GWDTE: approach in the Netherlands Wilko Verweij 1 Saskia Lukacs 1 Mari van Dreumel 2 Douwe Jonkers 2 1: RIVM 2: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment GWDTE: approach in the Netherlands | 16 April 2013

Introduction Parties involved WFD Standards Lessons learnt Conclusions Contents Introduction Parties involved WFD Standards Lessons learnt Conclusions GWDTE: approach in the Netherlands | 16 April 2013

Introduction Many parties involved In 2004, no national overview available of GWDTE’s Since that time, many actions taken

Parties involved in WFD and GWDTE’s Directive WFD Natura 2000 Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment Ministry of Economic Affairs National level Provinces: groundwater quality & groundwater quantity (drinking water) Waterboards: regional surface water and groundwater quantity Nature Conservation organisations: management of nature reserves Regional level Specific water requirements feed into WFD

Identification of GWDTE’s The following areas were treated as ‘GWDTE’s’: Natura 2000 areas most desiccated nature areas some provinces: additional areas

Determine groundwater dependence and damage First RBMP-cycle: no GWDTE’s included not in characterisation not in threshold values not in status assessment in measures: research to develop method in order to include in second RBMP-cycle

Determine groundwater dependence and damage Second RBMP-cycle: choice to use knowledge of nature conservation organisations as much as possible Provinces ask nature conservation organisations : “Are your areas groundwater dependent?” “Are your areas damaged due to groundwater?” If so, action will be taken First test of this approach: second cycle of characterisation (2013)

Monitoring For WFD: National monitoring network of quantity (hydraulic head) Equally distributed over country; not specifically close to GWDTE’s National monitoring network for chemistry in groundwater (10 and 25 m deep) No national monitoring of groundwater in GWDTE’s National monitoring of aquatic ecosystems by waterboards

Monitoring Water and soil, not specific for WFD: other national networks like Network Acidification and Network Effects of Minerals Policy Nature areas: Nature conservation organisations monitor GWDTE’s according to their own needs (shallow, quantity and chemistry; not same parameters as national monitoring network)

Approach for GWDTE groundwater standards Dutch method for management of Nature reserves: Description of nature reserves in Nature Target Types (NTT). (correspond (more or less) with European habitat descriptions) NTT: - target species (plants and animals) - abiotic conditions: groundwater level, water quality etc. The abiotic conditions for common or important NTT that depend on groundwater were selected: resulting in a list that contains 13 nature target types.

Habitats/ Nature Target Types Water origin Groundwater Level (springtime average) Ranges of optimal nutrient concentrations (mg/l) pH value Salinity (mg Cl/l) Wet dune valley Mostly groundwater, rain Above ground level- 40 cm below Total_N:NO3_N: NH4_N: PO4_P: Total_P: 0.3 0.15 0.4 0.01 0.015 - 0.6 0.45 0.5 0.04 0.06 6.5 – 7.5 <150 Stream valley Forest Groundwater and surface water Total_N: NO3_N: NH4_N: 0.6 0.46 - 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.07 - 0.08 5.5 – 6.5 Peat bog Rain and groundwater 0.35 0,24 0.016 - 0.04 4.5 - 6.5 GWDTE: approach in the Netherlands | 16 April 2013

Analysis In 2007 analysis of difficulties and opportunities for all N2000 areas: general insight in groundwater related problems in the different N2000 areas General conclusions: Insufficient levels of groundwater of the required quality lead to drought problems and local acidification and eutrophication Without standards for groundwater levels and nutrient concentrations, damage to GWDTE is unavoidable GWDTE: approach in the Netherlands | 16 April 2013

Lessons learnt Use knowledge of nature conservation organisations Not everything can be perfect first time Make information available at national level

Remaining constraints Technical point of view: chemistry in WFD-network monitored too deep for GWDTE’s attenuation and dilution: how to deal with? from other networks: negative influence by agriculture significant (90%) Policy point of view: critical substances are ecosystem-dependent; no need to adapt Annex I and II of GWD no TV without AF and DF prevent and limit are first line of defence and therefore critical

Conclusions GWDTE remains difficult Steps set to tackle problem Many stakeholders involved Combine local knowledge of nature conservation organisations with national collection of information In few years we will know whether this works