EU WG2C – GW 1 Monitoring Guidance09-11-2005
Rob Ward, Johannes Grath
Draft Minutes on Drafting Group 1 meeting – Brussels11th October 2005
Welcome and Introduction to the 2nd Drafting Group 1 (GW 1) – “Groundwater Monitoring Meeting”
Participants of Drafting Group 1 (GW 1) were welcomed by the group leaders Rob Ward and Johannes Grath. The list of participants is enclosed.
The draft guidance was developed according to the outcome of the 1st Drafting Group 1 meeting (held in June 2005) and distributed for information and comments prior to the meeting. In the drafting process comments and contributions were received from 11 GW 1 members.
The amended draft version was presented at the meeting, based on summary slides for each section of the guidance. The sections were discussed and proposals for changes and amendments were made.
Based on an illustration which was drafted at the drafting group leaders meeting (GW 1,2,3) the scope of the three different guidance documents was shown. In particular the scope of the monitoring guidance and the links to drafting group two and three were illustrated.
The main issues and results of the discussion are summarised below, structured according to the sections in the draft guidance:
Section 1
For Section 1 it was proposed to make reference to existing guidance and how this document compliments these. Furthermore it should include something about the origin of the mandate for this work.
It was agreed to add to the text that the guidance aims to enable cost-effective, risk-based and targeted monitoring and to recognise that monitoring is expensive but that there is a requirement to ensure that adequate monitoring is carried out.
Section 2
The current presentation of timescales for monitoring according to WFD requirements might be incomplete and will be checked and amended accordingly.
Section 3
For new terms introduced in this document (e.g. not yet defined in WFD) there was the suggestion that we have a glossary.
3.1.8 Add bullet to include use of existing hydrochemical data
3.1.9 Suggestion that we should use quantitative information and measures to test the conceptual model. This could be used to measure/determine how and when we need to refine.
3.5.1 Proposal for introduction of one paragraph dealing with different types of monitoring sites (e.g. monitoring wells, pumping wells, springs) what they monitor and their suitability.
The term “macro scale” should be changed to “GWB scale”
Discussion about the approach for network design – it was mentioned that a set of monitoring sites could be used, providing in an aggregated way representative results for the GW-body although some of the individual sites might not be ideal. However, the needs of the forthcoming GWDD should be kept in mind.
3.5.6This paragraph should be edited, made more complete and linked to John Chilton’s work on aquifer types. Case studies to illustrate network design in different aquifer types would be helpful.
3.5.7As mentioned in 3.5.1, reference should be made to different types of monitoring points which can be used also in DWPAs. Advantages/disadvantages for different types of sampling sites and the need for sound GW-quality sampling should be made more explicit.
3.6The section should be more specific concerning network review QA and modification/frequency of network update
John Chilton volunteered to review and contribute on this (by end of October).
Section 4
Surveillance monitoring
4.1.8 Include use of hydrochemical data in “criteria/information to help site selection”
4.1.10It was stressed as being important that the monitoring network should consider the most susceptible part of the GWB, but also to give a representative picture for the overall GW-body i.e. monitor impacts of pressures and also to allow to follow the evolution of GW along flow paths.
Discussion on frequency table – it was suggested that the proposal for surveillance monitoring (SM) is too frequent. It was agreed to add that where we have lots of existing information then SM can be optimised and an appropriate frequency adopted that still gives sufficient confidence in results etc. The table will be kept in as it is to provide a guide where information is not available.
Operational Monitoring
4.2.5There was some confusion on receptors and sources. This paragraph needs to be clarified and tidied up.
It should be clearly expressed that the monitoring allows for the assessment of the effectiveness of POMs. Some more explanation on what is meant should be added. GW 1 deals with monitoring for effectiveness at GWB scale.
Quantity Monitoring
5.1.1There is a need to add that quantity monitoring supports the conceptual model and can support the chemical status assessment
5.1.2A proposal to add some words to this section will be sent by the expert from Italy
5.2It was stated that the “reporting guidance” needs to reflect what will be measured, i.e not just level
5.2.1.The transition zone (thickness and location) for island aquifers should be mentioned here. Expert from Spain volunteered to provide some input.
6Protected Areas
Comment: According to the plenary meeting on 12th October 2005 further clarification is required on the DWPA issue – since the GW 1 paper refers to GW 2 Protected area guidance, the outcome of this clarification will be considered accordingly.
7 Prevent and Limit
7.0.2Need to elaborate a little on difference between types of monitoring specified here (in particular defensive monitoring and strategic monitoring)
This section will be reviewed with reference to GW3 guidance.
Section 8 and 9
Philippe Quevauviller gave a brief outline on the work of the Chemical Monitoring Activity (CMA) and how the work of the different groups (CMA, GW 1 etc.) will be linked. He stressed that chemical quality data are the basis for the status assessment for all types of water, hence the chemical analyses should be comparable across Europe and quality assured at a sound level. This is the reason why this part of CMA outcome is intended to be subject of the comitology procedure (for all types of water).
It was agreed that there should no duplication with the Chemical Monitoring Activity (CMA). Hence it was decided to shorten section 8 and to combine with section 9. It should includean element of QA/review for whole network/programme not just sampling/analysis and linked to testing the conceptual model etc. A working party will carry out drafting. Lutgart van Nevel, Christian Gron and Anne Marie Fouillac will deliver an updated version by 15th November 2005.
Annex:
The annex should be streamlined and case studies should be included. It was asked for volunteers to provide case studies according to the templates. The templates were already distributed by Philippe Quevauviller.
Way forward:
- Upload the current draft for the next SCG meeting (end of October).
- Redraft the guidance – distribution 15th December
- Comments – Mid January 2006
- Final draft – delivered before next WG C meeting (13/14 February 2006)
Finally the drafting group leaders thanked all participants for their contributions.
1
WG C Groundwater - Drafting Group GW 1 Monitoring
Meeting 11 October 2005, Participant list
Working Group C ‘Groundwater’
DG MONITORING MEETING – 11OCTOBER 2005
ROOM BU5 0/B
Member States
Country / Name / OrganisationAT / Johannes GRATH / Federal Environment Agency
AT / Andreas SCHEIDLEDER / Federal Environment Agency
BE / Ralf EPPINGER / AMINAL, Ministry of Flemish Government
DE / Martin AST / Federal Environmental Agency
Email:
DE / Anja DUFFEK / Federal Environmental Agency
Email:
ES / Isaac SANCHEZ / Ministry of the Environment
Email:
ES / Carlos MARTIN NAVARETE / Spanish Geological Survey
Email:
FR / Ariane BLUM / BRGM
Email:
IT / Paola BOTTONI / ISS
Email:
IT / Martina BUSSETTINI / APAT
Email:
IT / Elisabetta PREZIOSI / Water Research Institute
Email:
MT / Manuel SAPIANO / Malta Resources Authority
Email:
NL / Dico FRATERS / RIVM
Email:
UK / Rob WARD / Environment Agency
Candidate and Associated Countries
Country / Name / OrganisationBU / Rossitza GOROVA / Ministry of Environment and Water
Email:
BU / Daniela DENEVA / EXEA-Sofia
Email:
NO / Jan CRAMER / Geological Survey of Norway
Email:
Stakeholders
Country / Name / OrganisationCEEP / Franz MEISSNER / AquaOpta GmbH
Email:
DHI / Christian GRØN / DHI
Email:
CEN / Ulrich BORCHERS / Institut für Wasser
Email:
Eurogeo-surveys / Hans-Peter BROERS / EuroGeoSurveys
Email:
UN-ECE,
IAH / John CHILTON / British Geological Survey
Email:
European Commission
Country / Name / OrganisationJRC / Lutgart van Nevel / IRMM
Email:
1