1. Groundwater Qualitative Monitoring in Bulgaria Rossitza Gorova – Executive Environment Agency at the Ministry of Environment and Water e-mail: gorova@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.intgorova@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int 1

2. National Groundwater qualitative monitoring network: past and present situation  The Groundwater monitoring in the frame of the Ministry of Environment and Water existed from 1980  Now it contains 220 operating sampling points (this part which is maintained in the frames of the Ministry of Environment and Waters) – tube wells, shaft wells, springs and pumping stations.  They are sampling 4 or 2 times per year.  The observed parameters are:  Obligatory – temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Eh, COD (Mn), Electrconductivity, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Iron, Manganese, Hydrocarbonates, Chloride, Sulphate, Phosphates, Ammonium, Nitrates, Nitrites, Total Solids.  Once per year the heavy metals have been analysed  Once per year in accordance with hydrogeological and ecological conditions are analysed pesticides, PCBs, etc.

3. Raster Hydrogeological map Scale 1:200 000

4. Vector geological map of Bulgaria in Scale 1:100 000

5. Vector hydrogeological map of Bulgaria in Scale 1:500 000

6. Vector map with groundwater bodies and qualitative monitoring sampling sites

7. Results from assessment of GW monitoring network under the project  In National data base 803 points are available  401 are for quantity – NIMH – 30 art.wells, 286 wells and 94 springs  263 sampling sites are available in ExEA DB – for quality  NIMH has 130 points for quality – 62 wells and 68 springs

8. Some analyses of groundawater monitoring network  7% of these points coincide with one another – needs data verification!  73% of points are inside GWBs’ boundaries (version 3)  25% are outside these boundaries  3% needs further investigations  1% are need delineation of new GWB  33% of GWB (58 GWBs) don’t have monitoring points at all  20 GWBs have only one monitoring point

11. New groundwater network for chemical status  416 monitoring points – shaft wells, tube wells, springs or drainages  Can we use surface water – rivers near to the springs – base flow without waste water recharge as representative points for groundwater?  Now all country is covered with groundwater bodies  No GWB without monitoring points are available – at least one point per GWB

12. New chemical parameters for groundwater monitoring are included in compliance with WFD and Draft Groundwater Directive as well: 1-st group - phisico-chemical: Temperature, pH, Total mineralization, Total alkalinity, Dissolved Oxygen, Eh, COD (Mn), Electrconductivity, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Iron, Manganese, Hydrocarbonates, Carbonates, Chloride, Sulphate, Phosphates, Ammonium, Nitrates, Nitrites, Total Solids. 2-nd group – Heavy metals and arsenic: Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn, Ni, Cr6+, Cr3+, As, Hg; Specific organic compounds: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, pesticides (Annex 3, Regulation N-1 Exploration, use and protection of groundwater, except p. 86, 87 and 88).

13. GW Database Data of groundwater bodies characterics The monitoring results from measurements and analyses Data for characterisation of the groundwater sampling sites

14. Surveylance monitoring  Objectives: validate risk assessment; Confirming good status of GW-body; Assess long term trends  Principles for selection of Monitoring Sites – 4 main factors: conceptual model (hydro(geo)logical characteristics, pressures, receptors) assessment of risk and level of confidence incl. distribution of key pressures practical considerations concerning monitoring stations (e.g. long-term access) monitoring of those parts that are most susceptible  Selection of determinands: core suite: dissolved oxygen, pH, el. conductivity, nitrate, ammonium, temperature, major ions and trace ions; contaminants reflecting pressures; for natural background – additional selective determinands  Proposed frequency: depending on aquifer flow type; initial and long term frequency - may be different and may depend on parameter and on existing knowledge of GW-system

15. 3.1 концептуален модел регионален локален 3.2 Интегриран мониторинг 3.5 мониторингова мрежа/ преглед и актуализиране 3.4 типове водоносни хоризонти 3.3 групиране на ПВТ за целите на мониторинга

16. Operational monitoring  Objectives:status assessment for all GW-bodies identified as being at risk; assessment for significant and sustained upward trends of any pollutant  Principles for selection of Monitoring Sites – main factors: conceptual model (hydro(geo)logical characteristics, pressures, receptors) assessment of risk and level of confidence incl. distribution of key pressures practical considerations concerning monitoring stations (e.g. long-term access) additional monitoring sites may be required - where risk issues relate to specific receptors or where pressures and risk issues relate to GW itself e.g. diffuse sources of pollution sampling points will be more distributed across the body (see also CIS 2.8) practical considerations for site selection e.g. existing sites, multi purpose monitoring, springs,... selection of determinands – similar to surveillance monitoring and based on surv. monitoring results Proposed frequency: depending on aquifer flow type, susceptibility to pollution, initial and long term frequency - may be different and may depend on parameter

17. 4.2 Operational Monitoring TE SWB

19. Protected area monitoring Existing guidance on protected areas not repeated DW protected areas ➔ Monitoring needs to assess DWPA objectives ➔ Recommendation for monitoring of representative selection of potable sources in GW-bodies not at risk as part of surveillance monitoring ➔ In “at risk” bodies: monitoring of all significant potable sources at least once before and once within each RBMP period ➔ Existing raw water quality data can be used ➔ Safeguard zones may be used to focus monitoring

20. Prevent or limit monitoring In principle covered by other directives e.g. landfill directive,… – defensive monitoring see GW 3 But: –WFD monitoring should help to assess the effectiveness of measures introduced to prevent or limit inputs

21. Quality of GW-monitoring data Overview of factors contributing to quality assurance and to be expanded in the CMA Focus on GW-specific QA issues: –Reliability of conceptual model –Performance of the monitoring programme –Sampling procedure and sample treatment –reference to relevant ISO standards for GW (ISO 5667)

22. Reporting – link to WG D Documentation of monitoring programmes –Considering the development of “Reporting sheets” – Proposal: summary table for key figures Complemented by: –Verbal description of monitoring strategy, selection of determinands, investigated GW-layer, etc. –Tables comprising parameters suites and monitoring frequency –Transboundary issues: bilateral agreement reached on monitoring strategies with neighbouring country

23. “Tiered Approach”

24. Стъпки Стъпка 1: Природни фонови стойности Стъпка 2: Според качествените стандарти, които се възприемат според типа на рецептора Стъпка 3: Отчита се “Фактор на разреждане” Стъпка 4:Отчита се “Фактор на самопречистване”

25. Определяне на прагови стойности в стъпка 2а – на базата на природните фонови концентрации и референтни стойности – съответните качествени стандарти

26. Референтни стандарти, предложени за използване при стъпковия подход

32. GWB 149 – N-Q aquifer Svilengrad- Stambolovo This a transboundary GWB with Turkey and Greece 2 monitoring points for quality are available Human pressure is available part of the point pollution sources are shown Diffuse sources of pollution – land use Arable land – 55% Permanent crops – 7% Permanent pastures – 8% Forest & Woodland – 26% Urban areas – 4% Other – 1%