Technical report on Groundwater Dependent Terrestial Ecosystems Lead: Johannes Grath Johan Schutten Wilko Verweij Anna Hall Andreas Scheidleder

Hydrogeology meets Ecology Who is responsible?

Contents History of process Summary of contents Comments and proposal how to deal with comments Next steps

Summary of difficulties (Brugge meeting) Definitions in WFD Prioritising sites/ areas Specific monitoring data Status assessment not readily applicable Guidance document is too general on this subject Requirements of ecosystems (interaction with ecologists needed) Environmental Flow Need (quantity) Effect of substances (chemical quality) Derivation of threshold values (AF/DF) Up-scaling from local to GW body level Keep the costs reasonable How to derive societal support

Process since Bruges Initially: very few volunteers, no leader Johannes Grath later took the lead Due to lack of resources, surface water skipped Presentation and first draft in April (Budapest) Since then: more volunteers And: document edited

Contents chapter 1 Scope of the document Places in WFD / GWD where GWDTE are mentioned Risk assessment/characterisation Status assessment WFD = Water Framework Directive GWD = Groundwater Directive GWDTE = Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems

Contents chapter 2 (1) What can be considered GWDTE? When is a GWDTE ‘directly dependent’ on a groundwater body (GWB)? Apply hydrological and ecological information Consider vegetation Use Conceptual Models (see GD26) Use expert judgement Combine all information

Contents chapter 2 (2) Significant damage: Ecological damage Economic damage Link to conservation targets of Natura 2000 For other GWDTE, similar approach could be used Trigger values can be used to describe sensitivity of GWDTE for substances Based on literature Input for deriving Threshold Values

C. Ground Water discharges from saturated sand Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems; Categories: Example... C. Ground Water discharges from saturated sand dune sea non or seasonally saturated soil or rock layers saturated soil or deeper rock layers

Contents chapter 3 Distinguish initial and further characterisation Links with guidance documents (12 wetlands; 26 Risk Assessment) Some technical suggestions Importance of proper characterisation

Contents chapter 4 How to determine GWDTE requirements? Quantity Quality Link with derivation of threshold values Key: cooperation with ecologists

Contents chapter 5 Monitoring WFD requires monitoring at GWB-level A lot information already available (several Guidance Documents) Contains links to other information WFD requires monitoring at GWB-level WFD does not require monitoring of each individual GWDTE

Contents chapter 6 For deriving threshold values, GWDTE should be included (when applicable) Scheme GD 18

Include GWDTE

Consider background levels Background levels may vary considerably Ecosystems adapt

Contents chapter 6 Position of GWDTE in status assessment Also covered in Guidance Document 18 GD 18 was considered too general on this subject (workshop Brugge) Now more concrete including ‘appropriate investigation’

Comments Feedback/Comments received from Four Member States (ES, IE, NL and SE) Two stakeholders (Euromines and Concawe) All comments will be considered If we don’t understand, we will come back to commenters We will judge how it fits in scope of TR

Comments 1 - General Don’t replace ‘GWDTE’ in general with ‘wetland’ (NL)  Will be checked Include a summary (NL)  Not usual up to now Not such specific as desired (IE, Concawe)  Not possible at the moment (lack of knowledge)  Scope as agreed in Brugge. Text will be amended to avoid misunderstandings Make clear the purpose and intended use of the TechReport (IE, Concawe)  To be addressed in the ‘Scope’ (see above). TechReport is not a Guidance Include organisms in GW (stygofauna) (SE)  Currently not subject to WFD and GWD (see pre-amble of GWD) Also propose collection of GWDTE field data (Euromines)  Such monitoring not foreseen by WFD

Amendment of „Scope“ Its purpose is to collate current available experience, contribute to clarification of terms, make use of already existing CIS documents and suggest pragmatic technical solutions for the implementation of the provisions regarding the interaction of GW-bodies with directly dependent terrestrial ecosystems but leaving flexibility for MS according to the specific needs. This report is not a CIS guidance document. At the current stage it seemed more adequate to provide information in a technical report rather than developing a „guidance document“

Comments 2 – Key concepts 2.1 GWDTE Natura 2000 sites can be very large. Assessment only related to part of site? (IE)  Yes. This was the intention.  see 7.4 “Status assessment and size of GWB vs. GWDTE” Some minor text suggestions for the 4 examples (IE, SE) 2.2 Determine TE to be directly GWB dependent A base year should be proposed (IE)  Still open for discussion – information request was given to WG C – however, no proposals received; leave open Mention that damage also due to raising GW table (SE)  Yes 2.3 Significant damage to GWDTEs (NL) Meet targets of Natura 2000 as far as GW is concerned

Comments 3 2.4 Threshold and trigger values Emphasise that trigger value is needed only if GWDTE is damaged (IE)  Yes see also Flowchart Fig. 3 3.2 Further characterisation Not ‘all’ GWDTEs to be considered (IE)  All should be assessed whether they are damaged or not – in case of “significant damage” - see also Flowchart Fig. 3 4.1 Quantity requirements Give thumb figures – what proximity of abstraction to the GWDTE will have an impact (IE)  Subject of Conceptual Model. Very individual/site specific – according to our experience currently not available

Comments 4 4.2 Quality requirements 5 Monitoring – Look out box  All substances which are important should be considered … (IE) 5 Monitoring – Look out box Site specific monitoring can be included if it is representative of the WQ/WL in the GWB (IE)  can be subject to ‘strategic monitoring’ as described in CIS 15 (GW Monitoring) 6 Threshold values Reiterate the derivation of TVs from trigger values (considering dilution & attenuation) (IE)  Yes Emphasise that trigger values should not only be derived from literature but together with monitoring. (Euromines)  Yes

Comments 5 6.1 Naturally adapted GWTDEs dependent on concentrations above TVs Deteriorate such Natura 2000 by measures to achieve good status of GWB? Or maintain poor GWB status to achieve conservation targets of Natura 2000 (Euromines)  Remark: Contradictory requirements need case by case assessment. Proposal: no amendment of text. 7.1 Stepwise approach Investigation should also flag up the reason for damage (IE) Yes 7.4 Fig 4 Quantitative status Mention also reduced infiltration not only ‚abstraction‘ (SE)  Chart copied from adopted CIS 18. Therefore no change proposed

Comments 6 Recommendation 3 Further recommendations needed Be careful with a new group. (NL) Further recommendations needed to raise need of additional, more specific work (IE) to share knowledge of the relative uncertainty of information generated by each of the different disciplines involved (hydrology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, ecology)” (Euromines)  Rephrase recommendation 3 to continue exchange of information…..

Comments 6 Proposal for recommendation : It is advisable to make use of an interdisciplinary network (e.g. via the SPI initiative, EU-funded projects) to further develop GWDTE-issues and share knowledge and pragmatic and practical solutions.

Announcement Hans Schutten plans to organise a workshop on the development of trigger values and datasets before 1 April 2012 He will keep you informed