FOCUS groundwater Step4: Setting groundwater monitoring data into regulatory context by modelling

Transcription

1 FOCUS groundwater Step4: Setting groundwater monitoring data into regulatory context by modelling Bernd Gottesbüren, Tim Häring, Benedict Miles BASF SE, Limburgerhof 6th European modelling workshop, Paris Oct. 2012

2 FOCUSgw (2009) 2

3 Groundwater monitoring considered as the highest tier of assessment of pesticide leaching in regulatory evaluation in the European Union actual concentrations in groundwater are directly measured rather than being estimated by modelling approaches or approximated from small scale field studies. (FOCUS 2009) FOCUS Groundwater Report: Study site must be representative relevant to make contribution to RA 3

4 Extrapolation of relevance There is a need to extrapolate the relevance of groundwater monitoring sites to other agricultural areas However, only very general recommendations in FOCUS Groundwater (2009) appropriateness of location: agronomic, climate, pedologic and hydrogeologic aspects need to be examined But how? 4

5 Pathways 1. Looking at site conditions Is GW monitoring site located in sufficiently vulnerable location regarding soil type, agronomy and meteorological conditions? Which area is represented by monitoring locations regarding site conditions? 2. Spatially-distributed modelling Application of spatially-distributed process model and calculation of leaching concentrations. 5

6 1. Looking at site conditions Is GW monitoring site located in sufficiently vulnerable location regarding soil type, agronomy and meteorological conditions? Approach: Which area is represented by monitoring locations regarding site conditions? 6

7 Vulnerability assessment of monitoring sites (a): Targeted monitoring wells in pesticide use areas Schleswig Holstein Hamburg Mecklenburg- Vorpommern Prignitz-Altmark Thüringer Becken Tauberfranken 7

8 Use intensity at monitoring sites and potential use areas 8

9 Comparison of pedoclimatic conditions at monitoring sites and potential use areas (e.g. Poland) 9

10 Comparison of pedoclimatic conditions at monitoring sites and potential use areas (e.g. Poland) 10

11 Location of targeted monitoring sites in FOCUS climatic zones (Chateaudun, Hamburg) C H 11

12 Monitoring well Monitoring wells and field leaching sites overlaid on FOCUS climate zones 12

13 Approach 2: Roadmap for setting into context Groundwater monitoring data Monitoring site analysis Farmer surveys detailed hydrogeological site characterisation vulnerability assessments for wells groundwater flow and transport modelling EU context setting GIS spatial analysis Metamodels for leaching using both site specific and latest EU spatial data Vulnerability assessment in EU context Evaluation of monitoring data demonstrating relevance of monitoring sites and data in EU context -> Tier 4 of FOCUS groundwater 13

14 Roadmap Monitoring site analysis Groundwater monitoring data Monitoring site analysis Farmer surveys detailed hydrogeological site characterisation vulnerability assessments for wells groundwater flow and transport modelling EU context setting GIS spatial analysis Metamodels for leaching using both site specific and latest EU spatial data Vulnerability assessment in EU context Evaluation of monitoring data demonstrating relevance of monitoring sites and data in EU context -> Tier 4 of FOCUS groundwater 14

15 Detailed assessments for monitoring sites Hydrogeology and product application data Geological profiles Relevant hydrogeological parameters Groundwater flow direction and velocity Estimated hydrogeological catchments Identification of relevant fields and farmer surveys for product application history qualified vulnerability assessment for each monitoring site catchment GW Flow Field 1 Application season Field size (ha) Metazachlor formulation Nimbus (80% nominal) Nimbus (80% nominal) Nimbus (80% nominal) Nimbus (80% nominal) Comments crop rotation: oilseed rape - wheat - barely crop rotation: oilseed rape - wheat - barely crop rotation: oilseed rape - wheat - barely crop rotation: oilseed rape - wheat - barely 15

16 Groundwater flow and transport modelling Approach Q: are the measured concentrations in the range we would expect? Weather, crop and application data Compare simulated and measured conc. at well C Leaching simulation Soil data time Hydrogeologic al data GW flow GW flow and transport model 16

17 Groundwater flow and transport modelling for a monitoring site Concentration at well [µg/l] 15 simulated Metabolite 1 simulated Metabolite 2 simulated Metabolite 3 simulated Metabolite 4 12 simulated Metabolite 5 measured Metabolite 1 measured Metabolite 2 measured Metabolite 3 9 measured Metabolite 4 measured Metabolite

18 Groundwater flow and transport modelling for a monitoring site Concentration at well [µg/l] Applications simulated Metabolite 1 simulated Metabolite 2 simulated Metabolite 3 simulated Metabolite 4 simulated Metabolite 5 measured Metabolite 1 measured Metabolite 2 measured Metabolite 3 measured Metabolite 4 measured Metabolite Time 18

19 Groundwater flow and transport modelling Approach -Good hydrogeological data -numerical groundwater flow and transport modelling (2D) 19

20 Roadmap EU context setting Groundwater monitoring data Monitoring site analysis Farmer surveys detailed hydrogeological site characterisation vulnerability assessments for wells groundwater flow and transport modelling EU context setting GIS spatial analysis Metamodels for leaching using both site specific and latest EU spatial data Vulnerability assessment in EU context Evaluation of monitoring data demonstrating relevance of monitoring sites and data in EU context -> Tier 4 of FOCUS groundwater 20

21 The MetaPEARL Model ln C L µ 1 q 0 2 µ f q om K om µ is the first-order transformation rate coefficient, temperature corrected using the Arrhenius equation (d -1 ) ρ is the bulk density of the soil (kg m -3 ) f om is the organic matter content (kg kg -1 ) K om is the organic matter/water distribution coefficient (L kg -1 ) q is the volume flux of water (m year -1 ) θ is the soil water content (m 3 m -3 ) 21

22 Setting monitoring data into context: Vulnerability assessment of the area of use 22

23 Relative leaching vulnerability at the monitoring sites vs. FOCUS Hamburg in the oilseed rape area of the EU 23

24 GIS Analyses and Metamodelling Setting the monitoring sites in EU context Analysis: Demonstrate that monitoring sites are in key OSR production areas and positioning sites and OSR areas in FOCUS climatic zones 24

25 Roadmap for setting into context Groundwater monitoring data Monitoring site analysis Farmer surveys detailed hydrogeological site characterisation vulnerability assessments for wells groundwater flow and transport modelling EU context setting GIS spatial analysis Metamodels for leaching using both site specific and latest EU spatial data Vulnerability assessment in EU context Evaluation of monitoring data demonstrating relevance of monitoring sites and data in EU context -> Tier 4 of FOCUS groundwater. 25

26 Conclusions Setting into context groundwater monitoring data is necessary Two approaches: Analysing enviromental conditions Applying spatially-distributed modelling Until high quality datasets for full spatially distributed modelling are available spatially distributed modelling with a Metamodel is a helpful approach to set monitoring locations in European wide context, easy to use directly in a GIS Limitations of the metamodel consider only relative concentrations Dependency on the quality of geodata 26

27 Thank you very much for your attention! 27