Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• ES - Spain (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 21 Mar 2019 13:44:27

  Since the guidance says 'Therefore, a pressure or impact should only be reported if it is significant, alone or in combination with others, because it puts the Environmental Objectives at risk

  we propose to extend the quality check (not only check consistency with status but with risk aswell)

  
  

  Within-schema check: If (GWB/GroundWaterBody/gwChemicalStatusValue is ‘3’  or GWB/GroundWaterBody/gwChemicalStatusExpectedGoodIn2015=No), at least one significant impact type or the option ‘UNKN - Unknown impact type’ must be selected from the enumeration list. The option ‘NOSI - No significant impact’ is not a valid selection.

  and the same check for quantitative status (risk/status)

• SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 22 Mar 2019 10:20:16

  The table in Annex 1b needs revision. There is a mix of impacts for surface waters and groundwaters that originates from different objectives in the directives. In general, some of the impacts directed towards surface waters may also be relevant for groundwaters, eg acidification, but is not a focus area in the directive. This table should either 1) be split into two (sw/gw), 2) revised accordning to actual possible impacts for the two water types, or 3) a reference to eg directive articles should be given for all impact types.

  List of pressure types and impact types should be announced in an early stage of the management cycle. Befor the analysis has been done. No midcycle change.

• LU - Luxembourg1 (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 25 Apr 2019 10:18:37

  See comment submitted for "swSignificantImpactType"

• NO - Norway (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 14:52:31

  The pick up list could be filtered on GW and SW in the Access tool