Role of Monitoring Programs under the Water Framework Directive for Future Data Flow

1. Role of monitoring programmes developed under the Water Framework Directive for future data flow Tim Lack

2. Technical Report No. 7- EUROWATERNET design • A network fully representative of the differences in, and variability, of quality,quantity and pressures found in all water body types across Europe would be expected to answer most questions asked of the EEA. • It was the long-term aim to makeEUROWATERNET fully statistically representative.

3. Trends in nitrate concentrations in river water bodies, 1992 to 2003 Representative assessment of water bodies rather than monitoring stations

4. Eionet-Water • Collects data and information from national monitoring networks • National monitoring networks established to supply the data and information required for national and international policies • Changes in national monitoring networks have been previously coped with by Eionet-Water, and incorporated into Waterbase, and will continue to do so • Major changes in national monitoring networks likely to arise from Water Framework Directive requirements • How much monitoring in addition to that required by WFD will still be undertaken by countries e.g. for Nitrates Directive?

5. Article 8 – Monitoring • for surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas • to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district • For EU Member States needs to be operational by 22 December 2006 Changes in Eionet-Water stations leading up to and after this date?

6. Surface waters surveillance operational investigative Protected Areas Groundwater water level surveillance for chemical status operational for chemical status significant long term trends in pollutants Types of monitoring

7. Future data flows from WFD monitoring networks will be influenced by national differences in • Categories/Types of water bodies • Types and distribution of pressures • Identification of water bodies – sizes and numbers • Interpretation of requirements for monitoring

8. Monitoring Guidance Document (7) proposes an overall pragmatic approach • Because of the diversity of circumstances within Europe • Guidance may be applied in a flexible way in answer to problems that will vary from one river basin to the next • Guidance should be tailored to specific circumstances • Any adaptations should be justified and reported in a transparent way

9. “Acceptable", "adequate" and "sufficient" levels of precision and confidence in status and trends assessments affects: • Number of water bodies included in the various types of monitoring • Number of stations that will be required to assess the status of each water body, and • Frequency at which parameters indicative of surface water and groundwater quality elements will have to be monitored. • Choosing levels of precision and confidence would set limits on how much uncertainty (arising from natural and anthropogenic variability) can be tolerated in the results of monitoring programmes and the subsequent (mis)classification of status

10. Key Principle • The actual precision and confidence levels achieved should enable meaningful assessments of status in time and space to be made • Member States will have to quote these levels in RBMPs and will thus be open to scrutiny and comment by others. This should serve to highlight any obvious deficiencies or inadequacies in the future

11. Objectives of surveillance monitoring • Supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure detailed in Annex II • Designing efficient and effective future monitoring programmes • Assessing long term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity • Undertaken for at least a period of one year during the period of a RBMP Once every 6 years will not be adequate for European assessments if this is what countries implement, and if only surveillance data are reported

12. Objectives of operational monitoring • Establish status of those water bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives • Assess any changes in the status of such water bodies resulting from the programmes of measures • Results of operational monitoring used to classify status of water bodies at risk • Results of surveillance monitoring used to classify status of water bodies not at risk

13. Pressures from diffuse sources of phosphorus in rivers

14. Where to monitor? Surveillance – surface waters In sufficient water bodies to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment and sub-catchment within the river basin district • Only monitoring in waters bodies not at risk (high and good status)? • Or in water bodies across a full range of different statuses (high to poor)? • For European assessments need data from water bodies representing full range of statuses

15. Where to monitor? Operational – surface waters • For all water bodies identified as being at risk of failing EOs • For all water bodies into which priority substances are discharged • Not necessarily in ALL such bodies as grouping of water bodies allowed but must be technically or scientifically justifiable Need to know if and how monitoring results from any particular water body represents a group of similar water bodies – removal of bias in assessments, extrapolation to other water bodies for a representative overview

16. Where to monitor? Operational – surface waters • Monitoring at operational monitoring stations may not be undertaken over a complete River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) period (6 years) because for example: • Monitoring results indicate that water body is not at risk (status is good or above, and there is no risk of deterioration) • Measures have improved status to good or above European reporting and assessments must take account of this (flexible approach and audit trail of submitted stations)

17. Surveillance Parameters indicative of all biological, hydromorphological and general physico-chemical quality elements Priority List substances if discharged in River Basin Other pollutants if discharged in significant quantities Operational Parameters indicative of those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body(ies) are subject Only priority substances and other pollutants (including nutrients) that might cause failure of EOs What to monitor? Differences in the numbers and types of available determinands from monitoring stations

18. Frequency of monitoring • Can tailor monitoring frequencies according to conditions and variability within their own waters • Frequencies to achieve an acceptable level of confidence and precision in assessing a water body’s status • Levels of confidence and precision achievable will be balanced against the costs of monitoring

19. Frequency of monitoring • Minimum monitoring frequencies for all the quality elements given in Annex V • Minimum frequencies may not be adequate to detect long term changes • MSs may have to undertake additional surveillance monitoring at least during the first 3 years from 2006 to 2008 • Greater intervals may be justifiable on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement Data from every station for every determinand and year may not be available because of variable and different monitoring frequencies

20. Groundwater monitoring • Based on conceptual model/ understanding of groundwater system • Quantity: Enough groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies to provide a reliable assessment of the quantitative status of all groundwater bodies or groups of bodies • Chemical Surveillance monitoring required in bodies or groups of bodies both at risk and not at risk of failing WFD objectives. • Chemical Operational monitoring required only in bodies at risk of failing to meet WFD objectives.

21. Groundwater: quantity • Minimal monitoring in GWBs not at risk • Greater density of sites in more spatially variable systems and in relation to pressures • Determinands: e.g. GW and/or SW levels, spring flows • Frequency: Daily preferred, minimum monthly

22. Groundwater - surveillance • Includes stations that are included in operational monitoring • More stations in “not at risk” GWBs where confidence in risk assessments is low than where confidence is high • Core parameters (nitrate, NH4, O2, pH, conductivity, temperature and relevant major and trace ions • Selected parameters indicative of specific pressures • 2 times a year in confined aquifers, quarterly in unconfined aquifers – less frequent over longer term

23. Groundwater - operational • Points representative of key receptors (e.g. dependent surface WBs) and pressures • For diffuse pollution distributed across GWB • Core and selected case specific parameters • Annual samples in confined aquifers • Unconfined aquifers: quarterly to annually depending on groundwater vulnerability and nature of pressures (intermittent or continuous)

24. Concluding comments • Not clear what the impact on data flows will be – should be become more evident in 2007 • Will there be an increase/decrease in national monitoring programmes in terms of numbers of stations, frequency of monitoring and determinands monitored? • Will there just be WFD monitoring programmes? • Will current Eionet-Water stations be relocated or lost?

25. Concluding comments • Likely to need data and information from both surveillance and operational monitoring networks • Reporting of data and information from all national monitoring stations? • Will require flexible approach and audit trail to allow for periodic changes in reporting of stations

26. Concluding comments • Will need more interpretative/ contextual information such as on type of monitoring, significant pressures, and representation of groups of water bodies, for representative and reliable European assessments • Improved confidence and precision in monitoring data and results! • Better quality data because of improved AQC/QC

27. Thank you for your attention!