Navigation
Post a comment on the text below
Class: GroundWaterBody (quantitative status)
- 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;
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
GENERAL COMMENT
In order to better understand and use the database, the quality or optimization of the database design must be sacrificed a little, giving more weight to its logical understanding.
The concepts of the WFD: Ecological status SW, Chemical status SW, Quantitative status GW, Chemical status GW should have a similar treatment in the database.
In the case of GW the equivalent classes should be GWPollutant for GW chemical status and an equivalent class for GW quantitative status that doen't exist as the information related to quantitative satatus is directly stored in the class GroundWaterBody.
For SWB the class QualityElement for SW EcoStatus should be equivalent to SWPrioritySubstance for SW ChemStatus.
The design is not incorrect but really difficult to be undestood.
In the recent and ongoing review of the implementation of the directives by the European commission there seem to be concerns about grouping of groundwater bodies. Statistics in the reports on eg monitoring coverage do not consider grouping. At the same time grouping is explained to be the key for increasing monitoring coverage in the case when MS have a very large number of GWBs due to the natural hydrogeological conditions. Grouping must therefore be reported and presented in a different manner.
The cause of confusion about grouping is probably due to unclear reporting schemas. In the first management cycle reporting of grouping was much more straight forward, where each GWB were related to a group identification number. This coming cycle it is necessary that this reporting is re-introduced with a possibility to have different groups for chemical and quantitative purposes, i.e. each GWB could relate to different group identifiers.