1. GWB Visualisation – GIS
WG C
Art 5 WFD Review,
TV establishment
GWB Visualisation – GIS
GWD Reporting sheets
Andreas Scheidleder
Philippe Quevauviller
Ljubljana – 22 April 2008
European Commission - DG Environment
Unit D.2: Water and Marine

2. Content
Article 5 Implementation, TV establishment
GWB Visualisation – GIS
GWD Reporting Sheets

3. Article 5 Implementation
Aim of investigation
Compare approaches of GW delineation
Availability of pollution load data
Identify substances characterising GWBs at risk - need of TVs
Identify gaps
Template distributed to MS
Pre-filled with available information (Art 5 Reports, WISE, …)
Key figures on GWBs, Methodology of delineation
Substances posing a risk – need for TVs
Request for correction/completion/update
22 of 27 MS responded

4. Article 5 Implementation
Approaches for GWB delineation
For 17 of 27 Member States the information on the methodology of GWB delineation was complete and clear
Nearly all MS applied harmonized methodology within MS.
Main criteria for GWB delineation are
(hydro)geology,
hydrochemistry and
water sheds and catchments.
Further criteria reported by nearly all Member States.

5. Article 5 Implementation
7,000 GWB reported by 25 MS (no info from FI and RO).
More than half of Europe’s GWBs located in SE, DE, IE and ES.
Average size of GWBs varies between 10 (SE) and 4,411 km² (EE).
5 MS reported GWBs larger than 10,000 km².
294 transboundary GWBs
1358 GWBs linked to ecosystems

6. Article 5 Implementation
Pollution load
Information was reported (in Article 5 reports) at least for certain RBDs by 12 of 27 MS.
Pollution load mainly provided for nitrogen/nitrate and pesticides.

7. GWB at risk – relevant substances
In total 31% (2,152) of 7,000 GWB at chemical risk (from 25 MS)
Pressures
52 different pressures identified (18 diffuse sources - 29 point sources - 5 undefined).
Agricultural land use was the far most reported (in 22 MS RBDs - >1,000 GWBs)
followed by ‘urban land use’ (11 MS RBD - ~470 GWB)
and ‘contaminated land’ (7 MS RBD GWB)
Gaps
Several pressures are not clearly described and identified e.g. “Diffuse sources”, “Others”.
Some pressures are not pressures e.g. “Geogen” and “Upward trend”.
Plenty of the pressures are still quite similar and might be further unified for assessment and comparability reasons.

8. GWB at risk – relevant substances
Substances responsible for risk identification
85 substances (groups of substances) / indicators nominated.
69 are nominated 2913 times
In avarage: 1.35 substances per GWB
Nitrate is far most nominated: 1,002 GWBs at risk (~1/2 of all 2,152 GWBs at risk and ~1/3rd of the total nominations)
followed by Pesticides (221), Chloride (208), Conductivity (164) and Ammonium (155).
10 of these substances are listed in Annex II Part B of the GWD
For 14 of 27 MS and 57 of 131 RBDs clear information on Annex II (GWD) substances is available (whether they pose a risk or not).

9. GWB at risk – relevant substances
Share of nominations of groups of substances/indicators responsible for GWBs at risk
Total: 2913

10. GWB at risk – relevant substances

11. GWB at risk – relevant substances
Gaps - Substances
Some reported substances/indicators seem to be too general to derive threshold values e.g. Heavy Metals, List I substances, Mineral oil, Salinisation etc.
Some substances might be not relevant as the pressure might not be relevant.
16 substances identified but no link to GWBs
Substance/indicator identified but no pressure (78 cases)
Substance/indicator identified but no pressure & no link to GWBs
Risk and pressure identified but no substance (867 cases)
Annex II substances: For 13 MS or 74 RBDs no explicit answer available.

12. GWB at risk – relevant substances
Most frequent combinations (<50) Pressures–Substances

13. GIS issues Visualisation of GWBs in WISE

14. GWB visualisation - GIS
How to present GW-bodies in WISE?
What information is essential for visualisation and needs to be collected?
Possible amendment of Reporting Sheets

15. GWB visualisation - GIS
Gaps for proper visualisation of GWBs
Limited geographical information available (centriods)
Missing consideration of 3D characteristics
No consideration of overlying GWBs

17. GWB visualisation - GIS
Water body code
Water body name
Shape/GML file of the GWB boundaries
Layered (Y/N)
Average depth to groundwater body (m)
Average thickness of groundwater body (m)
Assignment to a depth range where the main part of the GWB is situated (depth ranges: 0–20m, 20–50m, 50–200m, >200m)
Directly dependent aquatic ecosystem(s) (Y/N)?
Directly dependent terrestrial ecosystem(s) (Y/N)?
Geological formation – aquifer type (according to a predefined typology)
Type of vertical orientation of GWB (e.g. indicated by category / visualised by symbols)

18. GWB visualisation - GIS

19. GWB visualisation - GIS
Types of vertical orientation

20. GWB visualisation - GIS
Amendment of Reporting Sheet GIS accordingly