject to a high level of exploitation and re-turns from irrigation with high concentration of ni-trates. The mean annual recharge, also shown inthe table, is calculated by adding the followingvariables: infiltration due to rain, infiltration fromrivers, irrigation returns and lateral recharge.

77

Code Name Polygonal Pervious Type Lithology Dependence size (km2) surface with aquatic

(km2) ecosystem

8.29 MANCHA ORIENTAL 7 660.04 3 625.43 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.30 JARDIN-LEZUZA 1 453.57 376.41 Mixed Carbonated No

8.31 SIERRA DELAS AGUJAS 188.74 188.35 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.32 SIERRA GROSA 790.05 476.98 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.33 ALMANSA 115.99 49.79 Unconfined Detritic No

8 34 SIERRA OLIVA 261.57 189.49 Mixed Carbonated No

8.35 JUMILLA-VILLENA 93.27 19.88 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.36 VILLENA-BENEJAMA 459.18 305.86 Multilayer Mixed No

8.37 ALMIRANTE-MUSTALLA 342.09 197.18 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.38 PLANAGANDIA-DENIA 227.11 222.62 Unconfined Detritic Yes

8.39 ALMUDAINA-ALFARO-SEGARIA 220.65 146.35 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.40 SIERRA MARIOLA 321.40 203.62 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.41 PEÑARRUBIA 33.53 15.88 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.42 CARCHE-SALINAS 133.62 22.41 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.43 ARGUEÑA-MAIGMO 146.94 87.46 Multilayer Carbonated No

8.44 BARRANCONES-CARRASQUETA 409.76 158.67 Multilayer Carbonated No

8.45 SIERRA AITANA 238.35 84.61 Multilayer Carbonated Yes

8.46 SERRELLA-AIXORTA-ALGAR 184.62 66.15 Mixed Carbonated Yes

8.47 PEÑON-MONTGO-BERNIA 463.68 279.36 Unconfined Mixed No

8.48 ORCHETA 464.00 131.38 Unconfined Mixed No

8.49 AGOST-MONEGRE 103.53 33.38 Mixed Carbonated No

8.50 SIERRA DEL CID 138.04 43.74 Mixed Carbonated No

8.51 QUIBAS 122.04 47.74 Unconfined Carbonated No

8.52 CREVILLENTE 71.27 23.96 Unconfined Carbonated No

Table 23 (Cont.)Main physical data of HGUs within the Júcar RBD

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 77


78

Code Name Mean annual Total recharge Abstraction Diffuse Artificial (hm3/year) (hm3/year) pollution recharge

8.01 CELLA-MOLINA DE ARAGON 10.00 0.15 n.d. No

8.02 MONTES UNIVERSALES 195.68 0.43 n.d. No

8.03 ARQUILLO-TRAMACASTIEL-VILLEL 7.63 0.14 n.d. No

8.04 VALLANCA 34.80 0.27 n.d. No

8.05 JAVALAMBRE 79.93 0.41 n.d. No

8.06 MOSQUERUELA 148.80 5.97 Low No

8.07 MAESTRAZGO 215.58 35.65 Very low No

8.08 PUERTOS DE BECEITE 20.15 0.79 n.d. No

8.09 PLANA DE CENIA-TORTOSA 18.37 11.81 Very low No

8.10 PLANA DE VINAROZ-PEÑISCOLA 73.55 49.14 High No

8.11 PLANA DE OROPESA-TORREBLANCA 31.36 26.03 High No

8.12 PLANA DE CASTELLON 141.77 134.23 High No

8.13 ONDA 20.99 4.05 n.d. No

8.14 ALTO PALANCIA 55.95 9.88 Very low No

8.15 ALPUENTE 47.35 1.22 n.d. No

8.16 OLMEDA 2.86 0.20 n.d. No

8.17 SERRANIA DE CUENCA 511.10 9.16 Low No

8.18 LAS SERRANIAS 69.04 5.22 Very low No

8.19 ALCUBLAS 43.01 3.16 n.d. No

8.20 MEDIO PALANCIA 88.50 63.25 High No

8.21 PLANA DE SAGUNTO 48.05 45.54 High No

8.22 LIRIA-CASINOS 100.59 75.47 High No

8.23 BUÑOL-CHESTE 119.77 81.54 Low No

8.24 UTIEL-REQUENA 45.63 16.31 Low No

8.25 PLANA DE VALENCIA NORTE 136.28 58.71 High No

8.26 PLANA DE VALENCIA SUR 252.63 65.86 High No

8.27 CAROCH NORTE 122.46 61.08 Low No

8.28 CAROCH SUR 112.92 40.52 Very low No

8.29 MANCHA ORIENTAL 376.63 406.60 Low No

8.30 JARDIN-LEZUZA 71.18 5.47 Low No

8.31 SIERRA DE LAS AGUJAS 43.15 36.83 Low No

8.32 SIERRA GROSA 98.19 42.21 Low No

8.33 ALMANSA 5.51 4.73 n.d. No

8.34 SIERRA OLIVA 3.91 6.39 n.d. No

8.35 JUMILLA-VILLENA 1.31 36.12 n.d. No

Table 24 Main pressures data of HGUs within the Júcar RBD

Note: n.d. means nodata available

041-086 CAPITULO 2 1/10/04 12:00 Página 78