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
4. MONITORING (SCHEMA MONITORING)
Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. These requirements include monitoring of Protected Areas as far as the status of surface water and groundwater is concerned. The results of monitoring play a key role in determining whether water bodies are of good status and what measures need to be included in the RBMPs in order to reach good status by 2015. Precise and reliable monitoring results are therefore a prerequisite for sound planning of investments in the Programmes of Measures (PoMs).
The WFD implementation reports required by Article 18 of the WFD should include, among other aspects, ‘a review of the status of surface water and groundwater in the Community undertaken in co-ordination with the European Environment Agency’. In the first implementation report, this review was based on both the State of the Environment (SoE) information provided by EEA Member Countries through the EIONET reporting process, and the status and pressure results reported at water body level (chapter 2 and 3 of this guidance) by Member States. Better streamlining between WFD and SoE reporting is still needed to ensure the most beneficial outcome of this two-level approach. For the second RBMPs, the review of status under Article 18 could significantly benefit from the inclusion of the WFD monitoring results on water quality data and biological data into the overall status assessment. Details could be included on the development of progress made since the first RBMPs, for example in the trends of status, pressures and impacts, and where objectives have not been fully met.
Reporting should reflect the monitoring carried out that has informed the second RBMPs. Given that monitoring programmes are usually dynamic and multi-annual (i.e. in the cases of quality elements with lower frequencies of monitoring), reporting should reflect, as accurately as possible, the monitoring that has informed the preparation of the second RBMPs. Reporting is not intended to include information regarding future monitoring programmes or planned changes.
The selection of the quality elements (QEs) and parameters to be monitored should enable the detection of all significant pressures on water bodies. This is particularly important where the pressures and impacts assessments may not have been adequate enough to identify all potential pressures and impacts in the RBD, perhaps because of the lack of information or methods, or because of unexpected, anthropogenic activities within the RBD.
The results of surveillance monitoring should ensure that the potential impacts of all pressures on water bodies in the RBDs are detected. Incomplete coverage of QEs and water bodies in surveillance monitoring could lead to the non-detection of significant pressures, the incorrect classification of water status, and inappropriate targeting of measures. Surveillance monitoring must also be able to detect long-term natural changes and those arising from anthropogenic pressures.
The selection of biological quality elements (BQEs) for operational monitoring should focus on those most sensitive to the identified pressures and impacts on water bodies. The results of operational monitoring are used (together with the results of surveillance monitoring) in the classification of water bodies and to monitor progress of implemented measures in achieving the objectives of the Directive.
The results of monitoring are used in the assessment and classification of the status of water bodies (ecological and chemical for surface waters, chemical and quantitative for groundwater). The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of QEs, parameters, frequency and numbers of monitoring sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of the status of all water bodies in the RBDs. Insufficient monitoring leads to a low confidence in the classification of water bodies and, as a result, the (expensive) measures required to achieve objectives may be incorrectly targeted, and/or objectives such as the restoration of water bodies to good status may not be achieved.
Directive 2009/90/EC lays down technical specifications for the chemical analysis and monitoring of water status with the aim of improving the quality and comparability of monitoring results by establishing minimum performance criteria for methods of analysis to be applied by Member States when monitoring water status, sediment and biota, as well as rules for demonstrating the quality of analytical results.
-
If the reporting should reflect monitoring carried out that has informed the RBMPs and not future monitoring, this should maybe be reflected in the guidance on completion of schema elements. Now the guidance reads "is monitored" and this could be changed to "was monitored". Monitoring of specific elements may be discontinued and monitoring sites may change, due to eg monitoring results and and/or changes in preassures.
-
If the reporting should reflect monitoring carried out that has informed the RBMPs and not future monitoring, this should maybe be reflected in the guidance on completion of schema elements. Now the guidance reads "is monitored" and this could be changed to "was monitored". Monitoring of specific elements may be discontinued and monitoring sites may change, due to eg monitoring results and and/or changes in preassures.
We support this comment.
-
-
General comment:
Please screen this chapter following 'only ask for data when we expect to use it in the coming reporting cycle'
Class: Programme (monitoring)
- 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 schema was much altered and improved since reporting schema version 2010.
-
It is not clear that if a slight or any other change was made in an element of a monitoring programme, may the same code be reported by modified content or a new code should be generated.
Monitoring programme categories are in GML schema without any link to XML.
Missing the KTM to report if it is planned to change any of the monitoring programmes in the future.-
It is not clear that if a slight or any other change was made in an element of a monitoring programme, may the same code be reported by modified content or a new code should be generated.
Monitoring programme categories are in GML schema without any link to XML.HU: Attributes in GML schema should be streamed to XML (e.g. WB’s name, monitoring sites purposes) to ensure consistency and avoid double work. Thus HU supports IT, ES and BE-Fl comments under Class MonitoringPurpose(child of MonitoringSite).
Missing the KTM to report if it is planned to change any of the monitoring programmes in the future.HU: Please, add a KTM code for improvement/modification of monitoring programme because it is inconceivable that monitoring programme is completely the same in the next cycle. This issue is in connection with comments on whether past or future programmes should be reported.
-
-
It wasn't entirely clear for us which monitoring programmes should be reported here (e.g. only monitoring programmes used for status assessment) and this needs to be clarified.
euProgrammeCode - Required.
Unique EU code of the monitoring programme. Prefix the monitoring programme’s national, unique code with the Member State’s 2-alpha character ISO country code. The same code reported in 2007 and 2010 should be used for monitoring programmes still in existence.
programmeName - Required.
Readily understandable name of the monitoring programme in English that is meaningful outside of the RBD or Member State. It should reflect its purpose, such as surveillance, operational, investigative or drinking water monitoring programme, and the water categories in which it is undertaken.
-
If programmeName has to be built as the link of purpose + category, then the field can be skiped and subtituted by that two fields.
The English name of the programme is asked, but that is meaningless outside this reporting, all legal references and weblinks will be relatad to the name in the native language. So we think that this field is useless unless the national name is asked.
programmeCategoryRW - Required. (YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if this monitoring programme is used for rivers.
programmeCategoryLW - Required. (YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if this monitoring programme is used for lakes.
programmeCategoryTW - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if this monitoring programme is used for transitional waters.
programmeCategoryCW - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if this monitoring programme is used for coastal waters.
programmeCategoryTeW - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if this monitoring programme is used for territorial waters.
programmeCategoryGW - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate if this monitoring programme is used for groundwater.
-
We suggest to split monitoring aspects into SW and GW Scheme. The table ”Chemical Monitoring” is very hard to manage due to this length (ie. 51575 rows).
programmeReference - Required.(ReferenceType )
Provide references or hyperlinks to the documents and sections where relevant information relating to the monitoring programmes can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this document is provided in Section 4.3.4.
Class: MonitoringSite
- 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;
-
Monitoring site purposes are in GML schema without any link to XML. The EU Assessors could not match that information.
-
In order to facilitate the reporting it could be helpful to have separate classes for GWBs and SWBs.
-
This has been very time consuming to fill this element. The level of detail required (information linked to the monitoring station) is too high and it seems it hasn't been used byt the Commission in their assessment of the RBMPs. We think it could usefully be simplified.
-
Schema: Monitoring, class: MonitoringSite, atribute: euMonitoringSiteName – there is no need to translate the name of monitoring site from the motherland language to English. On and EU level it should not be an identifier of the monitoring site. For this reason the unique euMonitoringSiteCode identifiers will have been given. Given the necessity of providing the names of the sites can be acceptable, the guidance for the way of doing it need rewording if are to be kept as mandatory.
euMonitoringSiteCode - Required.
Unique EU code of the surface water monitoring site. Prefix the surface water monitoring site’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 gudance (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}$
-
- The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.
- It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
- Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.
-
- The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.
- It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
- Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.
EL supports this comment
-
- The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.
- It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
- Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.
IT supports this comment
-
- The spatial data were validated against the original spatial data reported for the last WFD period. We were unaware of this. It caused us a lot of problems coming up to the deadline as we had to revise our list of sites to match the old data at the last minute.
- It would be good to see a comprehensive document that describes all the validation checks so that we can prepare for them in advance.
- Is this validation check really useful in the first place? Stations change function and can be allocated to different water bodies between cycles. Reporting these changes seems like an unnecessary overhead.
PT supports this comment
In the reporting of spatial information, namely of the monitoring site, we need that some stations with "deletion" in the field "WiseEvolution" can re-enter to the next report. Sometimes, we do not have access for a while, but later the stations are again accessible and is important to consider the all time series.
euMonitoringSiteName - Required.
Unique EU code of the surface or groundwater body as reported in the SWB or GWB schemas in which the monitoring site is physically located in or near (in the rare cases where the monitoring site is not physically located in the water body).
-
Correct text: Required. Readily understandable name of the monitoring site in English that is meaningful outside of the RBD or Member State.
Comment: Is it really necessary with names translated into English? Could possibly be solved with the national monitoring site registry, if this attribute is included.
-
All the monitoring stations in Luxembourg don't have a name in English. We would also suggest to report the names of the monitoring stations in the national language as these names are also used in the RBMPs.
euWaterBodyCode - Required.
Unique EU code of the surface or groundwater body as reported in the SWB or GWB schemas in which the monitoring site is physically located in or near (in the rare cases where the monitoring site is not physically located in the water body).
-
The element is redundant here. The information is part of the spatial data set (WISE GIS Guidance): see featureOfInterestIdentifier and featureOfInterestIdentifierScheme WISE GML data elements and „foiId“, „foiIdSch“ attributes in „MonitoringSite“ shapefile spatial data set.
-
the Guidance states
"SWB or GWB schemas in which the monitoring site is physically located in or near (in the rare cases where the monitoring site is not physically located in the water body)."
and in the GIS Guidance specify which distance can be considered "near":
'monitoring site representative point should be within a 200 metre distance of the water body geometry.'
we propose to include this specification
-
the Guidance states
"SWB or GWB schemas in which the monitoring site is physically located in or near (in the rare cases where the monitoring site is not physically located in the water body)."
and in the GIS Guidance specify which distance can be considered "near":
'monitoring site representative point should be within a 200 metre distance of the water body geometry.'
we propose to include this specification
HU: We do not think a concrete distance should be specified here. By a monitoring point somewhat downstream a SWB can be perfectly characterised, even if it is at 300 or 350 m far from the SWB.
-
-
In the Guidance Document No 15. on Groundwater monitoring, it is stated, that " Where groundwater bodies are determined to be not at risk according to the Article 5 review process, bodies may be grouped if they are sufficiently similar in terms of aquifer characteristics, pathway susceptibility(ies), pressure(s) and confidence in the risk assessment(s)." Grouping is very essential in monitoring for countries that have a large amount of groundwater bodies not at risk (e.g. Finland, Sweden) to get better coverage of monitored groundwater bodies. Yet there was no way to report grouping in the last reporting. In the next reporting we strongly wish that grouping would be reintroduced, as it was possible in the 1st cycle reporting.
waterCategory - Required. (WaterCategory_Enum)
Report the water category of the water body that is monitored (where the site is physically located in or near).
-
This element is redundant, it is already reported in SurfaceWaterbody or GroundWaterBody.
-
this element is redundant because the waterCategory is already linked to a euWaterBodyCode
-
We support the comments made by ES and NL.
ecologicalMonitoring - Required.(YesNoNotApplicable_Union_Enum)
Indicate whether the monitoring site is used for ecological monitoring. For groundwater monitoring sites report ‘Not applicable’
chemicalMonitoring - Required.(YesNoCode_Enum)
Indicate whether the surface or groundwater monitoring site is used for chemical monitoring.
quantitativeMonitoring - Required.(YesNoNotApplicable_Union_Enum)
Indicate whether the groundwater monitoring site is used for quantitative monitoring. For surface water monitoring sites report ‘Not applicable’
quantitativeFrequency - Conditional.
If the groundwater monitoring site is used for quantitative monitoring, report the frequency of monitoring.
-
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.
For the sake of simplicity all fields of this class, starting from this one should be included in a new class GWQuantitativeMonitoring.
The design is correct and probably better than the one we propose, but it makes it difficult to be understood, and it creates doubts and misteakes in RBDs that have to fill with information the database.
quantitativeCycle - Conditional.
If the groundwater monitoring site is used for quantitative monitoring, report the cycle of monitoring.
-
This field relates only to GW quantitative monitoring and it is stated in the schema element 'quantitativeMonitoring' that it is ‘Not applicable’ in the case of ‘waterCategory'=SW.
Nevertheless further guidance on what should be reported in quantitativeCycle is provided in glossary section 4.3.5 where las column last row of the table shown as an example mentions The element is determined daily every year or continuously (e.g. water table level or river flow)
The example has generated controversy in some RBDs about whether this field also applies to gauging stations.
Please modify the example deleting the bold and underlined text mentioned above.
quantitativeLastMonitored - Conditional.
If the groundwater monitoring site is used for quantitative monitoring, report the most recent year in the format YYYY that was monitored. Enter 9999 if parameter has yet to be measured.
-
If Schema Monitoring states Reporting is not intended to include information regarding future monitoring programmes or planned changes
but in this field an option is 9999 'The parameter has yet to be measured'. This option is quite inconsistent.
wellSpring - Conditional.(WellSpring_Enum)
For groundwater sites, indicate whether the groundwater monitoring site is a well, spring or other.
depth - Conditional.(MonitoringDepth_Enum)
For groundwater monitoring sites, indicate the groundwater layer within the groundwater body in which sampling occurs. Please see visualization of multi-layered GWBs in sections 1.3 and 2.3 of Annex 4.
Class SWEcologicalMonitoring(child of MonitoringSite)
- 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;
-
The intermittent water bodies should be reported separately.
qeCode - Required.(QualityElement_Enum)
Select all the quality elements (QEs) monitored at this surface water monitoring site from the enumeration list.
-
What level of QE is required to report? It should be the same elements for which status are determined. So that schema intercalibration is possible?
-
- It is a lot of work to fill in the frequency and cycle for each site separately. Can't this be filled in per program or per group of sites.
-
As information regarding the monitoring of RBSPs is reported in detail in class "ChemicalMonitoring", the option "QE3-3 - River Basin Specific Pollutants" should be deleted here. Otherwise information will be reported twice.
-
Schema: Monitoring, class: SWEcologicalMonitoring, atribute: qeCode –
It is necessary to adapt the method of reporting data on nitrogen and phosphorus compounds by adding the following physicochemical elements: nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen and orthophosphate phosphorus.
qeDescription - Conditional.
If ‘QE1-5 - Other species’ has been selected from the enumeration list and reported under qualityElementCode, provide the name of the other QE(s) monitored at this surface water monitoring site
-
we propose to extend the quality check:
Quality checks: Conditional check: Report if ‘QE1-5 - Other species’, ‘QE1-2 - Other aquatic flora’, ‘QE3-1-1-2 - Other determinand for transparency’, ‘QE3-1-2-2 – Other determinand for thermal conditions’, ‘QE3-1-3-3 - Other determinand for oxygenation conditions’, ‘QE3-1-4-2 - Other determinand for salinity’, ‘QE3-1-5-3 - Other determinand for acidification status’ and ‘QE3-1-6-4 - Other determinand for nutrient conditions’, is selected from the enumeration list under qualityElementCode.
qeFrequency - Required.
Report the frequency at which each QE is monitored at this surface water monitoring site.
-
- It is a lot of work to fill in the frequency and cycle for each site separately. Can't this be filled in per program or per group of sites.
qeCycle - Required.
Report the monitoring cycle relating to each QE monitored at this surface water monitoring site.
qeLastMonitored - Required.
Report the most recent year in the format YYYY that each QE was monitored at this surface water monitoring site. Enter 9999 if the QE has yet to be measured.
-
If Schema Monitoring states Reporting is not intended to include information regarding future monitoring programmes or planned changes
but in this field an option is 9999 'The QE has yet to be measured'. This option is quite inconsistent.
-
Is hard to report in SE due to many different parties involved in monitoring. It is however monitored during the cycle.
Class ChemicalMonitoring(child of MonitoringSite)
- 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;
-
For some RBD, the number of records is very high therefore the table is unmanageable. Maybe it should be separated at least for surface and groundwater.
-
For some RBD, the number of records is very high therefore the table is unmanageable. Maybe it should be separated at least for surface and groundwater.
HU: For all the large data tables GW and SW should be separated into two data tables. Probably in the majority of MSs these are stored in separate databases.
-
-
In order to facilitate the reporting we would also suggest to have separate classes for GWBs and SWBs.
chemicalSubstanceCode - Required.(ChemicalSubstances_Union_Enum)
Report each chemical substance or parameter which is monitored at this site.
-
Please be sure that only one list of chemical substances are in the report, only one enumeration list is generated.
chemicalSubstanceOther - Conditional.
If ‘chemicalSubstanceCode’ is ‘Other’ please indicate in this field the CAS number (if relevant) and the name of the chemical substance.
chemicalMatrix - Required.(Matrix_Enum)
Report the matrix in which each chemical substance is monitored. For groundwater monitoring sites report ‘Water’.
-
Is it not a double answers having biota and biota-other? What is the difference?
chemicalPurpose - Required.(ChemicalPurpose_Enum)
Report if the chemical monitoring is used for status assessment, trend assessment or both.
chemicalFrequency - Required.
Report the frequency at which each chemical substance is monitored at this monitoring site.
-
Please to clarify in the GD if some samples in a year were missing compared to the planned measure programme what should be reported: the average frequency, the maximum or the minimum?
-
- It is a lot of work to fill in the frequency and cycle for each site separately. Can't this be filled in per program or per group of sites.
chemicalCycle - Required.
Report the monitoring cycle relating to each chemical substance monitored at this monitoring site.
-
- It is a lot of work to fill in the frequency and cycle for each site separately. Can't this be filled in per program or per group of sites.
chemicalLastMonitored - Required.
Report the most recent year in the format YYYY that each chemical substance was monitored at this monitoring site. Enter 9999 if the chemical substance has yet to be measured.
-
If Schema Monitoring states Reporting is not intended to include information regarding future monitoring programmes or planned changes
but in this field an option is 9999 'The chemical subtance has yet to be measured'. This option is quite inconsistent.
Class MonitoringPurpose(child of MonitoringSite)
- 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;
-
The way Purpose is reported for each monitoring site, and then for each monitoring site and chemical parameter is partly overlapping and seems unnecessarily complicated. And in the midst, the connection to monitoring program goes through site-purpose.
-
This information is redundant because it is also reported in the GML. In any case if this info has to be reported in both GIS and DB, at least the enumerationlist should be the same;
-
We don't see the added value of keeping this class as some information regarding the monitoring purpose is already included in classes MonitoringSite, SWEcologicalMonitoring and ChemicalMonitoring. We would suggest to delete this class.
-
Besides reporting on monitoring programmes should focus on the monitoring done for the status assessment of the WBs. We don't see the added value of reporting information here on the monitoring regarding e.g. the bathing water directive as a separate reporting is taking place under that directive.
monitoringPurpose - Required.(MonitoringPurpose_Enum)
Report each monitoring purpose of each monitoring site.
-
we propose to update codelist 8i (list of monitoring purposes), ordering the values according to GIS guidance
Notation Label Monitoring programme 1.1-SUR-Surveillance monitoring SUR Surveillance monitoring 1.2-OPE-Operational monitoring OPE Operational monitoring 1.3-INV-Investigative monitoring INV Investigative monitoring Trend and status assessment 2.1-ECO-Ecological status ECO Ecological status 2.2-CHE-Chemical status CHE Chemical status 2.3-QUA-Quantitative status QUA Quantitative status 2.1-TRE-Chemical trend assessment TRE Chemical trend assessment Protected area 3.1-DWD-Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i DWD Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 3.2-SHE-Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii SHE Shellfish designated waters - WFD Annex IV.1.ii 3.3-BWD-Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii BWD Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 3.4-UWW-Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv UWW Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 3.5-NID-Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv NID Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 3.6-HAB-Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v HAB Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v Transboundary monitoring 4.1-RIV-International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) RIV International network of a river convention (including bilateral agreements) 4.2-SEA-International network of a sea convention SEA International network of a sea convention 4.3-INT-International network of other international convention INT International network of other international convention SOE EIONET State of Environment monitoring 5.1-QTY-Water quantity QTY Water quantity 5.2-LEV-Water quantity - groundwater level LEV Water quantity - groundwater level 5.3-FLO-Water quantity - streamflow FLO Water quantity - streamflow 5.4-GWA-Groundwater abstraction site GWA Groundwater abstraction site 5.5-AGR-Groundwater abstraction site for irrigation AGR Groundwater abstraction site for irrigation 5.6-IND-Groundwater abstraction site for industrial supply IND Groundwater abstraction site for industrial supply 5.7-DRI-Groundwater abstraction site for human consumption DRI Groundwater abstraction site for human consumption 5.8-MAR-Transitional, coastal or marine monitoring site MAR Transitional, coastal or marine monitoring site 5.9-SPA-Spatial distribution monitoring SPA Spatial distribution monitoring 5.10-TTM-Temporal trend monitoring TTM Temporal trend monitoring 5.11-RIN-Riverine inputs RIN Riverine inputs Other monitoring purpose or network 6.1-MSF-Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network MSF Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network 6.2-REF-Reference network monitoring site REF Reference network monitoring site -
- The information about the purpose per site was requested in the XML and in the GML. This was exactly the same question twice and is a lot of work to fill in.
- Is it also not possible to indicate only the purpose per monitoring program instead of per site as it is the same in every program?
- The definition of the purpose is not clear (example for abstraction, industrial use,..). Is it the purpose of the monitoring program. Or the purpose for what the water is used. The water use was derived from this for each groundwater body, and was not always complete because of this.
-
This seems redondant with the GML, should it be suppressed from the GML?
euProgrammeCode - Required.
Report the EU monitoring programme code under which the relevant purpose is implemented in this site.
Guidance on contents of RBMPs and 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.
It is clearly stated in the Guidance that Reporting is not intended to include information regarding future monitoring programmes or planned changes.
Nevertheless in ChemicalMonitoring/chemicalSubstanceCode requires to report each chemical substance monitored in each monitoring site, but when asking in the field 'chemicalLastMonitored' the most recent year in which the substance was monitored, one option is 9999 'The substance has not yet been monitored'. This option is quite inconsistent as has driven certain discusions in Spain with regard to reporting future or planned monitoring.
The same problem exist with qeLastMonitored and quantitativeLastMonitored
It needs clarification. How the Commission is going to use the information?. In recent cases the Commission is using this module to assess if monitoring programmes are sufficient, but here we are reporting past monitoring results, and not current monitoring programmes.
If considered from the point of view of WB status, data in third RBMP will be linked to existing results, but if considered from the point of view of monitoring programmes, then future monitoring is more suitable.