Identification of GWDTE according to WFD

Transcription

1 Meeting on WP2 Activity A.T2.1 «Development of common structure of groundwater and habitats data» Identification of GWDTE according to WFD GroundEco project manager Inga Retike, LEGMC 20 th August 2018, The Academic Centre of University of Latvia

2 Content GWDTE in context of WFD Terms Requirements Guidelines Best practices Space for free interpretation! Identified problems and future tasks Questions raised and what remains unknown?

3 Good groundwater (GW) chemical status is: Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (I) Article 4 The chemical composition of groundwater body is such that the concentrations of pollutants: are not such as would result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives specified under Article 4 nor in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body The same for quantitative status! Terrestrial ecosystems that are directly dependant on groundwater (GWDTE) can affect the status of groundwater body, where the groundwater body is causing significant damage to the GWDTE (TRNo.6).

4 Groundwater in WFD where are we? Annex II Member States shall carry out an initial characterisation of all groundwater bodies to assess their uses and the degree to which they are at risk of failing to meet the objectives for each groundwater body under Article 4. Boundaries of GWB Pressures on GWB (diffuse pollution, point sources, abstraction, artificial recharge) Overlaying strata (vulnerability) Reviewed in LV from Database currently under review BSR project INSURE There is an old map in RBMPs which is out of date (Retike et al points out main disadvantages) those groundwater bodies for which there are directly dependent surface water ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems. Lack of information

5

6 GWDTE in WFD (TR Nr.6) GWDTE need to be directly dependent on the GWB. GWB (groundwater body) should provide quantity (flow, level) or quality of water needed to sustain the ecosystems which are the reasons for the significance of the GWDTE. This critical dependence upon a GWB is most likely where groundwater supplies the GWDTE for a significant part or a significant time period of the year. For example, a fen in East Anglia in the UK that is designated for its alkaline fen character under nature conservation i.e. Natura 2000, is directly dependent on a GWB as any significant reduction to groundwater input from the GWB giving rise to a shift in the dominant water source to rain would change the character of the fen and as a consequence cause it to fail its nature conservation objectives.

7

8 Vainu (2018) Introduction to Methodology on Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Identification and Assessment in Estonia Introduction_to_methodology_on_groundwater_dependent_ecosystem_(GDE)_identification_and_ assessment_in_estonia_06_07_2018.pdf

9 How to determine whether a terrestrial ecosystem is directly dependent on GWB? (TR Nr.6) In practice, it is not easy to determine which terrestrial ecosystems are directly dependent on a GWB. In some cases, for example where a spring or seepage is clearly visible it may be obvious that these GWDTEs are directly dependent on groundwater. Member States may also have sufficient information about the groundwater dependency of a terrestrial ecosystem, such as through localised site assessments for the Habitats Directive, and therefore may not need to assess this further. Where it is not clear whether a site is dependent on a GWB, a staged approach to screening some sites out using hydrogeological and ecological information, as well as expert judgement on the sites, mean they can be ranked in terms of likely GWB dependency.

10 How to determine whether a terrestrial ecosystem is directly dependent on GWB? (TR Nr.6) (II) Using this screening approach, the first step is to determine the likely dependency of the GWDTE on groundwater. This can be done by identifying features of significance, such as the ecological features. Member States may have lists of vegetation communities, list of habitat types under the Habitats Directive, drawn up by ecologists, which could indicate groundwater dependency for a range of terrestrial ecosystem types. This could be used as an initial tool to rule out any sites which do not have groundwater dependent vegetation. Further screening could be undertaken using a conceptual model of the GWB, using groundwater level information to identify whether groundwater in the GWB is likely to be discharging to and supplying a GWDTE (???)! There are no conceptual models in LV, in EE they are under development!! EE and LV have very different delineation approaches- not all groundwater is a part of GWBs in EE).

11 How to determine whether a terrestrial ecosystem is directly dependent on GWB? (TR Nr.6) (III) When no monitoring and modelling results are available, expert judgement on a particular site or sites may be used. For instance, ecologists can often tell by the plants they see in a terrestrial ecosystem, whether the ecosystem is groundwater dependent, due to the distinctive natural chemistry of groundwater compared to surface waters. Such inventories might have already been established in EU Member States, like the list of National Vegetation Classification plant communities and their dependency on groundwater which was prepared by the WFD UK TAG1 and annexed in the draft guidance on the identification of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (WFD UK TAG, 2004). There may also be other indications that a site is groundwater dependent. For example, an orange-brown colour in the sediments, when combined with a blue layer of iron-oxidising bacteria, often indicates that precipitation of fresh iron oxide is occurring caused by anaerobic groundwater appearing on the surface.

12 How to determine whether a terrestrial ecosystem is directly dependent on GWB? (TR Nr.6) (IV) The disadvantage of this type of approach, including expert judgement, is that it only tells whether the ecosystem is currently groundwater dependent. If an ecosystem was groundwater dependent in the past but is not any longer due to anthropogenically induced groundwater table lowering or groundwater quality changes, it may not be possible to tell by on-site investigations. However, priority could be given to preventing deterioration of sites which are currently groundwater dependent, restoration of recent damage and avoiding predicted future damage.

13 Are all GWDTE equally important in context of WFD? (TR Nr.6 and Nr.12) The WFD does not discriminate between different groundwater dependent ecosystems. However, in practice, it is likely to be necessary to prioritize ecosystems, e.g. when many ecosystems are connected to one GWB. There are potentially very large numbers of terrestrial ecosystems that are directly dependent on groundwater. Whilst many support features of value (ecological or socioeconomic), a screening tool will be essential to focus action on the most important sites and areas, so that Member States do not face an impossible administrative burden. Member States may use their own, nationally developed criteria for identifying those dependent terrestrial systems which they believe are of sufficient importance that damage to them could legitimately be described as 'significant. The step-wise approach recommends that the focus is on Natura 2000 sites and on those ecosystems which may experience significant damage (either ecological or socio-economic).

14 What is significant? Good groundwater (GW) chemical status is: Article 4 The chemical composition of groundwater body is such that the concentrations of pollutants: are not such as would result in failure to achieve the environmental objectives specified under Article 4 nor in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body The same for quantitative status! Terrestrial ecosystems that are directly dependant on groundwater (GWDTE) can affect the status of groundwater body, where the groundwater body is causing significant damage to the GWDTE (TRNo.6).

15 Significant damage to GWDTEs (TR Nr.6) CIS Guidance No. 12 explains that the expression significant damage is based upon: a) the magnitude of the damage and b) the ecological or socio-economic significance of the terrestrial ecosystem. A GWDTE that is crucial to a regional tourist economy could be considered to have socio-economic significance. If pressures on the GWB cause changes to groundwater quality or quantity that, in turn, leads to damage to the ecosystem and reduced visitor numbers, this could be considered as significant damage. For those terrestrial ecosystems that belong to the Natura 2000 network, the failure to meet conservation targets of the Natura 2000 area can be interpreted as significant damage (as far as groundwater status is concerned). For terrestrial ecosystems that are not part of the Natura 2000 network, a similar approach could be developed by the Member States, i.e. formulation of targets, derivation of groundwater requirements (both quantitative and chemical), and then comparison of desired situation with actual situation. Defining significant damage includes both ecological and hydrogeological understanding, and it is recommended that work is carried out in multi-disciplinary teams. This will facilitate exchange of knowledge and concepts between the disciplines and allow understanding of each others perspectives and language.

16 GWDTEs assessmentlong story short (TR Nr.6) It is necessary to determine whether or not a GWDTE is significantly damaged due to the impact from anthropogenically induced changes within a GWB. E.g., for further characterisation, a source-pathway-receptor (SPR) approach could be used to conceptualise groundwater flows and anthropogenic pressures (Figure 2). But let s continue with the first step- identification! Quantity: regional and local abstractions in GWB, zones of contribution. Pressures: land use, source apportionment, stocking densisties, fertilizer loadings etc. Pathway: hydraulic connectivity, attenuation along the flow path (phosphate co-precipitation with calcium)

17 Case study Nr.1- Austria (I) (TR Nr.6) In a first step, hydrological criteria have been developed and applied to identify (ground) water dependent habitats according to the FFH-D (Flora-Fauna-Habitats-Directive). The (hydrological) criteria for Habitats are: Groundwater table; Frequent (at least annual) raise of GW into the fine soil (covering layer); Groundwater table is permanently in fine soil; Special sites: Indirectly influenced by water or located close to water (e.g. tuff springs). Criteria for species: Expert judgement based on Birds Directive and Annex II of Habitats directive and scientific literature.

18 Case study Nr.1- Austria (II) (TR Nr.6) Degree of representativity of Flora-Fauna-Habitats-Directive (FFH-D) habitat in the Natura 2000 site: The representativity of a habitat needs to be at least excellent or good (top two levels out of a 4-level scale); Area criterion: The total area of a habitat within a Natura 2000 site is larger than 5 ha (with two exceptions); Species-criteria (FFH-species and/or bird-species): There is at least one water related species with a population value larger than 2% of the whole national species population; or There are at least 10 species present.

19 Case study Nr.2- United Kingdom (I) (TR Nr.8) The selection of sites is based on the occurrence of vegetation assigned with a groundwater dependency rating by UKTAG Wetland Task Team (paper 5a-b, 2004), using the UK National Vegetation Classification (NVC). The list comprises mainly statutory International (Natura2000) and nationally (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) designated sites. The assessment of groundwater dependency considers both the connectivity of a site to the underlying groundwater body and the sensitivity of the flora to groundwater. This considered expert knowledge, UK National Vegetation Classification and geological data, modelling and investigations. UKTAG (2003) Guidance on the identification and risk assessment of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. sment%20of%20terrestrial%20ecosystems%20groundwater_draft_ pdf ANNEX 1: NVC plant communities and dependency on groundwater: idance%205%20ab%20annex%201%20updated%205%20october% pdf

20 Case study Nr.2- United Kingdom (II) (UKTAG 2003)

21 Other references TR Nr.8 TR Nr.6

22 WFD- register of protected areas (II) Article 6 Member States shall ensure the establishment of a register of protected areas for the protection of their surface water and groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water. The register shall include all bodies of water identified under Article 7(1) and all protected areas covered by Annex IV. Annex IV The register of protected areas required under Article 6 shall include the following types of protected areas: (i) areas designated for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption under Article 7; (ii) areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species; (iii) bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC; (iv) nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC; and (v) areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

23 Register in Latvia kept and updated by LEGMC (aizsargājamo teritoriju reģistrs) UBA Ūdensobjekts Izveides mērķis AT nosaukums AT kods Izveides gads Normatīvais pamatojums Apzīmējums Atšifrējums LVDUBA D400SP DL Krēmeri LV UBA Upju baseinu apgabals LVDUBA D400SP DL Vecdaugava LV LVDUBA Daugavas upju baseinu apgabals LVDUBA D400SP DP Beberbeķi LV LVGUBA Gaujas upju baseinu apgabals LVDUBA D400SP DP Piejūra LV LVDUBA LVLUBA D400SP Lielupes Nitrātu upju baseinu ĪJT apgabals Babītes novads, Babītes pagasts precizējams /676/EEC; MK 33 ( ) LVDUBA LVVUBA D400SP Ventas upju Nitrātu baseinu ĪJT apgabals Mārupes novads precizējams /676/EEC; MK 33 ( ) ŪO Ūdensobjekts AT Aizsargājamā teritorija (Ūdens Struktūrdirektīvas 2000/60/EK izpratnē) AAA Aizsargājamo ainavu apvidus AJT Aizsargājama jūras teritorija BR Biosfēras rezervāts DL Dabas liegums DP Dabas parks DPie:ĢĢ Dabas piemineklis: ģeoloģiskais vai ģeomorfoloģiskais veidojums DR Dabas rezervāts ML Mikroliegums NP Nitrātu ĪJT Nacionālais parks Nitrātu īpaši jutīga teritorija "Īpaši jutīgo teritoriju robežas ir Dobeles, Auces, Tērvetes, Jelgavas, Ozolnieku, Bauska Notekūdeņu ĪJT Notekūdeņu īpaši jutīga teritorija "Visa Latvijas teritorija tiek noteikta par īpaši jutīgu teritoriju, uz kuru attiecas paaugs VDZŪ (A1) Virszemes dzeramā ūdens ņemšanas vieta (kategorija A1) VDZŪ (A3) Virszemes dzeramā ūdens ņemšanas vieta (kategorija A3) Zivju ūdeņi (K) Prioritārie zivju ūdeņi - karpveidīgo zivju ūdeņi Zivju ūdeņi (L) Prioritārie zivju ūdeņi - lašveidīgo zivju ūdeņi No information about groundwater abstraction sites! (pazemes ūdeņu atradnes- groundwater abstraction sites with water abstraction >100m 3 per day)

24 GroundEco (what we will do and what will not) Joint methodology development. During this activity joint methodology how to assess and identify terrestrial groundwater dependent ecosystems in transboundary Gauja-Koiva river basin will be created and documented in a report (Activity A.T2.2). Identification of GWDTE and their dependency in Gauja/Koiva river basin. The GWDTE will be identified based on agreed and jointly developed methodology during previous activity T2.2.Terrestrial GDE will be identified in joint Gauja-Koiva river basin area. A map of identified ecosystems and their dependencies will be created including existing boundaries of biotopes and their level of dependency, e.g. not dependent, strongly dependent, seasonally dependent and etc. A report explaining used data and identification steps as well as results will be created (Activity A.T2.3). An assessment of the status of pilot groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems will be carried out using the exchanged data, modelling results, new data (Activity A.T2.4). We will not assess the status of all identified GWDTE (only in pilot areas)! This is the next step and was not planned in application so we could look for new funding opportunities.

25 Discussion on GWDTE dentification Future tasks and problems identified: More research needed: It is expected that new knowledge will be gatehred during EGU 2019 conference. However, we need to raise our overall expertise in GWDTE topic to be able to ask/look for necessary information there. Up to date knowledge base on best practices should be gathered (Guidance documents are old and many references do not exit anymore). Scientific articles should be studied by partners from Universities. Estonian methodology must be translated into English. EE and LV partners need to create joint identification criteria to benefit both countries there are many differences we cannot change- e.g. different GWB identification strategies, water abstraction limits, Natura 2000 site presence, absence of monitoring etc.

26 Thank you for the attention! time for discussions GroundEco project manager Inga Retike, LEGMC