Table of contents
- 2. REPORTING AT SURFACE WATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA SWB)
- 2.3. Pressures and impacts on surface waters
- 2.4. Ecological status and exemptions
- 2.5. Chemical status of surface waters, exemptions and Mixing Zones
- 3. REPORTING AT GROUNDWATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA GWB)
- 3.3. Pressures and impacts on groundwater
- 3.4. Quantitative status of groundwater and exemptions
- 3.5. Chemical status of groundwater and exemptions
- 4. MONITORING (SCHEMA MONITORING)
- 5. PROTECTED AREAS (SCHEMAS SWB AND GWB)
- 6. REPORTING AT MS LEVEL: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, RBDS AND SUB-UNITS (SCHEMA RBDSUCA)
- 7. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR SURFACE WATER (SCHEMA SWMET)
- 7.3. Methodologies classification ecological status and potential
- 7.4. Methodologies classification chemical status
- 7.5. Overall management objectives (nutrients, river continuity)
- 7.6. Definition of significant pressures and impacts
- 7.7. Methodologies exemptions
- 8. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR GROUNDWATER (SCHEMA GWMET)
- 8.4. Definition of significant pressures and impacts
- 8.5. Methodologies exemptions
- 9. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR RBMP (SCHEMA RBMPPOM)
- 9.4. Water abstractions and exploitation of water resources
- 10. PROGRAMME OF MEASURES REPORTED AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL (SCHEMA RBMPPOM)
- 10.2. Targeted questions on basic measures and other aspects
- 10.3. Estimates of cost of measures
- 10.4. Co-ordination of measures in international RBDs
- 10.5. Progress with and achievements of the programme of measures for the first planning cycle
- 11. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST RECOVERY (SCHEMA RBMPPOM)
- Overview of comments presented at WG DIS
- WISE spatial data presentation at WG DIS
2. REPORTING AT SURFACE WATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA SWB)
Reporting at surface water body level is done for each RBD. For the purpose of presentation in this guidance, the contents of reporting are structured according to the following sub-chapters:
- Surface water body characterisation
- Pressures and impacts on surface water bodies
- Ecological status and exemptions
- Chemical status of surface waters, exemptions and mixing zones
The following sections describe the contents of reporting. The UML diagram of the SWB schema is found in Annex 10.2.
-
-
We recommend to provide information in the GD about in which table (class) are defined (generated) the different IDs as Schema elements. This guide contains nothing about the counter-type identification codes (IDs) in the database. It is recommended that these IDs appear among the Schema Elements in the future, with a much shorter description, of course, than the other fields (with the information whether it is generated in this table or not). Thus, you could search for the identifier directly in the GD and find out quickly in which table the identifier is generated - you do not have to search in Access with database tools.
RO supports the HU suggestion.
-
We recommend to provide information in the GD about in which table (class) are defined (generated) the different IDs as Schema elements. This guide contains nothing about the counter-type identification codes (IDs) in the database. It is recommended that these IDs appear among the Schema Elements in the future, with a much shorter description, of course, than the other fields (with the information whether it is generated in this table or not). Thus, you could search for the identifier directly in the GD and find out quickly in which table the identifier is generated - you do not have to search in Access with database tools.
EL supports the HU suggestion. It would be greatly helpful to include in the GD this information about the tables in which the identifiers are generated.
-
-
We support the HU suggestion
-
General comment. It would be beneficial to check MS comments received during the rounds of comments on drafts of RBMPs MS national implementation reports. Some of them may have comprised of explanation of made errors in reporting done e.g. by mistake or confusion by reporters. Focusing on the parts of the reporting, where there more errors have been made, and rewording/simplifying the guidance for them would be beneficial.
-
We also support the HU suggestion
Class: SurfaceWaterBody
- Please include here any comments which apply to all the schema elements in this Class.
- In addition to those general schema element level comments, we welcome your views on: a) whether you think this Class can be simplified; and b) whether you think the linkages with other reporting Classes or Schemas can be improved, and how;
-
Comments which should apply to all the schema elements in this Class: there is no real connection between GML and XML schemas thus some information should duplicate, some are missing as basic information from XML. We would prefer if all data in GML would be included in XML as a view from GML schema element.
In addition to those general schema element level comments: This XML should be linkaged with other GML SWB schemas and add new element whether the water body really changed or not, because in GML all changes will be registered without knowledge on reality (very small changes because of basemap corrections either transformations between coordinate systems or joint point negotiations at country borders, etc.)
-
Some general comments on overall reporting for the overall processess added in here:
- The guidance uses some confusing terms which could benefit from the inclusion of worked examples to guide MS reporters. An example would be a pre-compiled database to best practice.
- We struggled to make sense of the error codes returned when data was being reported. The staff at the EEA helpdesk did what they could to assist but too often this was just to reiterate the Guidance document. Having error codes accompanied with an English explanation would help.
- A lot of detail is required but perhaps all of the information is not being used. There is potential to save an awful lot of time and effort if the schema could be streamlined. Did other jurisdictions get around this by submitting a large annex 0 document?
-
We suggest that the Member States have the opportunity to report the names of the surface water bodies on national language, either in the current fields or in additional column.
-
We support the BG proposal
euSurfaceWaterBodyCode - Required.
Unique EU code of the surface water body. Prefix the surface water body’s national, unique code with the Member State’s 2-alpha character ISO country code.
-
The explanatory text should include a reference to the identifier specifications included in GIS guidance (reproduced below)
The specification has changed in the current reporting. The identifiers must:
- Start with the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, except for Greece ('EL') and the United Kingdom ('UK');
- Be followed by the national code, with a maximum of 40 characters;
- Use only upper case letters [A to Z] and digits [0 to 9].
The underscore character ('_') or the hyphen character ('-') may be used as separators within the code (but not to separate the country code from the national code, and not in the end of the code).
This means that the comma character (',') and the period character ('.') can no longer be used.
The reason for this change is that each identifier will be associated with a stable URL in the WISE system (e.g. http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/SpatialUnit/euRBDCode.ES030).
A regular expression may be used for a preliminary check the syntax of the identifiers. Adapt the following pattern to the specific country: ^[A-Z]{2}[0-9A-Z]{1}([0-9A-Z_-]{0,38}[0-9A-Z]{1}){0,1}$
euSubUnitCode - Conditional.
If the RBD has been divided into Sub-units, report the unique EU code of the Sub-unit where the water body is located. Prefix the Sub-unit’s national, unique code with the Member State’s 2-alpha character ISO country code.
surfaceWaterBodyName - Required.
Readily understandable name of the surface water body in English that is meaningful outside of the RBD or Member State. It should include the name of the river, lake, transitional water, coastal water or territorial water in which the surface water body is located.
-
The name of the surfacewater body should be in the national language, as it is a proper name and it is linked to our legislation. All legal references to the name will not be found when using the name in English.
Maybe a new field with the name in English could be included as an optional field. In the GIS Guidance the nameText (name in national language) is mandatory and nameTextInternational is optional (English version of name).
-
The name of the surfacewater body should be in the national language, as it is a proper name and it is linked to our legislation. All legal references to the name will not be found when using the name in English.
Maybe a new field with the name in English could be included as an optional field. In the GIS Guidance the nameText (name in national language) is mandatory and nameTextInternational is optional (English version of name).
We suggest to use only the surface water body name in national language (in the ACCESS -data base; in GIS reporting WB name in English could remain optional).
-
-
Only main rivers have understandable name of the surface water body in English. The others should be in a national language.
-
Nearly all rivers in Luxembourg don't have a name in English. We would also suggest to report the names of the WBs in the national language as these names are also used in the RBMPs.
-
We support the ES proposal
-
Only main rivers have understandable name of the surface water body in English. The others should be in a national language.
So the field with the name in English could be included as an optional field. In the GIS Guidance the nameText (name in national language) is mandatory and nameTextInternational is optional (English version of name).
surfaceWaterBodyCategory - Required.(SWCategoryCode_Enum)
Category of surface water body must be reported.
-
Since 'TeW Territorial water body ' is not a waterbody category in the WFD, TeWs don't have a eusurfaceWaterBodyCode, so they cannot be reported in this class.
If information about TeW is required they will need an specific class for them.
-
"It is the recommendation of this Guidance that reservoirs formed by damming rivers (i.e. heavily modified rivers) should be reported as river water bodies.See schema element reservoir below." - Please, delete it, because it is NOT recommended to report reservoirs as heavily modified rivers if those resetvoirs were formed by damming rivers and they have polygons in GML and all data relates to their LAKY properties and/or GEP/MEP.
-
"It is the recommendation of this Guidance that reservoirs formed by damming rivers (i.e. heavily modified rivers) should be reported as river water bodies.See schema element reservoir below." - Please, delete it, because it is NOT recommended to report reservoirs as heavily modified rivers if those resetvoirs were formed by damming rivers and they have polygons in GML and all data relates to their LAKY properties and/or GEP/MEP.
EL supports this proposal by HU
-
-
We support HU, since all reservoirs have to classified as lakes. There are no river QE in them.
-
We support HU, since all reservoirs have to classified as lakes. There are no river QE in them.
naturalAWBHMWB - Required.(NaturalCode_Enum)
Indicate whether the surface water body is natural or artificial or heavily modified.
hmwbWaterUse - Conditional.(HMWBWaterUse_Enum)
For HMWBs only, report the water use for which it has been designated.
-
This is not the meaning of art 4(3) of the WFD. The designation of a WB as HMWB is not related to the use for which it has been designated, but to the use that will be significantlly affected if restoration measures were put in place.
Art.4.3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:
(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
(i) the wider environment;...
This would be the case of a dam built for any purpose (being it irrigation, hydropower...) where demolishing it could have signifficant effects on a birds protected area for waterfowl, due to the habitat created by the dam. The WFD would make us choose Wider environment in this case while the reporting database is asking for irrigation or hydropower.
So we should report in this field the water use affected (or wider environment) instead of the water use for which it has been designated. If it is considered necessary, maybe we should use to fields:
- one for the water use (or wider environment) affected if restoration measures would took place.
- another for the water use that the HYMO modification has (in this case 'wider environment should be excluded from the codelist)
-
This is not the meaning of art 4(3) of the WFD. The designation of a WB as HMWB is not related to the use for which it has been designated, but to the use that will be significantlly affected if restoration measures were put in place.
Art.4.3. Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified, when:
(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
(i) the wider environment;...
This would be the case of a dam built for any purpose (being it irrigation, hydropower...) where demolishing it could have signifficant effects on a birds protected area for waterfowl, due to the habitat created by the dam. The WFD would make us choose Wider environment in this case while the reporting database is asking for irrigation or hydropower.
So we should report in this field the water use affected (or wider environment) instead of the water use for which it has been designated. If it is considered necessary, maybe we should use to fields:
- one for the water use (or wider environment) affected if restoration measures would took place.
- another for the water use that the HYMO modification has (in this case 'wider environment should be excluded from the codelist)
HU: The other part of the WFD Article 4(3) (a) is also important in the understanding of HMWB designation rule/method:
“(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:
(ii) navigation, including port facilities, or recreation;
(iii) activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power generation or irrigation;
(iv) water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or
(v) other equally important sustainable human development activities;”
These (ii – v) are the potentially negatively affected water uses for which a water body can be designated as HMWB.
-
The same codelist as for HYMO preassures in Annex 1a (pressures 4.1.1 to 4.5) should be used to avoid inconsistencies.
We also think that Annex 1a shouldn't be splitted by drivers as usually the relation pressure- driver is 1:n
-
hmwbWaterUse / hmwbPhysicalAlteration
It is a conditional element: only to be used for HMWBs. A new Quality check should be included to prevent reporting this element when the condition is not fulfilled (the WB is not a HMWB) in access template.
We have detected a lot of inconsistencies in spanish RBDs reporting regarding this issue. This is a general comment for all conditional fields.
-
‘Unknown’: it cannot be specified e.g. for some historical modification.
-
We agree with the ES comment about Quality checks on conditional fields when the condition is not fullfilled in orther to prevent a lot of inconsistencies
-
We wish to keep this as it is, for the reasons put by HU in the comment to ES, and since it is valuable information both for the management and the public.
-
Please clarify the concept 'hmwbWateruse'. Now the different options are not in line with Art 4.3.
We only have reported here the wateruses that are related to the designation of HMWB. F.i. tourism and recreation can not be a reason to designate an HMWB
hmwbPhysicalAlteration - Conditional.(HMWBPhysicalAlteration_Enum)
For HMWBs only, report the physical alteration that has resulted in the designation of the surface water body as a HMWB. In the context of designation, physical alterations mean any significant alterations that have resulted in substantial changes to the hydromorphology of a surface water body such that the surface water body is substantially changed in character. In general, these hydromorphological characteristics are long-term and alter both the morphological and hydrological characteristics. Further guidance on the terms is found in the Glossary section below.
-
hmwbWaterUse / hmwbPhysicalAlteration
It is a conditional element: only for HMWBs. A new Quality check should be included to prevent reporting this element when the condition is not fulfilled (the WB is not a HMWB)
We have detected a lot of inconsistencies regarding this issue
-
There should be a QA cross check for HMWB: if there is a hmwbPhysicalAlteration then there should be a swsignificantpressureType: 4.1.1 – 4.5 and a swsignificantimpactType: HHYC or HMOC
-
There should be a QA check for HMWB: if there is a hmwbPhysicalAlteration then there should be a swsignificantpressureType: 4.1.1 – 4.5 and a swsignificantimpactType: HHYC or HMOC
Cannot agree with IT. A HMWB has at least one category of Physical Alteration but does not mean that has also a swsignificantpressureType 4.1.1 – 4.5) and or a swsignificantimpactType: HHYC or HMOC, because the Guidance indicated that these two should be related to the status class of the WB (3,4,5) and not necessary to a physical alteration of HMWB (see also the explanations in the Reporting guidance for Schema elements: swSignificantImpactType and swSignificantPressureType).
-
-
The RO comment is supported
-
the RO comment is supported
reservoir - Conditional.(YesNoUnclearReservoir_Enum)
For heavily modified river or lake water bodies, indicate whether the water body is a reservoir that has been created by damming a river (‘Yes, it is a reservoir and the water body was originally a river’) or an existing lake (‘No, it is a reservoir but the water body was originally a lake’).
-
The value of the codelist: 'No, it is a reservoir but the waterbody was originally a lake' has led to a lot of confusions in Spain.
We propose to change it by 'Yes, it is a reservoir but the waterbody was originally a lake'
-
The value of the codelist: 'No, it is a reservoir but the waterbody was originally a lake' has led to a lot of confusions in Spain.
We propose to change it by 'Yes, it is a reservoir but the waterbody was originally a lake'
HU: We suggest deleting the first part of the sentences of the enumeration list, there is no need for ‘Yes’ / ‘No’ / ’Unclear’.
-
We support the HU comment
The value of the codelist: 'No, it is a reservoir but the waterbody was originally a lake' has led to a lot of confusions in Spain.
We propose to change it by 'Yes, it is a reservoir but the waterbody was originally a lake'
HU: We suggest deleting the first part of the sentences of the enumeration list, there is no need for ‘Yes’ / ‘No’ / ’Unclear’.
-
-
-
The definition of the reservoir is unclear. Reservoirs are typically man-made, so they often are artificial. In which case heavily modified river, lake or coastal waters should be considered as reservoir?
-
"However, Member States may choose to report reservoirs formed by damming rivers as lake water bodies if they wish."
We propose to change it by “Member States may choose to designate and report reservoirs formed by damming rivers as lake water bodies if they wish.”
-
"However, Member States may choose to report reservoirs formed by damming rivers as lake water bodies if they wish."
We propose to change it by “Member States may choose to designate and report reservoirs formed by damming rivers as lake water bodies if they wish.”
EL supports the HU suggestion
-
-
"Yes, it is a reservoir and the water body was originally a river’ = Select only if the whole surface water body represents a reservoir (or part of a reservoir) created by damming a river. (surfaceWaterBodyCategory must be reported as ‘RW’ and naturalAWBHMWB as ‘Heavily Modified’)."
This part of the text we propose to correct: “Yes, it is a reservoir and the water body was originally a river’ = Select only if the whole surface water body represents a reservoir (or part of a reservoir) created by damming a river. (naturalAWBHMWB must be reported as ‘Heavily Modified’).” --> We recommend deleting the contradictory part about ‘RW’ water body category as Member States may choose to report reservoirs formed by damming rivers as lake water bodies if they wish.
-
The option "No, it is a reservoir but the water body was originally a lake" might lead to confusion and we would also suggest to change the text as following "Yes, it is a reservoir but the water body was originally a lake".
-
It is not clear for us why this information has to be reported and in what contexte it will be used afterwards.
-
The approach represented in the schema element: reservoir is not totally clear.
1. When the water body consist of a river and one or more reservoirs should it be treated as "reservoir".
In Poland for example ther is a special subcategory of riverine water bodies for reservoirs but only big reservoirs and then whole waterbody is a resevoir.
2. One can argue whether a modified lake could be called reservoir
3. "Unclear, it is a reservoir but originally included chained rivers and lakes" - the situation is rather clear just should be mentioned that reservoir has been created from more than one river or lake which were chained.
surfaceWaterBodyTypeCode - Required.
Member State code for the characterisation type of the surface water body, as reported in the surface water methodology schema (SWMET), and the RBMP and background documents.
-
We prropose to modify the cross schema check including a new condition so only types refering to the SWB category could be used.
Cross-schema check: The reported surfaceWaterBodyTypeCode must be consistent with the codes reported in SWMET/SWType/swTypeCode
The ‘SWType/swTypeCategory’ must be consistent with 'SurfaceWaterBody/surfaceWaterBodyCategory’
-
In order to facilitate the reporting it would be helpful to indicate the name of the class / schema elements where information on water body types has to be reported in the methodology section.
For example:
Required. Member State code for the characterisation type of the surface water body, as reported in the surface water methodology schema (SWMET) in class "SWType" and the RBMP and background documents.
surfaceWaterBodyIntercalibrationType - Required.(SWIntercalibrationType_Enum)
If the surface water body type corresponds with an intercalibration type, report the intercalibration type code (not name).
surfaceWaterBodyTransboundary - Required.(YesNoNotApplicable_Union_Enum)
The Directive requires coordination among Member States for the management of transboundary Water Bodies. Transboundary water bodies are those crossing the border between countries or constituting part of the border between two countries for a certain length.
-
Please reconsider the option NO (in the ticket number 2016021910000351 it was mentioned that for the transboundary water bodies with non-EU countries, the option “NO” should be used) or to add an option for the transboundary water bodies with non-EU countries.
-
Please reconsider the option NO (in the ticket number 2016021910000351 it was mentioned that for the transboundary water bodies with non-EU countries, the option “NO” should be used) or to add an option for the transboundary water bodies with non-EU countries.
EL supports the suggestion to add an option for the transboundary water bodies with non-EU countries.
-
-
Relation with transboundary monitoring which is included only in the GML schema was not clear for EU Assessors.
-
NO supports RO and EL
swAssociatedProtectedArea - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate whether the surface water body is associated to any protected area.
-
We would suggest to delete this schema element.
Detailled information about protected areas had to be reported under the class "SWAssociatedProtectedArea". If this schema element will be kept, we suggest to highlight the difference between the information to be reported here and under the protected areas schema (e.g. should protected areas designated on the basis of national laws be reported here?).
-
We support LU
-
In the schema element: swAssociatedProtectedArea there is only information about the dependence of terrestrial ecosystem on the groundwaterbody. Maybe there should be added some information about the number or names of these areas.
Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents
(Please see the full text of this sub-section in the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016 or above chapter)
Include here any comments that relate to the information contained in this sub-section of the Reporting Guidance, namely concerning information you think could/should be reported electronically and information which you believe should not be included in the River Basin Management Plans or background documents.
-
Indicate whether the reservoir is for multiple use or for single purpose only, and whether there were previous (historical) uses.
We recommend to provide information in the GD about in which table (class) are defined (generated) the different IDs as Schema elements. This guide contains nothing about the counter-type identification codes (IDs) in the database. It is recommended that these IDs appear among the Schema Elements in the future, with a much shorter description, of course, than the other fields (with the information whether it is generated in this table or not). Thus, you could search for the identifier directly in the GD and find out quickly in which table the identifier is generated - you do not have to search in Access with database tools.