Chair: Philippe Quevauviller (PQ ), COM

13th November 2006

Minutes

The Commission, DG Environment D.2 (hereafter referred as COM) invited members of Working Group C Groundwater (WG C) to the 11th meeting of the Working Group in Lisbon, which this time coincided back-to-back with a technical meeting of the RTD-project BRIDGE.

The main objective was to discuss the progress of the Drafting Group activities carried out under the WG C work programme for the period 2005–2006, as well as the inputs from the BRIDGE project concerning the development of a common methodology for the establishment of groundwater threshold values. This workshop is the eleventh of the series of workshops aimed at sharing information and knowledge on groundwater issues within the Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive

Chair: Philippe Quevauviller (PQ), COM

Co-Chair: Johannes Grath (JG), Umweltbundesamt, Austria

Participants: A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.

Agenda: The amended agenda for this meeting is attached in Annex 2

Access to presentations: All presentations are available for download at CIRCA.

The meeting was structured into 2 sessions:

(1)Reports from the Drafting Groups

(2)Common methodology for groundwater threshold establishment (BRIDGE)

Welcome and Introduction

The meeting was opened by Mr Rui Rodriguez on behalf of Mr Rocha Afonso, Vice-President of INAG. He announced that special attention will be put on water scarcity during the next Portuguese EU presidency in the second half of 2007. Mr Antonio Chambel, President of IAH-Portugal, welcomed the participants and draw special attention on the transboundary groundwater bodies. Furthermore, he announced the 35th IAH congress on Groundwater and Ecosystems which will be held in Lisbon in September 2007.

Update on GWD negotiation process - Philippe Quevauviller

PQ gave a brief summary on the current state of play of the negotiation process of the draft EU Groundwater Directive. Brief outlook:

– From 1 September onward: Conciliation with trialogue meetings – Conciliation Committee scheduled on 17 October.

– Adoption expected by the end of 2006.

Currently, there are intensive negotiations as the conciliation process has to be finished by end of November. There are several crucial questions still open and under discussion regarding groundwater chemical status, trend identification and reversal, indirect discharges (inputs) and horizontal issues.

Report on the Groundwater Conference - Johannes Grath

JG thanked everybody who contributed to the successful performance of the European Groundwater Conference 2006 in Vienna as session chair, speaker, supporter, poster presenter and participant. The mixture of participants showed that the WFD approach is also of interest to the non EU Member States. All slides and abstracts and the conclusion of the conference are ready for download at the conference website.

Session 1 - Reports from the Drafting Groups

GW 1 Groundwater Monitoring – Final version for endorsement - Johannes Grath

Johannes Grath (JG; Umweltbundesamt, Austria) chair of Drafting Group GW1 “Groundwater Monitoring”, informed about the developments since the last WG C meeting. A few comments were received, a few minor editorial changes and a case study were added. The guidance is approved by the WG C plenary and by the plenary of the Chemical Monitoring Activity (CMA). The draft guidance is on the agenda of the SCG meeting on the 5th of October 2006 and approval by the Water Directors is expected in November 2006.

Comments

– Manuel Varela appreciated that the guidance was already distributed to the ICPDR and the UNESCO. He proposed to send the manual also to the UNECE. Furthermore, PQ invited to distribute the guidance to other networks in order to avoid any duplication of work.

GW 2 Groundwater Protected Areas - Tony Marsland

Tony Marsland (TM; Environment Agency of England and Wales) chair of Drafting Group GW2 “Protected Areas” presented the state of discussion and open issues on the protected area guidance. Only few comments were received since the last meeting. The issue of the Drinking Water Protected Areas was formulated as rather flexible as it is still not clear whether DWPAs are whole GW-bodies or parts. Due to limited response (only 3 responses) on national practices in protected areas it is still open whether this will be included as an Annex or as a case study.

Comments/Questions

– Question: How to deal with GW-bodies which are currently not used for drinking water purposes but which have to be protected for future use?
TM responded that this issue is tackled by the guidance. COM (PQ) added that Art 7 covers existing and future use. The safeguard zone is the zone where a protection regime has to be implemented, but such a zone is not to be reported to the COM.

– TM clarified that blending between well fields is not a proper method prior to assessing compliance with the WFD.

– TM, COM (PQ) clarified that there is a clear definition of DWPAs in the WFD (Art 7.1) and the case studies will support and contribute to the understanding.

– Question: Is it necessary that monitoring for the Drinking Water Directive (DWD) has to be extended to the whole DWPA?
TM, JG clarified that this is not necessary. The DWD data should be used to assist in the risk assessment according to Art 5, but if no risk, then no WFD monitoring.

Further procedure

COM(PQ) and TM proposed to finalise the main text before the end of October 2006. The plenary is invited to provide text describing the protection regimes in safeguard zones which would be an extremely useful part of the guidance. It is envisaged that by the end of March 2007 the final version of the guidance should be ready for endorsement by the Water Directors.

GW 3 Prevent / Limit Guidance - Wouter Gevaerts

Wouter Gevaerts (WG; ARCADIS), chair of Drafting Group GW3 “Direct and Indirect Input” presented the state of discussion and open issues on the guidance on direct and indirect input. The decision trees on new activities and on historical sources have been extended. The case studies should be finalised by the end of 2006. The drafting group appreciates comments on the guidance.

Comments/Questions

– COM (PQ) commented that it is extremely important to precisely define the Point of Compliance (POC) for quality standards (QS) and threshold values (TV).

– It was of common opinion in the plenary that TVs for status assessment and limit values for prevent & limit should not be mixed up! Limit values for permits meet local requirements and TVs are needed for status classification of a GW-body. TVs and limit values should be more explicitly explained in the guidance.

– It was encouraged that the case studies should reflect the wide variability of hydrogeological settings within Europe. Different schemas of the POCs reflecting the different vulnerabilities and hydrogeologies should be added to the guidance. It is important to start with the conceptual model when defining the location of the POCs.

Further procedure

WG called for further case studies until the end of October 2006 and for comments on the guidance by the end of November 2006. It is envisaged that by the end of March 2007 the final version of the guidance should be ready for endorsement.

Status & trends - Expectations for 2007 - Philippe Quevauviller

PQ gave a brief outlook on the mandate of Drafting Group 4 (DG 4) on status & trends. Within this DG 4 the establishment of threshold values has to be clarified as well as the compliance regime. The mandate of this DG will be described more precisely. The main work should happen in the first quarter of 2007 and all efforts should be made so that the guidance be endorsed by the Water Directors in June 2007. The process of TV establishment by the Member States will be accompanied by WG C and exchanges of experience and comparisons of TVs shall happen in the first half of 2008 before the formal establishment of TVs during the second half of 2008.

Question: Will DG 4 also cover quantitative status?
COM(PQ): Yes.

Session 2 - Common Methodology for Groundwater Threshold Establishment (BRIDGE)

BRIDGE Introduction, Summary of BRIDGE achievements - Anne-Marie Fouillac

Anne-Marie Fouillac (AMF) briefly summarised the achievements of the BRIDGE project so far. The overall objective was to develop recommendations on a common methodology and criteria for a European approach to establish environmental thresholds for groundwater bodies. Achievements so far were a survey of representative groundwater pollutants (database and report) and a survey of hydro-geological characteristics in Europe with respect to pollutants transport and behaviour and a typology for hydro-geochemical characterisation of aquifers as a practical basis for NBL (Natural Background Level) determination.

A discussion paper proposing a draft methodology considering associated surface waters and dependent terrestrial ecosystems, considering thresholds for groundwater itself and considering a procedure for the derivation of NBLs acted as a basis for testing in 14 case study GW-bodies.

Deliverables or preliminary reports are available at . The final meeting of the project will happen on the 15th December 2006 in Paris. WG C members are welcome and more information will be available soon.

BRIDGE - Selected Case Studies - Frank Wendland, Klaus Hinsby, Teresa Melo

Three case studies were presented: the Upper Rhine River Basin (Frank Wendland), the Odense River Basin (Klaus Hinsby) and the Vouga River Basin (Teresa Melo). The procedure and the results from the NBL derivation approach were presented and the results of the different options (different percentiles for data separation) in the draft NBL derivation methodology were compared. Furthermore, possible amendments to the draft methodology for NBL derivation were proposed (separation between aerobic and anaerobic waters, differentiation between saltwater influenced and not influenced) and demonstrated. Finally the tiered approach for TV derivation was applied considering different receptors and different reference values and the results were interpreted.

BRIDGE - Synthesis and findings of the case studies - Klaus Hinsby

The 14 case studies reflect the wide variability of aquifer typologies, eco-regions and pressure situations within Europe. All 14 case studies derived TVs for groundwater itself, mainly based on drinking water standards and 5 case studies derived TVs based on dependent ecosystems. It was concluded that the proposed method for TV derivation is simple to use and the derivation of groundwater TVs based on dependent ecosystems (EQS values) would need further research.

Comments/Questions

COM(PQ) commented that it is quite complicated to consider aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and that it is much more complicated to consider groundwater ecosystems as receptor. Scientific investigations are needed which will be considered in FP 7.

Question: Is the aim to be pragmatic seen from the perspective of the economic aspects of measures or the NBL derivation? It should be clearly described what “pragmatic” means.
AMF responded that both aspects are addressed. The methodology is easy to be applied and the tiered approach addresses socio-economically aspects.

LT remarked that though the COM wants to compare the TVs over Europe, it will be difficult to compare them as they are derived from very different reference values.

It was remarked that the factor X which is added to the NBL in case 1 is arbitrary and should be further discussed as it is not corresponding to the WFD and the GWD.

BRIDGE - Environmental groundwater threshold – Envisaged methodology and amendments - Dietmar Müller

Dietmar Müller (DM) gave a brief overview of the elements of the methodology which are considered to be refined. Regarding the tiered approach for the NBL derivation it was concluded from the case study exercise that a separation of data according to salt water impacts and the anaerobic and aerobic conditions is necessary. The selected parameters and levels for the exclusion of samples with human impact should consider this new distinction as well. There is still room for discussion on how to deal with organic substance which can be found ubiquitous in the environment. It is still under discussion to reduce the tiers in the tiered approach for TV derivation or to change the order. There is a proposal for EQS [COM(2006) 397 final] but also national EQS can be used for additional pollutants.

The final proposal of the methodology will be available in November 2007.

Comments/Questions

DM clarified the human health is already regarded by the DWD which is still in place. The reference values based on drinking water were used as an alternative option instead of groundwater ecosystems when addressing groundwater itself. It is still a question whether groundwater status assessment is clearly addressing groundwater itself as well.

ES remarked that it is important to use terms which are not misleading as “pristine water” does not only mean clean water, it can be of poor quality as well.

COM(PQ) clarified that Member States are free to derive protection of groundwater ecosystems. The GWD would include such a protection of groundwater itself. But currently it is very difficult to derive EQS for groundwater ecosystems; this could be examined in 6 years from now when more information will be available.

It was mentioned by TM and Donal Daly that TVs are needed for status assessment which is different to prevent & limit. As the focus in the BRIDGE documents is on receptors, it is useful to the Member States.

COM(PQ) invited the plenary to comment the draft methodology document (D15) until the End of October 2006.

WG C work Programme 2007–2008 - Philippe Quevauviller

PQ gave a brief outlook on the objectives of and expectations on WG C. There is a need for continuous exchanges in support of the GWD implementation along the CIS principles. Specific inputs are required (best practices) about groundwater programmes of measures. Agreement on a common methodology for groundwater threshold values’ establishment and further discussions on compliance, status and trend assessment is needed. Exchange of information/knowledge about integrated risk assessment is expected as well as continuous exchange on chemical monitoring issues linked to the Chemical Monitoring Activity (CMA).

PQ invited to comment on the mandate by mid of October 2006 and to respond in case of interest in active participating in a Drafting Group.

Comments/Questions

IAH asked about the role of the water scarcity group.
COM(PQ) responded that quantity and drought problems should be discussed in this group and contact to this group will be kept.

COM(PQ) clarified that the CMA is a separate group but there will be as much as possible linkage to this group e.g. by organising back-to-back meetings.

Outlook – Further meetings

• 15 December 2006 in Paris – Discussion of draft common methodology for threshold value establishment (linked to BRIDGE meeting)
• 26 March 2007 in Berlin – WG C plenary meeting (CMA the day after)
• 21 September 2007 in Lisbon – WG C plenary meeting linked to IAH groundwater conference
• Next WG C plenary meetings in March/April 2008 in Slovenia and in September/October 2008 in France.

Closure

PQ thanked the hosts for the perfect organisation and closed the meeting.

ANNEX 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Working Group C ‘Groundwater’ - PLENARY

Member States

Candidate Countries

Associated States

Stakeholders

RTD stakeholders