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
3.5. Chemical status of groundwater and exemptions
3.5. Chemical status of groundwater and exemptions
Annex V of the WFD specifies how Member States are to monitor groundwater and present chemical status classification results. The detailed provisions and criteria for status assessments are laid down in the Groundwater Directive (GWD) (2006/118/EC).
In addition to the reporting requirements of the WFD, the GWD introduces several additional reporting requirements to ensure that groundwater body status has been defined according to its provisions, and in a consistent and comparable way across the EU.
Both the WFD and GWD require that the results of the chemical status assessment and the methodology used to classify groundwater bodies are reported. The requirements are laid down in WFD Annex V, GWD Article 4, and Annex III (reporting requirements in GWD Article 4.4 and Annex III point 5).
Articles 4(4) to 4(9) of the WFD allow Member States to extend the deadlines for the achievement of good status or to set other objectives under certain specified circumstances. Additional information can be found in the CIS Guidance Document No. 20: Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives agreed in 2005.
Articles 4(4) to 4(9) go on to require Member States to provide information in the RBMP regarding such extensions or other objectives and their reasons.
Class: GroundWaterBody (GW chemical 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;
-
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.
gwAtRiskChemical - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Report whether the groundwater body is at risk of failing to be of good chemical status.
-
The information on GWB at risk was not properly used in RBMPs evaluation. We propose to delete it.
-
If the reported data regarding the risk evaluation are not used in the assessments, we would also suggest to delete it and to report "only" data regarding the status evaluation.
gwEORiskChemical - Conditional.(EQORiskChemical_Enum)
If the groundwater body is at risk of failing to be of good chemical status, select the Environmental Objective to which the risk is related from the enumeration list.
-
The information on GWB at risk was not properly used in RBMPs evaluation. We propose to delete it.
-
If the reported data regarding the risk evaluation are not used in the assessments, we would also suggest to delete it and to report "only" data regarding the status evaluation.
gwChemicalStatusValue - Required.(StatusCode_Enum)
Indicate the chemical status of the groundwater body, based on the most recently assessed status of the groundwater body.
-
We suggest to made the codelist 'self explanatory'. See comments to swEcologicalStatusOrPotentialValue
gwChemicalReasonsForFailure - Conditional.(ReasonsForFailure_Enum)
If the groundwater body is of poor chemical status, select reasons from the enumeration list.
gwChemicalAssessmentYear - Required.
Provide the year on which the assessment of status is based. This may be the year that the groundwater body was monitored. In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored groundwater bodies within the same group. A period is possible (e.g. 2011--2013).
-
In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies
Should read ground water
gwChemicalAssessmentConfidence - Required.(Confidence_Enum)
Indicate the confidence on the chemical status assigned.
gwChemicalStatusExpectedGoodIn2015 - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate whether it is expected that this groundwater body will achieve good chemical status by the end of 2015.
-
This field does not solve the problem when a WB has both 4(4) (time extension) and 4(5) (less stringent objective) exemptions.
The current codelist do not allow identifying cases when a GWB has 'less stringent objective already achieved' but it is not in compliance with all environmental objectives because of other quality element (without less stringent objective) but with a time extension (ie 2022-2027).
We suggest to split the field in two. Leaving this field as it is now but removing from the codelist 'less stringent objective already achieved'.
A new field should be included in order to report the achievement of less stringent objectives for quality elements with a 4(5) exemption.
-
If it is relevant for 2021we propose to add „unknown“ option.
-
The new date to be considered will be 2021.
-
Shouldn't this be changed to 2021?
gwChemicalStatusExpectedAchievementDate - Conditional.(GoodStatus_Enum)
If good chemical status will NOT be achieved by 2015 (gwChemicalStatusExpectedGoodIn2015 is No), report the date by which it is expected that it will be achieved in full. The methodology of this assessment should be clearly explained in the RBMP or background documents (reference reported under classification methodologies). If good chemical status will not be achieved by 2015, exemptions should be applied. Please report the date by which it is expected that good chemical status will be achieved in full, not the date relating to individual exemptions.
-
We have introduce incoherent combinations in the access database without getting blockers
Although in the XML generation this field is ignored, the Access file that is the source of information in Spain remains unchanged and produces many problems when using it for statistical analysis.
Would it be possible to include checks in this sense in the Access database?
Next check should be implemented:
If gwChemicalstatusExpectedGoodIn2015 is ‘Yes’ this element must not be reported.
GENERAL COMMENT
The Quality checks should include not only a conditional check requiring a value when the condition is fulfilled, but also requiring the field to be left empty "NULL" when the condition is not fulfilled.
It can be implemented in the Access database by adding in all codelist a 'Not applicable' value required when the condition is not fulfilled.
-
Is it possible to set up new targets 2028-2033?
See previous comment about Mayotte.
Class: GWPollutant
- 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;
-
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. Some 'simetry' in the design of aspects related to SWECO, SWChem, GWQUA, GWChem will be welcomed.
gwPollutantCode - Required.(ChemicalSubstances_Union_Enum)
Select each pollutant and indicator for which one or more of the following circumstances occur in the relevant water body.
gwPollutantOther - Conditional.
If ‘gwPollutantCode’ is ‘EEA_00-00-0 Other chemical parameter’ please indicate in this field the CAS number (if relevant) and the name of the pollutant or indicator.
gwPollutantCausingRisk - Required.(YesNoUnknownUnclear_Union_Enum)
Indicate if the pollutant or indicator is casing risk of failing to be of good chemical status in the relevant water body.
-
The information on GWB at risk was not properly used in RBMPs evaluation. We propose to delete it.
-
If the reported data regarding the risk evaluation are not used in the assessments, we would also suggest to delete it and to report "only" data regarding the status evaluation.
gwPollutantCausingFailure - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if the pollutant or indicator is causing failure to achieve good chemical status.
-
We propose to add a new Quality check
the guidance states:
If gwChemicalStatusValue is ‘3’, at least 1 pollutant or indicator should be reported as ‘Yes’ in gwPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure.
The previous check is insufficient because it only ensures consistency in one direction (from 'GroundWaterBody' to 'GWPollutant), but it is also necessary to ensure it in the opposite direction(from 'GWPollutant' to 'GroundWaterBody'), that is:
Every groundwaterbody being reported as ‘Yes’ in this element must be reported as swChemicalStatusValue=‘3’.
This field swPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure should be='No' if
- gwChemicalStatusValue <>'3'
-
We propose to add a new Quality check
the guidance states:
If gwChemicalStatusValue is ‘3’, at least 1 pollutant or indicator should be reported as ‘Yes’ in gwPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure.
The previous check is insufficient because it only ensures consistency in one direction (from 'GroundWaterBody' to 'GWPollutant), but it is also necessary to ensure it in the opposite direction(from 'GWPollutant' to 'GroundWaterBody'), that is:
Every groundwaterbody being reported as ‘Yes’ in this element must be reported as swChemicalStatusValue=‘3’.
This field swPrioritySubstanceCausingFailure should be='No' if
- gwChemicalStatusValue <>'3'
In our opinion, it is not necessary to add other quality check. Groundwater body code is included in both table, so it is enough for quality check.
gwPollutantUpwardTrend - Required.(YesNoUnknownUnclear_Union_Enum)
Indicate whether there is a significant and sustained upward trend in the concentration of pollutant(s) or indicator(s) of pollution.
gwPollutantTrendReversal - Required.(YesNoUnknownNotApplicableCode_Enum)
Indicate whether there is a trend reversal in the concentration of the pollutant(s) or indicator(s) of pollution.
gwPollutantsExceedancesNotCounted - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if there are exceedances of the pollutant or indicator which are not considered as failures to achieving good chemical status (cases in which Article 4(2)c of the GWD applies).
-
Is tis element used for the assessment of the RBMPs by the Commission? It is very time-consuming to fill and it seems it has little added value.
gwPollutantBackgroundLevelSet - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate whether a background level of natural substances has been set.
-
The information is too detailed and its use is limited. We propose to report it in the same way as Threshold values on RBD level (GWMet)
-
EL supports the CZ suggestion
gwPollutantBackgroundLevelValue - Conditional.
If a background level is set, report the numeric value or range of the natural background level.
-
The information is too detailed and its use is limited. We propose to report it in the same way as Threshold values (as a value or range on RBD level (GWMet)
gwPollutantBackgroundLevelUnit - Conditional. (UnitOfMeasure_Enum)
If a background level is set, select the relevant units for the natural background concentrations or levels (the reporting unit of Conductivity is milli Siemens per metre).
-
The information is too detailed and its use is limited. We propose to report it in the same way as Threshold values (as a value or range on RBD level (GWMet))
Class: GWChemicalExemptionType
- 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;
-
This class is at a Ground Water Body - Substance level (in combination with Pressures): the results potentially in a lot of reported exemptions depending on the amount of monitoring. In the products from reporting the number of exemptions should be expressed as a percentage of the total assessed substances.
-
Should the exemption be reported for the water body?
See previous comment about Mayotte.
gwChemicalExemptionType - Required.(GWChemicalExemptionType_Union_Enum)
Report which type(s) of exemption(s) apply if good chemical status is not expected to be achieved by 2015 for that pollutant or indicator.
RO suggest to have separate tables: one for surface water bodies and one for chemical.