22ndPlenary Meeting of WG C ‘Groundwater’, Brussels, 20th–21stMarch2012
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D–Water, ChemicalsBiotechnology
ENV.D.1 – Protection of Water Environment /
21stMarch 2012
Twenty-secondMeeting of the Working Group C Groundwaterfor the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
20 March 2012 from 13h00–17h30
21 March 2012 from 9h00–16h45
Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB),
Rue Froissart 36, B-1049 Bruxelles, Belgium
Room 1D
Draft Minutes
The Commission, DG EnvironmentUnit D.1 (hereafterreferred as DG ENV) invitedmembers of Working Group C Groundwater (WG C)to the 22ndmeeting of the Working Group in Brussels held under the umbrella of the DanishEU Presidency.
The meeting aims to exchange experiences about implementation issues related to the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC linked to activities earned out under the WG C work programme for the period 2010–2012. This meeting is the twenty-second of the series of the meetings aimed at sharing information and knowledge on groundwater issues within the Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive
Chair:Johannes Grath (JG), Umweltbundesamt, Austria
Co-Chair:started with Balázs Horváth(BH), DG ENV and moved to Anna Hall (AH), environment Agency of England and Wales, United Kingdom
Participants: A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.
Agenda: The agenda for this meeting is attached in Annex 2
Access to presentations: All documents are available for download at CIRCA.
The meeting was structured into 7 sessions:
(1)Report from EC
(2)Groundwater body delineation
(3)Groundwater and Climate Change
(4)WFD Implementation: Lessons learnt from the 1st RBMP period
(5)WFD Implementation
(6)Science
(7)Next steps
Welcome address by EU Danish Presidency
Welcome by Mr.Martin Skriver, Head of Section at the Danish Ministry of the Environment, on behalf of the Danish Presidency. He emphasised the importance of discussing GWB delineation and climate change challenges and underlined that the guidance documents were regarded very useful within the WFD implementation process. Sharing of experience is of vital importance and Denmark is going to use this opportunity to give a presentation.
Session 1 – Report from EC
Information from DG ENV activities–Balázs Horváth
-BHinformed the WDs that due to recent constraints in resources, EC needs to reduce CIS involvement and therefore BHwithdrew from the position of co-chair of WGC and is replaced by Anna Hall (Environment Agency for England and Wales, UK). BH continues to attend WGC plenary meetings.
-The revision of GWD Annex I and IIis postponed and will not take place in 2012.
-Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water: The public consultation was recently launched and participants are invited to comment. Deadline for comments is 7thJune 2012 at:
-Current status of RBMP implementation and reporting: Nearly all RBMPs are adopted; significant delays are still expected for some Member States.
-The ECis currently contacting MS relating to the Blueprint, mainly regarding potential gaps and clarification needed. Three aspects: 1. Bilateral letters to members of SCG for clarification purposes (sent in April/May). Reply is voluntary as there is no legal obligation to answer. 2. Requests might follow with regard to the comparative study on pressures and measures. 3. A specific data request (currently distributed) regarding groundwater TVson:data validation, criteria for specific TVs and compliance regime.
-The WISE deliveries of RBMPs and some first analyses are available at Username: wfduser; Password: Dir200060ec. Member States are requested to check the data and flag to COM if they find something incorrect.
-The Technical Reports No 6 (GWDTEs) and No 7 (GWD Annex I/II revision) have been endorsed by the WDs.
-This year’s Green Week is focusingon water:Date: 22–25 May 2012, back-to-back with 3rdEU Water Conference:
-The ClimWatAdapt project was finalised: Final documents can be found at
Questions/Comments:
-JG added: The Technical Report No 6 is currently translated into German and available soon.
Introductory Remarks – Johannes Grath
JG warmly thanked Balázs for his work as co-chair of WGC and welcomed Anna Hall for taking over as co-chair.
No amendments/comments for the minutes of the last meeting in Warsaw were raised. The minutes are adopted and the final version is now available on CIRCA.
The agenda to this meeting had to be slightly re-arranged and was finally adopted. It is attached as Annex 2.
Session 2 – Groundwater Body Delineation
Summary presentation of EuroGeoSurvey Workshop – Rob Ward
RW summarised the discussions and the outcome of a2-day workshop on GWB delineation in Berlinon15/16 December 2011(following a 1stworkshop in 2005). Aim was to discuss and agree recommendations for harmonising methodologies to enable a coherent GIS layer for Europe’s GWBs. RW summarised the current status of GWB delineation and reporting and some principles of GWB delineation from the perspective of WFD and GIS. The 3-D aspect of groundwater which is especially challenging whencompiling the different horizons of GWBs to a European GIS layer causes serious difficulties.
Conclusions:There is a need to learn from the 1stRBMP period.Delineation should be driven by WFD and not by GIS requirements.Not all groundwater has to be delineated as a GWB.Refinement of attribute requirements within WFD reporting is needed (mandatory / optional).Case studies clearly demonstrate the challenges.Greater consistencies in reporting of transboundary GWBs are needed.GW horizon designation is important and needs to be solved.Conclusions need to be communicated to WG D (Reporting).
Comment:
-WilkoVerweij (NL): The presented table with reported attributes seems incorrect for NL.
Klaus Duscher / BH: The figures solely reflect whether information was provided and not which information was provided. The data fully rely on reporting by Member States and checks might be needed.
-ElisabettaPreziosi (IT):What is the origin of the IHMW? Karstic and volcanic aquifers are missing.
RW: IHME will not replace GWB delineation but acts as additional information.
Conclusion:
-BH invited WGC members to inform their national WGD members about this topic.
GIS presentation of GW-bodies across Europe – Klaus Duscher
KD from BGR (DE)isin charge of compiling the European GWB layer for the ETC/ICM. He summarised the main gaps and deficiencies and presented several examples.The updated report is uploaded on CIRCA.
Comment:
-Juhani Gustafsson (FI): The situation inFI is quite special in Europe due to geological characteristics. How can the grouping of GWBs be intensified?
Groundwater body delineation in Finland – Janne Juvonen
In total 3800 aquifers are identified, with an average size of 2.7 km² and all smaller than 100 km². There is only one GW horizon in Finland. The delineation of GWBs is still subject to discussion.
Comment/Questions:
-Rob Ward: If it is correct that the GWBs, which are very small, yield more than 100 m³ of groundwater per day then they should stay as GWBs.
JJ agreed with this assumption.
Groundwater body delineation in Denmark – Martin Skriver
Denmark delineated areas of special drinking water interest. In these areas the investigations are quite intensive and were a starting point for delineating GWBs. As the delineation of GWBs was the duty of the regional counties, the sizes of GWBs in DK varied considerably. A uniformed system of GWB delineation was elaborated and 3 models for revision were defined. Finally 400 GWBs were identified and assigned to 3 different layers by a uniformed procedure.Several conclusions were drawn from and for the GWB delineation process. Adjustment of GWB delineation might still be needed.
Groundwater body delineation in CzechRepublic – Hana Prchalova
Hydrogeological zones – as the basis for GWB delineation – were delineated solely based on natural conditions. Hydrogeological zones and GWBs were assigned to 3 horizons. The upper layer covers only a very small part of the country, the 2nd layer is the main layer and covers the whole country and the 3rd layer represents the deep horizon and covers deep GWBs which are used or significantly affected by human activity.Large hydrological zones were divided into smaller working units according to the surface water catchments. Results of risk and status assessment wereconsideredwhen identifying GWBs.
Groundwater body delineation in United Kingdom – Anna Hall
The delineation of GWBs in UK followed a 3 steps procedure. 1. Aquifer types were identified,2. Aquifers were sub-divided into manageable units by considering several additional factors (e.g. groundwater divides, flow-lines, no-flow boundaries) and 3.further sub-division or amalgamation considering pressures. After review of the GWBs, the number of GWBs was reduced to 304.The procedure in Scotland and Northern Ireland was slightly different as no CAMS were available but geology was taken as the common element.
For the 2nd RBMP cycle the GWBs are reviewed and updated considering the lessons learnt from the 1st period.A focus will be put on the proper 3-dimensional assignment of GWBs. Further information:
Groundwater body delineation in France – Sarah Bonneville/Susanne Schomburgk
Whole of France is covered by in total 574 GWBs – 533 in continental Europe(with 23 transboundary GWBs) and 38 overseas –considering six main types of lithology. A 15-layer geological model was developed for twosedimentary basins which were aggregated together into 10 layers. The GWBs are cut into small pieces for mapping purposes and ordered according to the different layers that are overlying each other. This means that a GWB is assigned to up to 10 different horizons on a map.There are still many open questions (e.g. regarding the delineation of deep confined aquifers) and an updatedGWB delineation is expected in 2012.
Questions/Comments:
-Martin Skriver (DK): What is the motivation of whole of FR to be covered by GWBs?
GW wells are distributed all over the country and it was a political decision.
-John Chilton (IAH): How much do you know about the movement of water between the hydrogeological zones?
The model is in use for many years and the experience shows that there is not much interconnection.
-Ruxandra Balaet (RO): In RO GWBs do not cover the whole country which now causes problems as polluting activities (e.g. mining) argue that groundwater does not need to be considered as no GWBs are delineated.
-Maria Casado (ES): Were piezometric controls considered in the delineation process?
Yes, if information was available.
-Juhani Gustafsson (FI): Is there monitoring in each of these layers?
Yes, because the GWBs are important resources and used.
-Martin Skriver (DK): The delineation was done by the FR water agencies. Was there a harmonisation done at the national level?
Yes, in 2006 a harmonised layer for whole France was developed.
Final discussion
It was finally discussed, howWGC can contribute to improve the situation of developing a harmonised GWB layer at European level.
-MatthewCraig (IE): A drafting group could summarise conclusions until the next meeting to summaries issues that should be considered.
-Sarah Bonneville (FR): The characterisation exercise is on-going and maybe the current conclusions could be too late for the 2ndRBMP cycle. If the delineation of GWBs is changed, the pressure and impact analysis will be influenced.
-JG: It needs to be discussed which elements should be reported and how the assignment to horizons should be handled.
-BH: A significant change of GWB delineation does not seem to be needed but the way of reporting might need to be amended.WG D meetsin week 13 and tackles the changes needed for the 2nd cycle of RBMP reporting. The discussion also continues in autumn.
-Rob Ward: Maybe WGD could mandate WG C to elaborate first suggestions for reporting amendments. There are still unresolved issues and the guidance from the 1st cycle might need revision to reflect the lessons learnt.
-Klaus Duscher: WGD would be happy with feedback from WGC concerning the elaborating a GWB reference layer.
-Juhani Gustafsson (FI): Proposals on reporting shall not go beyond the requirements of the WFD.
-Wilko Verweij (NL): No new guidance on the delineation of GWBs is needed as only the lessons learnt are now implemented in the MS.
Conclusions
-A brief summary of the discussion will be present on the following day. Once agreed, BH will forward the conclusions to WGD.
-No further guidance (update) is needed
-WG C offers technical expertiseto WGD.
Session 3 – Groundwater and Climate Change
Draft outline of the Workshop Report – Hans-Peter Broers
HPB gave a brief summary (incl. decisions and proposals taken) of the workshop held back-to-back with the last WG C plenary meeting in Warsaw (May 2012). A first proposal of topics which could be subject to the October 2012 workshop was presented. Four parallel sessions were proposed in order to limit the workshop to one day. The draft workshop report (4 pages)as well as the manifesto and the draft agenda are subject to commenting until 13th April 2012.Documents are available on CIRCA. Subsequently, SCG is requested for approval of a 2nd workshop.
Comments:
-Wilko Verweij (NL): GW quantity is not explicitly reflected in the outline and it should be. Quantitative and chemical status of GW could be explicitly mentioned.
-Didier d’Hont (BE): Cooperation with the S&D group should be indicated.
-BH: Expert groups on climate change and on agriculture should be involved by inviting the chairs of these groups.
-Anna Hall: Secondary effects need to be mentioned.
-Elisabetta Preziosi (IT): Risk assessment should also be mentioned in the outline.
Conclusions:
-Comments on draft report, workshop outline and manifesto until 13thApril 2012.
-Updateddocuments are going to be forward to SCG very soon. Next SCG meeting on 10thMay 2012.). Once approval is given, the group is informed.
Session 4 –WFD Implementation: Lessons learnt from the 1st RBMP Period
Luxembourg – Drinking Water Protected Areas – Tom Schaul
Luxembourg identified 5 GWBs which are monitored by 31 sites. The transboundary aspect is of high importance. Nitrates and pesticidespose the main problems, causing poor status in 2 of 5 GWBs. 2/3 of the population is supplied by drinking water from groundwater andthere is nearly no treatment of the water.
Luxembourg identified protection zones covering parts of GWBs. They are in accordance with safeguard zones (Art. 7 WFD), where protection measures and monitoring are focused. The national water law has not identified zones of potential abstractions as it was supposed to put problems to the good quantitative status, as any potential additional abstraction would cause groundwater over-exploitation.
Currently the protection zones are re-delineated based on a harmonized methodology and a national guideline (oriented on the DE guideline DVGW W101 and international guidelines). A risk approach and vulnerability mapping wereapplied.
Following conclusions regarding CIS guidance document No 16 were drawn:
-Delineation of zones of potential abstraction not always useful.
-Further guidance in relation to the risk based approach and transboundary GWBs is needed.
-More experience exchanges for specific questions: e.g.regarding spring catchment and fissured aquifers etc.
Sweden– Drinking Water Protected Areas – Lotta Lewin Pihlblad & Jenny McCarthy
The existing guidance was in general judged as quite clear. Aspecific issue which would need further clarification is guidance on the share of monitored data of raw water quality. Sweden has not been able to make use of such data from water works in the surveillance or operational monitoring as there is limited monitoring.The amount of monitored raw water analysis in the ‘Archives of Municipal Waterworks’ database is considerably lower than the monitored treated water.The Swedish water supply consists of 2,406 groundwater abstractions, 236 surface waterabstractions and approx. 400,000 private wells, serving 1.2 million people.
Following conclusions regarding CIS guidance document No 16 were drawn:
-The consequences of introducing the HACCP-concept for the producers of drinking water should be explored (HACCP…Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points),
-Harmonise the regulations (frequencies, parameters) between HACCP and WFD.
Discussion/Experiences:
-Emilie Trakalova (CZ) Very important issue also in CzechRepublic: Who is responsible for the delineation of safeguard zonesand for raw water monitoring? Monitoring is often not done appropriately by the water authorities and the results cannot be included into surveillance/operational monitoring.
-Reka Gaul (HU): There are two types of monitoring:one by the users who send the data to the competent authorities and one by the state.A governmental decree regulates which data have to be produced and reported to national authorities.
-Matthew Craig (IE): From DW-D perspective the needs of the WFD are not considered. It needed efforts to convince drinking water authorities to adopt a joint water safety plan approach (DW-D and WFD requirements). The guidance mentions the level of treatment but both perspectives need to think about its meaning.
-Wilko Verweij (NL): The national obligation to monitor raw water existed in the Netherlands even before WFD. These data are not part of the WFD monitoring. Data are only used in two cases: to demonstrate compliance with WFD Art. 7 and for status assessment in case of exceedances (appropriate investigations).
-Lutz Keppner (DE): Raw water monitoring in DE is under the responsibility of the German Länder. Some have obligations, some don’t have. A strong recommendation of raw water monitoring in the guidance would help to implement this requirement in whole Germany.
-Lærke Thorling (DK):Raw water monitoring is obligatory in DKbut the companies close points when problems occur,whichinfluences theoverall picture and biases representative assessments. Water works cannot be forced to continue monitoring.
-Charalambos Demetriou (CY): It is very important to protect the source and not the spring, which is done in CY. Monitoring of raw water is needed but this causes extra costs. In CY very often the raw water is a mixture of surface water and groundwater.
-Wilko Verweij (NL): NL would not be happy to introduce‘soft obligations’ through guidance documents.
-Reka Gaul (HU): Hungary did not apply the methodology described in the Guidance on Groundwater in the DWPAs, but identified – acc. to the 1st interpretation of chapter 2.1 of the guidance - safeguard zonesas DWPAs.
JG concluded: Considering ways for making use of raw water data from drinking water suppliers and harmonising approaches are regarded helpful. The DWPA guidance could be updated in the next mandate period with further guidance on the risk base approach and the inclusion of raw water monitoring.
Denmark – Status and trends – Martin Skriver/Lærke Thorling