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

2. Hydrogeology meets Ecology
Who is responsible?

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

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

12. 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

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

14. Include GWDTE

15. Consider background levels
Background levels may vary considerably
Ecosystems adapt

16. 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’

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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“

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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…..

25. 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.

26. 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