Post a comment on the text below

3. REPORTING AT GROUNDWATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA GWB) including 3.3, 3,4 and 3.5

To be added reference to the identifier specifications included in the GIS guidance
GWB layers not very useful - to discuss with WG Groundwater
GW exemptions – when a WB has both 4(4) (time extension) and 4(5) (less stringent objective), the current GoodStatus_Enum does not help – suggestion to modify by removing from the codelist 'less stringent objective already achieved‘ and adding a new field in order to report the achievement of less stringent objectives for quality elements with a 4(5) exemption.
Very few simplifications suggested e.g. delete the information on GWB at risk

Previous comments

SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:06:09

To be added reference to the identifier specifications included in the GIS guidance	SE: Yes. We agree
GWB layers not very useful - to discuss with WG Groundwater	SE: Yes. We agree
GW exemptions – when a WB has both 4(4) (time extension) and 4(5) (less stringent objective), the current GoodStatus_Enum does not help – suggestion to modify by removing from the codelist 'less stringent objective already achieved‘ and adding a new field in order to report the Achievement of less stringent objectives for quality elements with a 4(5) exemption.	SE: Yes. We agree
Very few simplifications suggested e.g. delete the information on GWB at risk	SE: No. We do not agree as we are of the opinion that GWB at risk is important imformation

SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 09:58:59

Regarding Comments no. 123, 124, 126 and 130 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we point out that reporting must be consistent for bouth, SWB and GWB (i.e. if it is deleted in GWB schemas then it should be deleted also in SWB schemas).

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.