Issues identified to WFD schemas and products during test phase
Jon Maidens, WFD Helpdesk log, version 22-10-2009
The following is a list of open issues that have compiled in the WFDRiver Basin Management Plan schema and reporting tool test period Summer 2009. This list covers comments/issues identified with the schemas and the database. Other issues in the database to XML conversion tool and the validation tool are/will be addressed. Changes will also be made to the supporting documentation as required. The following list was presented at WISE WG D 29-30 September 2009. Following the meeting actions for each comment are now addressed the Commission.
1. Schemas
No. / Reporter / Issue / CommentETCW / Addition of horizon parameter to GWB schema / Will be requested through spatial reporting as optional shape file attribute as a means to prevent submission of overlapping polygons
SWMethods: AllTypology code inconsistently implemented and defined. Two as restricted fields, two as enumerations.
Rivers - 'All Rivers' Lakes - 'All Lake types' Transitional - "All Transitional water body types" Coastal - "All Coastal water body types" / No action. Although inconsistent, it is correct.
SE / The following comment was addresses to the database, but actually refers to the schemas:
In table “GWB_PROTECTEDAREA_EXEMPTIONS”: The description of the element “Exemption_type” is “See ExemptionType? in WFDCommon.xsd file.
If an exemption is applied to WB in terms of achievement of good ecological status (or preventing no deterioration of status if the status of the WB is high), indicate which type(s) of exemption apply”. The assessment of ecological status is ONLY in Surface Water Bodies. / Action: change annotation to:
If an exemption is applied to WB in terms of achievement of good ecological status (or preventing no deterioration of status if the status of the WB is high), indicate which type(s) of exemption apply
SE / Regarding the schema SWMethods “CoastalEcologicalClassification/EcologicalClassifications/SurfaceWaterEcologicalClassification/SurfaceWaterClassification/MethodologySurfaceWaterClassification?/RiverBasinDistrictSWMethodologies/CoastalIntercalibrationType” The comment in the annotation for the element states “Please select from enumeration list the relevant intercalibration type which corresponds to the national types selected..”. However the schema element “CoastalIntercalibrationType?” is “maxOccurs=unbounded”. Since the national types are selected based on klassification method for one quality element at the time, it is possible (likely) that more than one intercalibration type are represented by the national types in the selection, at least for some QEs. Regards, SE / There is no problem as more than one intercalibration type corresponds with one national type for a quality element. For each quality element a minimum of one national type has to be selected. This may correspond to none, one or more intercalibration types. Some examples:
Example 1:
QEParameterTypes/BiologicalQEParameter = QE1-3 Benthic invertebrates
TypologyCode = 12
CoastalIntercalibrationType = CW B14
This means that national type 12 corresponds with intercalibration type CW B14
Example 2:
QEParameterTypes/BiologicalQEParameter = QE1-3 Benthic invertebrates
TypologyCode = 15, 17, 23
CoastalIntercalibrationType = CW B3a
This means that national types 15, 17 and 23 corresponds with intercalibration type CW B3a
Example 3:
QEParameterTypes/BiologicalQEParameter = QE1-1 Phytoplankton
TypologyCode = 33
CoastalIntercalibrationType = CW B14, CW B12
This means that national type 33 corresponds with intercalibration types CW B14 and CW B12. In this case the national type is broader than the intercalibration types of is defined in such a way that overlaps with two intercalibration types.
Action: User Guide modified to include clarification and examples.
SE / On reporting on protected area status. Are the MS supposed to report status for Birds and Habitats protected areas? The user guide to the streamlined schemas v4 states that status for water associated N2000-protected areas should be reported. The “favourable conservation status” for concerned species/habitats on a national/biogeographical scale transformed in to wfd good/fail classes. The annotation for the element “SWStatusProtAreaCode” in schema SWB2p1 does not include the protected areas according birds and habitats directives (N2000). The reference to “section 2.2.5 of this guide for further information” in the annotation refers to The user guide to the streamlined schemas v4? regards, SE Denward / Yes, the field ValueStatusProtectedArea should be set to 2 (good) or 3 (fail) to indicate an overall assessment of the status of the water dependent habitats and species.
Action: add clarification to section on Birds and Habitats Directives in section 2.2.5 of User Guide.
Finland / Finland has more sub-divisions in quality elements that is provided in the schemas
- the division QE 1-1 needed in some places - a division of QE 1-3 would be needed - Water level in Lakes was reported as QE2-4-1
/ No action. Need to map national QE to the WFDlist
Finland / Request: Public participation should be just one text element (NO MATRIX), all sub elements are text anyway / No action.
The structure allows electronic consultation and its main elements were agreed in the reporting guidance. Implications are for a schema structure change which will not be actioned at this time
JM / GW BasicMeasuresEnough element not in line with SW structure / No Action.
Cosmetic only
ETC W / Page 5, chapter 2.2.5 Approach to the status codes:
we recommend to keep terms from WFD for status of SW and GW – SW Ecological status, SW Ecological potential, SW Hydromorphological element (of Ecological status/potential) class, SW General PhysicoChemical element (of Ecological status/potential) class, SW Chemical status (SW EQS achievement), GW Chemical status, QW Quantitative status. SW Biological elements (Phytoplankton etc.) and Specific pollutant (both part of Ecological status/potential) missing. / Action: clarification included in the user guide. No changes to schemas.
ETC W / Page 5, chapter 2.2.5 Approach to the status codes:
Status of Protected Areas – keep the terms from WFD (Art. 6 and 7, Annex II):
(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 the 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 the Directive 92/43/EEC 1 and the Directive 79/409/EEC 2. / Action: clarification included in the user guide (references to directives). No changes to schemas.
ETC W / Page 5, chapter 2.2.5 Approach to the status codes:
Please add all relevant Protected Areas to the table (Natura, Nitrate Directive – with notes in the text of Guidance below) and do not use Shellfish and Fish Directives in the list of required Protected Areas – it is interpretation (probably right for most countries), not exact requirement of Article 6 and Annex II WFD! / Action: clarification included in the user guide (references to directives). No changes to schemas.
ETC W / It is necessary to distinguish Water body status (including associated protected areas – water and terrestrial ecosystems) and status of protected areas. Associated water and terrestrial ecosystems are part of Ecological status/potential and Chemical status and has to be related to the Water bodies. However, status of protected areas is different assessment and the results have to be related to the Protected Area for reporting. It means delete the Protected Area Status from SWB or GWB schemas and add the information to the Protected Area schema. / The option taken (report the status in the water bodies) is the one that fits best the purpose of the WFD reporting, in which the aim is to report how WFD objective of article 4.1c is fulfilled or not. The "status" under other directives are reported under those other directives reporting exercises.
ETC W / Page 20, Country Codes – please use abbreviations from ISO 3166 (GR for Greece, not EL) / No Action. The EU uses ISO code except for EL and UK (see the interinstitutional style guide which must be used by all institutions, bodies and agencies of the EU
ETC W / Page 29, Monitoring International Network Type – specify EIONET water quality and EIONET water quantity / No action: Article 8 monitoring programmes schemas are not being updated at this stage.
ETC W / Page 30, Pressure GW Abstraction Unit Type m3/yr, 1000 m3/yr.. / Incorrect – period specified separately. No action
ETC W / Page 31 Protected Area Type – we recommend use only 1 enumeration list for Register, GW and SW (countries can choose relevant type – write the note about it) and use the terms from WFD in the explanation text / Action: change GW TypeOfProtectedArea to work with enumeration ProtectedAreaGWType to avoid inconsistencies and mistakes. Change annotation accordingly.
ETC W / Page 38 - 39 – SW Pressure Type: we recommend use the distinctions of point and diffuse sources from SoE Emission Reporting (see Annex 1) / No action. The schema reflects the agreements in the WFD reporting guidance
ETC W / River Basin District schema (RBDSUCA):
Page 47
Area in km – specify if it is including coastal waters and how far (1 or 12 nautical miles) / Update to annotation and guidance – add to the annotation "including coastal waters"
Code of RBD – Member countries report national part of RBD! Relation to international RBD is necessary (ID, not name only, possibility of use agreed list?) / No action.
The international codes are given at the European level.
ETCW / Page 51 Attribute of transboundary water body missing for SWBs / No action. This is not needed. If SWB are transboundary then they will appear in the neighbouring countries submission.
ETC W / Surface Water Bodies (SWB):
Page 51 and 54 Category:
“A reservoir formed by damming a river would be reported as a river water body, a reservoir formed by damming an existing lake would be reported as a lake water body.”
Problematic interpretation - category of SBB relates to typology and Status assessment. Reservoir is according WFD is heavily modified WB. Category is needed for QEs and member countries have to choose the nearest category for HWMBs and AWBs (WFD, Annex II, 1.1 Characterisation of surface water body types):
“(v) For artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies the differentiation shall be undertaken in accordance with the descriptors for whichever of the surface water categories most closely resembles the heavily modified or artificial water body concerned;” / No action. The comment confuses the water category with the quality elements used for the assessment. A dammed river is a river, not a lake. The quality elements used to assess the water status of the reservoir are those of the water category that most closely resembles, i.e. those for lakes. But this does not changes that it is a heavily modified river.
ETCW / Page 53 - length – specify if it is “main” stretch of river only or including small tributaries what are parts of SWB. / Action: user guide and annotation updated:
Element "LENGTH": if the water body is the result of grouping of various interconnected stretches of rivers, provide the full length of the water body including tributaries.
ETCW / Page 55 - significant pressures – see comment to enumeration list / No action. The schema reflects the agreements in the WFD reporting guidance
ETC W / Groundwater Bodies (GWB):
Sub-unit missing (included in SWB only) / No action: Sub-units are only agreed for SW
ETC W / Protected Areas (ProtArea):
Sub-unit missing (included in SWB only)
Page 81 – Scale information missing (included in SWB and GWB only) / No action: there is no need to have the sub-units for the protected areas.
ETC W / SW Methodology (SWMethods):
Page 88 – Ecoregion and catchment area missing (parts of System A methodology for RW)
Page 89 – Ecoregion missing (parts of System A methodology for LW)
Page 90– Ecoregion missing (parts of System A methodology for TW)
Methodology for Coastal WBs missing / No action: ecoregions are fixed by WFD so no need to report.
ETC W / Groundwater Monitoring Stations:
Page 201 – Protected Areas missing – NiD information necessary! / No action: article 8 monitoring programmes schemas are not being updated now. Nevertheless, the information whether a station is used for NiD can be provided at station level through the optional element "OtherNetworks". This may need to be revised in the future to improve consistency.
SE / schema GWB: HydrogeologicalCharacteristics/GroundWaterBody/GroundWaterBodies/VerticalOrientation?. In the list of values for the element “GWVerticalOrientationCode” there seems to be a confusing extra comma. Horizontal continuous, Horizontal individual, Declining, mainly continuous, Declining cumulative, Declining individual, Boat, Smaller boat, Other / No action: the options are clearly separated in the enumeration list and also in the annotation with semicolons.
SE / Element: ClassificationItem/ClassificationMatrix/ClassificationDetail/MethodologyGroundwaterClassification?/RiverBasinDistrictGWMethodologies/ThresholdValueScale The list does not concur with the comment in the annotation. There seems to be a comma too many in list item "National, RBD" / Action: actually there is a comma too few - update annotation with a comma: national, RBD
RO / SWMET: the fields “Units” and “StatisticalExpressions” are too short to be filled with statistical expression about multimetrical index / No action: Multimetric indices have to be reported as EQRs. The Units and StatisticalExpression fields are mainly to be used for parameters (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen).
RO / SWMET: - the following fields should be allowed to be filled in with any kind of data:
•HighGoodBoundary
•GoodModerateBoundary
•ReferenceCondition
•ModeratePoorBoundary
•PoorBadBoundary / No action.
Boundaries are given as EQRs numeric values.
DE / We recommend to add the value "2.9 Other pesticides" and "4 Other pollutants" to the enumeration list “GWPollutantsCode” in order to optimize the model to receive full information from MS. It looks like that a lot of Competent Authorities will not be able to support the element “OtherRelevantPollutantExceedance” at this stage. The solution will be similar as for SWB (ChemicalAllSubstancesType) / No action: pesticides can be reported in a generic way by choosing the option “2 Pesticides”. Other pollutants can be reported with OtherRelevantPollutantExceedance indicating “No CAS” in OtherRelevantPollutantCASNumber and the name of the group of pollutants in OtherRelevantPollutantName.
DE / Currently it is unclear what information on Article 7 has to be reported under the element “StatusProtectedAreas” in the SWB and GWB schema (e.g. SurfaceWaterBodies/SurfaceWaterBody/StatusProtectedAreas/SWProtectedAreaDetails). The schemas do not differentiate between Article 7.1 (water bodies) and Article 7c (safeguard zones). At the present status it seems not to be senseful to report on Article 7.1 because the available code values on attribute “TypeOfAssociation“ do not fit to the water body which has to be listet (again) in element "ProtectedAreaCode". We are quite sure COM is looking for article 7.1 information to set up the article 6.2 register.
Our recommendation: Differentiate enumeration list “ProtectedAreaSWType“ to the values “Article 7.1 Water Body” and “Article 7.3 Safeguard Zone” instead of value “Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water” (maybe there are more enumeration lists or textual decription addressed). And add value “Water Body itself” to the enumeration list “TypeOfAssociation“. / Action: update annotation of element TypeOfProtectedArea in both SWB and GWB to clarify that the protected areas refers to water bodies:
"Article 7 Watersbodies used for the abstraction of drinking water"
The schema refers to water bodies used for the abstraction of drinking water, not to the safeguard zones. The information to be reported is that explained in section 2.2.5 of the user guide: “According to Article 7.2 of the WFD MS should ensure that, under the water treatment regime applied, the resulting water will meet the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive. This means that under existing treatment, if the drinking water produced from a particular water body meets the drinking water standards, the status of the Protected Area for this water body is "good", whereas if it does not meet the standards it "fails".”
See also reply to comment 46.
DE / Please change the obligation of element “RBDSUCA/RiverBasinDistrict/PrimeCompetentAuthority” to “optional” and the definition of the element. The current definition “An RBD must have one and only one prime Competent Authority.” Is not valid. An RBD can have several Competent Authorities in a federal state like Germany. The description of the element “PrimeCompetentAuthority” should reflect this situation. / Action: change the element “PrimeCompetentAuthority” to allow multiple entries. Change annotation to “An RBD will usually have only oneprime Competent Authority. Input the EU Code for the prime Competent Authority (two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State code). Introduction of more than one prime Competent Authorities is reserved for those cases in which there are more than one Competent Authorities of equivalent level of competences (e.g. over different geographical areas within the RBD), with no established hierarchy and/or with none of them with defined role as coordinator.”
Explanation is also added to the user guide.
IT / Field type for NO_BIRDS_SITES in schema Monitoring is missing and should be NumberNonNegativeIntegerType
Field type for NO_SITES in schema Monitoring is missing and should be NumberNonNegativeIntegerType
Field type for ANALYSIS_METHOD in schema Monitoring is missing and should be String2000Type / Action: include these field types in the schema.
AT / Generally „optional“ elements are not well documented in the User Guide. So it was not clear what to do with some dashed boxes in the schema-charts. There should be a more detailed list or an addition to the schema-charts which fields are in fact optional, conditional and mandatory. Throughout the Validation-Process the strict XML-schema wants more fields to be included, although these fields are marked as optional in the User Guide…. (e.g. Error messagefrom XMLSpy: “Some Fields must be included”)
“It would be better to populate a strict Obligation- List, based on the XML schemas, where all elements/fields are listed having a simple description regarding the three obligations optional, mandatory and conditional.” / No action.
The schemas show the required and optional elements. Annotation and annex of user guide shows the conditional elements.
AT / RBDSUCA_CA*: It is not possible to provide English names for local authorities. Change the field from mandatory to optional / Action: clarified in the user guide. If English names are not available or not possible then repeat the name in the national language (but always in Latin characters).
AT / SWMET_EcoClassificationTypology: It is not possible to assign a unique Type for just one or more QE. It depends on the way the Type-Code is generated. (different for all MS) / Action: clarification added to the user guide. Each entry of the element “RiverEcologicalClassification” and the equivalent elements for other water categories are a combination of one QE and one or more national types. For example several entries are expected for the quality element “macroinvertebrates”, one for each type(s) that correspond to different sets of boundaries.