2. Working Procedure
Second meeting Drafting groups 1. March
Deliver final group papers 8. March
Synthesis Paper prepared by COM by 15. March
Cases by case discussion on 2. EAF on 25/26 March
First Outline of the Groundwater Directive presented to Water Directors 10./11. June (Spain)
Adjustment to the Outline on third EAF 24./25. June
Proposal for Groundwater Directive until forth EAF 7./8. October (final adjustment)

4. Drafting groups
Groundwater

5. Group I: Unpolluted groundwater
Results of group discussion
Group I: Unpolluted groundwater
elaborate a core ”prevent substances list”
introduce a high chemical status
clarify the interpretation of no-deterioration clause
Establish protection zones
Open questions:
rank order of high status class
procedure to elaborate “core substances list”

6. Group II: Diffuse pollution
Results of group discussion
Group II: Diffuse pollution
distinguish groups of substances
set quality standards to define “good status” (combined approach)
apply the most stringent value
reverse any significant trend (no action values needed)
Open questions:
final agreement on substances and limit values

7. Group III: point sources
Results of group discussion
Group III: point sources
European-wide restoration targets not appropriate
fix common strategies and methodology of acting
distinguish between new and historical point sources
assess the plume behaviour
Open questions:
further elaboration of the methodolgy

8. Group IV: Interaction surface water/ groundwater
Results of group discussion
Group IV: Interaction surface water/ groundwater
Preliminary conclusions :
Fluxes from polluted groundwater may contribute to the failure of associated surface water objectives (highly depending on specific parameter)
An application of more stringent target values may be locally appropriate
Open questions:
underpin the preliminary conclusions with broader experiences

9. Group V: Statistical methods for groundwater assessment
Results of group discussion
Group V: Statistical methods for groundwater assessment
Areas “at risk” should be identifiable
Data aggregation may not lead to cover-up risk zones within a groundwater body
Testing results should directly worked into the future guidance on monitoring (WG 2.7)
Follow up:
alternative approaches of assessing groundwater bodies
to bring experiences into WG 2.8