1. WGC-2 Status Compliance and Trends Drafting Group meeting
guidance document
Drafting Group meeting
Johannes Grath
Rob Ward
Lisbon – 20 September 2007
European Commission - DG Environment
Unit D.2: Water and Marine

2. Working Group C (2007-2009) Activity WGC-2 (Status compliance & trends)
What happened so far
Presentation of 1st drafts: 2 May 2007, Berlin
Drafting Group Leader Meeting: 3 July 2007, Vienna
Inclusion of comments received so far
Elaboration of 2nd drafts
Chemical status assessment – version 1.2 (draft text)
Trend assessment – version 0.1 (list of content)
Quantitative status assessment – version 1.2a (draft text)
Internal circulation on 3 September 2007
Presentation of drafts in DG meeting 20 September 2007

3. Chemical Status Assessment Comments
General comments
Quote text coming from Directives and guidelines – Laszlo
Guidance style not rule style – Leo
Appreciates the use of flow charts - Magnus
Introduction
Introduction to be harmonised with other guidance – Laszlo, Manuel
Compliance testing
Testing of GWB not at risk is not feasible as no TVs are available - Manuel

4. Chemical Status Assessment Comments
Kind of aggregation
Annual-/ multi-annual aggregation?
Clarify LOQ treatment - Manuel
Extent of exceedance
Agrees approach – Laszlo
Procedure not applicable for groups of GWBs. Amendments proposed – Magnus
Weighting according to the conceptual model principles - Leo

5. Chemical Status Assessment Comments
Saltwater intrusion
1 upward trend and impact on 1 point too stringent – Laszlo
DWPA
Approach not acceptable at all – Laszlo
Separate tests for 7.2 (DWD) and for Manuel
Annex - Leo
several comments to statistics and to confidence

6. Chemical Status assessment Content
Introduction
Background and requirements
General principles / Pre-requisites
Guidance for compliance testing
5 Tests
Reporting
Glossary
References
Annex: Methods for calculation
Annex 2: Case Studies ????
No changes

7. Chemical Status assessment 2. Background and requirements
2.1.1 Definition of good chemical status
WFD, Annex V 2.3.2
2.1.2 Criteria
GWD, Article 3 (TV and GW-QS)
2.1.3 Procedure
GWD, Article 4, Annex III
2.1.4 Classification elements and tests
No changes

8. No changes Classification Element Classification Test
No significant impairment of human uses (GWD Article 4.2 b (iv))
General assessment of quality of the groundwater body as a whole.
No significant environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body. (GWD Article 4.2 b (i) and paragraph 3, Annex III).
No Saline or other Intrusions
(WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
Entry into the groundwater body of either:
saline water of substantially higher conductivity/salinity from connate or sea water; or water of substantially different chemical composition from other groundwater bodies or surface waters and which is liable to cause pollution.
No significant diminution of surface water ecology. (WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
No significant diminution of surface water chemistry and ecology due to transfer of pollutants from the GWB
No significant diminution of surface water chemistry. (WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
No significant damage to GWDTE. (WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
No significant damage to GWDTE due to transfer of pollutants from the GWB
No deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption (GWD Article 4.2 b (iii)) and paragraph 4, Annex III)
Meet the requirements of WFD Article 7(3) - Drinking Water Protected Areas
No changes

10. Chemical Status assessment 2. Background and requirements
2.2 Risk Assessment – Compliance Assessment
New

11. Chemical Status assessment 2. Background and requirements
2.3 Threshold value – Criteria‘s values
Link to TV guidance paper.
Criteria‘s values = intermediate TV for each receptor
TV = most stringent criteria‘s value. Reported in RBMP
2.4 Schedule of compliance testing
For GWBs at risk
WHEN????? At the end of RBMP?
New

12. Chemical Status assessment 2. Background and requirements
2.5.1 Need for data aggregation at monitoring points
RBMP-average = average of average over RBMP period
Impairment of human use
Significant env. risk from pollutants across GWB
Saline and other intrusion
Annual arithmetic mean – maximum values more relevant
Diminution/damage of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem
No deterioration – DWPA
Substantial Changes

13. Chemical Status assessment 2. Background and requirements
2.5.2 Extent of exceedance
Impairment of human use
Significant env. risk from pollutants across GWB
Saline and other intrusion
2.5.3 Location of exceedance
Diminution/damage of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem
No deterioration – DWPA
assess amount and impact of pollutants transferred to ecosystems
2.5.4 Confidence in the assessment
Substantial Changes

14. Chemical Status assessment Elements of testing
Trends

15. Chemical Status assessment 3. General principles
3.1 Conceptual model
3.2 Network design
3.3 LOQ/LOD
Changes due to comments

16. Chemical Status assessment 4. Guidance for compliance testing
The assumption for this guidance is
Each test has to be performed. Do not stop after the first ‚not of good status‘ result. Measures might be needed for several classification elements.
Perform each test for each pollutant, group of pollutants (e.g. sum of pesticides) and indicator of pollution posing a risk separately. No summary assessment!
For each receptor consider individual criteria‘s values.

17. X – Criteria’s value: 25 µg/l (account of NBL + interactions)
– DW safeguard zone (DW standard of 10 µg/l): minimum treatment should apply = compliance to Art. 7(3) of WFD
AQUATIC
ECOSYSTEM
GROUNDWATER BODY= DWPA
DW safeguard zone
Criteria‘s value: 14 µg/l X X X X X X X X X
TERRESTRIAL
ECOSYSTEM X X X
Criteria‘s value: 8 µg/l X X X
aquatic
ECOSYSTEM
Criteria‘s value: 12 µg/l

18. Chemical Status assessment 4. Guidance for compliance testing
Classification Element
Classification Test
No significant impairment of human uses (GWD Article 4.2 b (iv))
Significant env. risk or significant impairment of human uses
No significant environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body. (GWD Article 4.2 b (i) and paragraph 3, Annex III).
No Saline or other Intrusions
(WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
Saline or other intrusion
No significant diminution of surface water ecology. (WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
Significant diminution of quality of aquatic ecosystem
No significant diminution of surface water chemistry. (WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
No significant damage to GWDTE. (WFD Annex V 2.3.2)
Significant diminution of quality of terrestrial ecosystem
No deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption (GWD Article 4.2 b (iii)) and paragraph 4, Annex III)
Drinking Water Protected Areas (DWPA) test

19. Trend assessment

20. Trend assessment Trend assessment
largely based on the technical report developed in 2002 (WG 2.8),
will provide recommendations to Member States on how to undertake and interpret trend studies (including considerations on lag time of groundwater systems and how to integrate this in trend assessment);

21. Trend assessment (list of content)
Working Group C ( ) Activity WGC-2 (Status compliance & trends)
Trend assessment (list of content)
Legal background and requirements
General principles
Classification tests
Trend assessment for individual monitoring points
Statistical procedure! Different for springs and wells / pumped and not pumped
Identification of upward trends at GWB scale
Level of confidence and precision
Baseline level
Identification of upward trends which present significant risk of harm to ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses
Where necessary… for assessing plumes do not expand
Definition of starting point for trend reversal
Reporting

22. Trend (reversal) assessment Corner stones
Identify trends
GWB at risk (Article 5(1) GWD)
Identify and Reverse trends which present a significant risk of harm to
the quality of aquatic ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems,
to human health,
or to actual or potential legitimate uses of the water environment
 Identification of GWB‘s subject to a significant and sustained upward trend and a reversal of that trend
How do trends of individual monitoring points within the GWB contribute to that trend/reversal? (GWD Art. 5, 4(a)
Starting point for reversal
75 % or earlier or later (but: no delay in meeting env. objectives)

24. Trend assessment Key elements
Statistical method - at monitoring points
Regression method, etc
Statistical significance – usually 95%, but might deviate in justified cases – minimum requirement?
Need for distinguishing between natural variation and trends with an adequate level of confidence and precision
Baseline level (natural and anthropogenically occuring substances) – attention: don‘t mix with Background level
Identify base year or period from which trend identification is to be calculated

25. Trend assessment Key elements
Treatment of values below LOQ
Replace values below LOQ by half of highest LOQ (GWD)
Proposed procedure of WG2.8
Calculate LOQmax = constant LOQ over the whole period
Eliminate all values where LOQ > LOQmax
Replace all values below LOQmax by half of LOQmax
Examples – Case study??

26. Trend assessment Key elements
Procedure for ‚assessment‘ of trends at GWB-level (aggregation procedure?) (GWD Art. 5, 4(a), WFD Annex V, 2.5)
Trend assessment on whole GWB data (e.g. WG 2.8)
Aggregation of monitoring point trend results
For both:
Considering conceptual model (recharge zone, residence time, …)
Confidence in assessment

27. Trend reversal assessment Key elements
Key elements for trend reversal
Starting point for trend reversal – GWD Annex IV, A 2a(ii), B 1a;b;c
75%
Or earlier (<75%), or different (>75%) – enabling most cost-effective achievment of environmental objectives
the reasons for starting points to be reported in RBMP (5.4)
Statistical demonstration
Level of confidence in the identification
Proposed procedure in WG 2.8 report?

28. Trend (reversal) assessment General principles
Length of time series, considering
conceptual model,
residence time, etc.
Recommended minimum length, how to deal with „long“ time series? Monitoring frequency, …
Conceptual model
Network design
LOQ/LOD

29. Trend (reversal) assessment Tests
Tests + Flow charts (to be developed)
No harm to legitimate uses
No harm to aquatic ecosystems
No harm to terrestrial ecosystems
Plume assessment
No saline intrusion
No deterioration (DWPA)
Part of
status assessment

30. Trend (reversal) assessment Parameters
Open issues
Parameters
significant and sustained upward trends to be identified in concentrations of pollutants, groups of pollutants or indicators of pollution found in groundwater bodies at risk all parameters?? - not explicit restriction but:
Starting point is linked to GW-QS and TV  parameters causing risk – subject to trend assessment
Recommendation:
As trend assessment is part of the risk assessment  consider all parameters subject of pressures – which are present in significant amounts – see TV guidance 4.1.B

31. Trend (reversal) assessment Schedule
Open issues
Schedule
First identification 2009, if possible
Then at least every 6 years thereafter (2015, 2021, …)
What means ‚at least‘?
Trend results part of RBMP map. Draft RBMP to be published 1 year before. (2014, 2020, …)

32. Status & trend (reversal) assessment
Case studies
In accordance with the guidance – to illustrate the guidance
To illustrate how status and trend assessment is being carried out in different Member States
To cover ranges of hydrogeological and environmental settings
Template for the case studies
Limit case study to a maximum of 3 pages
Inform DG leaders on part of guidance being covered
Deadline:

33. Working Group C (2007-2009) Activity WGC-2 (Status compliance & trends)
Tentative timetable
DATE - Comments from WG C-2 Drafting Group Members
DATE – Distribution of revised draft
21 April 2008 – Ljubljana: WG C plenary meeting