WFD Art. V groundwater body data gap analysis

Transcription

1 EEA/ADS/06/001 Water WFD Art. V groundwater body data gap analysis Version: 2.0 Date: 15 September, 2008 EEA activity: ETC/Water task.milestone.submilestone: Task 4.2 Prepared by / compiled by: Vit Kodes Organisation: CENIA EEA Project manager: Stefan Jensen VERSION HISTORY VERSION DATE AUTHOR STATUS AND DESCRIPTION DISTRIBUTION /08/2008 VIT KODES FIRST DRAFT FOR EEA ETC/W, EEA /09/2008 VIT KODES UPDATE OF FIRST DRAFT WITH COMMENTS FROM ETC/W, EEA and DG ENV. DG ENV, EEA, WG D, WG C 1

2 List of Contents: 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. POINT DATASETS Centroid data compiled by JRC Centroid data compiled by ETC/Water Comparison of the JRC and ETC/Water centroid datasets 8 3. POLYGON DATASETS Polygon data uploaded to CDR (EEA) Polygon data processed at ETC/Water Datasets processed in a first step Datasets processed in a second step MATCHING OF CENTROIDS AND POLYGONS JRC datasets ETC/Water datasets NATIONAL DATASETS Austria (AT) Belgium (BE) Bulgaria (BG) Cyprus (CY) Czech Republic (CZ) Germany (DE) Denmark (DK) Estonia (EE) Spain (ES) Finland (FI) France (FR) Greece (GR) Hungary (HU) Ireland (IE) 39 2

3 5.15 Italy (IT) Lithuania (LT) Luxembourg (LU) Latvia (LV) Malta (MT) Netherlands (NL) Poland (PL) Portugal (PT) Romania (RO) Sweden (SE) Slovenia (SI) Slovakia (SK) United Kingdom (UK) GEOMETRY ERRORS IN POLYGON DATASETS CONCLUSIONS 59 3

4 1. Introduction DG ENV and EEA are aiming at presenting information on GWB quality in WISE maps. For this purpose, a harmonized European GIS reference layer of GWBs is needed. This gap analysis identifies for which countries the available data are sufficient to create such reference layer and for which countries further improvement of the datasets is needed. Article 5 of WFD required the following information per GWB (groundwater body) to be reported: code, name, the longitude and the latitude of the centroid of the groundwater body, the size, the horizon (where separate overlying bodies exist) and the volume of the aquifer (if possible). Geographical information on the boundaries of GWBs was not required and therefore only few MS provided GIS data. JRC did primary processing of reported datasets. Processed datasets were handed over to EEA. EEA has uploaded individual datasets into CDR (Central Data Repository). ETC/Water has compiled individual MS polygon datasets into one GWB polygon dataset in shapefile format and also compiled data reported in XML format into centroids attribute table. There are differences between datasets compiled by JRC and ETC/Water. This gap analysis provides information on those differences and furthermore on completeness of data and also on existing errors in the datasets. 2. Point datasets 2.1 Centroid data compiled by JRC Member states have reported GWBs under WFD article 5 as centroids in separate files. JRC has compiled an European point shapefile of centroids. There are 253 records in an attribute table with no point features connected (EE 26 records, LV 5 records, SE 222 records), see Table 1. The status of attribute table completeness is given in Table 2. Table 1: Comparison of geometry features and attribute table records of the dataset MS Records in attribute table Point features with coordinates Difference AT BE BG n/a n/a n/a CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI n/a n/a n/a FR GR n/a n/a n/a HU IE IT n/a n/a n/a LT LU LV NL MT n/a n/a n/a PL n/a n/a n/a PT RO n/a n/a n/a SE SI SK UK TOTAL Following countries did not provide GWB data: BG, FI, GR, IT, MT, PL and RO. There are centroids in total with known coordinates, see Map 1. For overall status of centroids delivery by MS see Map 2. 4

5 Table 2: Number of provided records for each attribute table field by MS AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV NL MT PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Total ID n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a DTT_ID n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a CODE n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a CTY_ID n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a NAME n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a STATUS_YR n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a LAT n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a LON n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a WB_AREA n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a CAPACITY 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a HORIZON 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a LAYERED 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a OUT_OF_RBD 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a SWB_ASSOC 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a PROT_AREA_ 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a METADATA 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a MS_CD n/a n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a TRANSBOUND 0 38 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a Complete no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no 0 Map 1: Continental GWB centroids (including Cyprus and other Mediterranean islands) compiled by JRC 5

6 Map 2: Article 5 centroid data delivery status 2.2 Centroid data compiled by ETC/Water MS have reported GWBs under WFD article 5 as centroids in point shapefiles with attribute data stored in XML format. Those datasets were handed over to the ETC/Water for further processing. ETC/Water has compiled the same a point layer as JRC of those centroids with added attribute table compiled from XML datasets provided by countries, see Table 3 and Map 3. Records with no geographical representation (missing features in geometry part of shapefile) were deleted from attribute table to ensure dataset consistency resulting in no difference in number of features within the shapefile and number of records in the attribute table. The status of attribute table completeness is given in Table 4. 6

7 Table 3: Comparison of geometry features and attribute table records of the dataset MS Records in attribute table Point features with coordinates Difference AT BE BG n/a n/a n/a CY CZ DE DK EE n/a n/a n/a ES FI n/a n/a n/a FR GR n/a n/a n/a HU IE IT n/a n/a n/a LT LU LV NL MT n/a n/a n/a PL n/a n/a n/a PT RO n/a n/a n/a SE SI SK UK TOTAL Table 4: Number of provided records for each attribute table field by MS AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV NL MT PL PT RO SE SI SK UK Total ID n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a DTT_ID n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a CODE n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a CTY_ID n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a NAME n/a n/a 715 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a STATUS_YR n/a n/a 715 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a LAT n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a LON n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a WB_AREA n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a CAPACITY 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a HORIZON 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a LAYERED 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a OUT_OF_RBD 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a FINAL 0 33 n/a n/a 715 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a SWB_ASSOC 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a PROT_AREA_ 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a RISK_TOTAL n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a RISK_CHEM n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a RISK_QUANT n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a REASON_POI 0 38 n/a n/a 13 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a REASON_DIF 0 38 n/a n/a 92 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a REASON_ABS 0 38 n/a n/a 87 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a REASON_REC 0 38 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a REASON_INT 0 38 n/a n/a 22 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a REASON_REF 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a METADATA 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a URL 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a GEO_CHARS 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a GEO_CHARS_ 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a HYDRO_CHAR 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a HYDRO_CHA n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a SUPER_CHAR 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a SUPER_CHA2 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a STRAT_CHAR 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a STRAT_CHA2 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a ASSOC_SYS 0 33 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a SYS_REF 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a RATE_EXCH 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a EXCH_REF 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a RCHG_AVE 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a AVE_REF 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a CHEM_CHARS 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a CHEM_CHAR2 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a MS_CD n/a n/a 715 n/a 560 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a RISK_CAT 0 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a TRANSBOUND 0 38 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 91 n/a Complete no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no 7

8 Map 3: Continental GWB centroids (including Cyprus) compiled by ETC/Water 2.3 Comparison of the JRC and ETC/Water centroid datasets There is no difference between number of features and their position within JRC and ETC/Water shapefiles. There is a difference of attribute tables attached to those shapefiles. The JRC attribute table contains mainly fields for identification of groundwater bodies. The ETC/Water attribute table contains also fields for detailed characterization of groundwater bodies. See table 5 for lists of the fields (in bold extra fields converted from XML files provided by MS and incorporated into the ETC/Water dataset). Table 5: CDR ETC/Water ID ID REASON_DIF AVE_REF Data type: Number Data type: Number Data type: String Data type: String Width: 9 Width: 9 Width: 2 Width: 250 DTT_ID DTT_ID REASON_ABS CHEM_CHARS Data type: Number Data type: Number Data type: String Data type: String Width: 9 Width: 9 Width: 2 Width: 250 CODE CODE REASON_REC CHEM_CHAR2 Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 42 Width: 42 Width: 2 Width: 250 CTY_ID CTY_ID REASON_INT MS_CD 8

9 Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 2 Width: 2 Width: 2 Width: 40 NAME NAME REASON_REF RISK_CAT Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Data type: Number Width: 254 Width: 254 Width: 250 Width: 10 STATUS_YR STATUS_YR METADATA TRANSBOUND Data type: Number Data type: Number Data type: String Data type: String Width: 9 Width: 4 Width: 250 Width: 1 LAT LAT URL UPDATED_BY Data type: String Data type: String Alias: URL Data type: String Width: 10 Width: 10 Data type: String Width: 15 Width: 250 LON LON UDDATED_WH Data type: String Data type: String Data type: Date Width: 10 Width: 10 GEO_CHARS Width: 8 Data type: String WB_AREA WB_AREA Width: 250 Data type: Float Data type: Number Width: 19 Width: 15 GEO_CHARS_ Number of decimals: 11 Number of decimals: 2 Data type: String Width: 250 CAPACITY CAPACITY Data type: Float Data type: Number HYDRO_CHAR Width: 19 Width: 15 Data type: String Number of decimals: 11 Number of decimals: 2 Width: 250 HORIZON HORIZON HYDRO_CHA2 Data type: Float Data type: Number Data type: String Width: 19 Width: 15 Width: 250 Number of decimals: 11 Number of decimals: 2 SUPER_CHAR LAYERED LAYERED Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 250 Width: 1 Width: 1 SUPER_CHA2 OUT_OF_RBD OUT_OF_RBD Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 250 Width: 1 Width: 1 STRAT_CHAR SWB_ASSOC FINAL Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 250 Width: 2 Width: 1 STRAT_CHA2 PROT_AREA_ SWB_ASSOC Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 250 Width: 1 Width: 2 ASSOC_SYS METADATA PROT_AREA_ Data type: String Data type: String Data type: String Width: 250 Width: 254 Width: 1 SYS_REF MS_CD RISK_TOTAL Data type: String Data type: String Data type: Number Width: 250 Width: 40 Width: 5 RATE_EXCH TRANSBOUND RISK_CHEM Data type: String 9

10 Data type: String Data type: Number Width: 250 Width: 1 Width: 5 EXCH_REF UPDATED_BY RISK_QUANT Data type: String Data type: String Data type: Number Width: 250 Width: 15 Width: 5 RCHG_AVE UPDATED_WH REASON_POI Data type: String Data type: Date Data type: String Width: 250 Width: 8 Width: 2 All member states that reported groundwater bodies provided data for following fields of attribute table: CODE, CTY_ID and MS_CD. The rest of the fields were not filled in completely by any member state see Table 4. Centroid of groundwater body LT provided by Lithuania has apparently wrong coordinates in both JRC and ETC/Water datasets see Map 4. Other centroids lying out of continental Europe have correct coordinates being on French and Spanish islands. Map 4: Centroids with wrong coordinates 10

11 3. Polygon datasets 3.1 Polygon data uploaded to CDR (EEA) The polygon datasets were uploaded to the CDR by EEA into European Union (EU), obligations/ Water Framework Directive: Art. 5 reporting/ Deliveries under WFD Art. 5 envelope for each MS (example for Austria: The data in envelope are in a ZIP archive containing data reported under Article 5 for surface water, lakes, groundwater, coastal and marine water organized according River basin districts i.e. there are several GWB data files for a country each in separate River Basin District ZIP file. There are polygon datasets available for 18 MS from 27 EU MS, 1 MS dataset is in wrong coordinate system and there are 8 MS datasets still not available, see Table 6, Map 5, Map 6 and Map 7. The datasets were not compiled into one European dataset by JRC. A complete list of delivered datasets with specification of coordinate system and datasets errors is given in the Table 7. Table 6 GWB polygons MS GWB count Delivered BE, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK Delivered in wrong CY 20 coordinates Not delivered AT, BG, FI, GR, IT, MT, RO, SI, UK? Map 5: Article 5 polygon data delivery status 11

12 Map 6: Polygon GWB datasets delivered by RBD Map 7: Delivered polygon GWBs by MS 12

13 Table 7: List of datasets delivered by member states 13

14 Member states have delivered polygon data in various coordinate systems, using different approaches to GIS interpretation of GWB data. Some have separated data into vertical separate GIS layers corresponding with horizons (defined by superposition of GWBs). Majority of MS have used multipart features to combine all the polygons into one layer, the vertical position of GWB i.e. horizon is not clear in such dataset. If the horizon has been provided in the attribute table, the vertical position of GWBs and number of horizons for each member state can be easily set. For more details see table 8. Table 8: MS GIS layers No. of horizons GWB Count BE one layer/several horizons? 80 CY separate layers 3 20 CZ one layer/several horizons DE one layer/several horizons? 993 DK one layer/several horizons? EE one layer/several horizons? 26 ES one layer/several horizons? 593 FR one layer/several horizons? 560 HU one layer/several horizons? 108 IE one layer/several horizons? 757 LT one layer 1 22 LU one layer/several horizons 2 3 LV one layer/several horizons? 16 NL one layer/several horizons? 362 PL one layer PT one layer/several horizons? 95 SE one layer SK one layer/several horizons? 101 In order to compile European reference layer some guidelines for GWB horizon identification at European level must be given to member states. 3.2 Polygon data processed at ETC/Water Datasets processed in a first step Polygon datasets were handed over to the ETC/Water for further processing. Separate shapefiles were combined into one dataset. Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia (IWRS) provided polygons of Slovenian GWBs that were not uploaded to CDR. Slovenian groundwater body polygons were added during processing of the CDR datasets. Resulting dataset has polygon features representing groundwater bodies see Map 8 and Table 9 for dataset of groundwater bodies just within the Europe. This dataset does not contain all groundwater bodies reported by member states (CDR dataset). therefore it can not be used as the official European groundwater body dataset. 14

15 Map 8: GWB polygons processed in first step Table 9: Count of GWBs in the polygon dataset processed in first step MS GWB count BE 42 CZ 161 DE 1020 DK 7205 EE 26 ES 593 FR 548 HU 108 IE 757 LT 22 LU 3 LV 22 NL 362 PL 157 PT 91 SE 825 SI 21 SK 101 Total

16 3.2.2 Datasets processed in a second step In order to compile the most complete groundwater body dataset, the datasets uploaded to the CDR, Slovenian groundwater bodies provided by IWRS and Austrian groundwater bodies provided to ETC/Water by UBA Vienna were processed. The resulting datasets contains polygons representing groundwater bodies. This dataset represents the current status of available groundwater bodies throughout the EU. The count of available groundwater bodies is given in the Table 10. For the spatial coverage see Map 9. Map 9: GWB polygons processed in second step 16

17 Table 10: Count of GWBs in the polygon dataset processed in second step MS GWB Count AT 136 BE 80 CZ 173 DE 993 DK EE 26 ES 593 FR 560 HU 108 IE 757 LT 22 LU 3 LV 16 NL 362 PL 157 PT 95 SE 1047 SI 21 SK 101 Total Matching of centroids and polygons 4.1 JRC datasets Comparing number of centroids and polygons there is no difference in numbers for 13 member states, there are more polygons than centroids in datasets for 5 member states and there more centroids than polygons in datasets for 3 member states. There are no datasets on GWBs available for 6 member states. Number of centroids and polygons in datasets differs by 509 in total with 181 missing centroids compared to number of polygons and 690 missing polygons compared to number of centroids, see Table 11. The attribute data from centroids can be linked to polygon attribute table using GWB Code, see Table 12. Table 11 Centroid and polygon GWBs statistics MS GWB centroids GWB polygons Missing centroids/polygons AT / 0 BE / 0 BG 0 0? /? CY / 0 CZ / 0 DE / 0 DK / 0 EE / 0 ES / 122 FI 0 0? /? FR / 0 GR 0 0? /? HU / 0 IE / 0 IT 0 0? /? 17

18 LT / 0 LU / 0 LV / 0 MT 0 0? /? NL / 0 PL / 0 PT / 0 RO 0 0? /? SE / 0 SI / 21 SK / 0 UK / 547 Total: / 690 Table 12: Items used for join of attribute data Centroids Item Polygons Item Remark CODE CTY_ID EU_CD C_CD Unique Code of GWB Country Code The overall status of centroids and polygon delivery by member states is shown in Map 10. Map 10: Article V centroids and polygon delivery status 18

19 4.2 ETC/Water datasets The CDR centroid dataset and polygon dataset processed at ETC/Water were used for the centroids/polygons match. Result of ID matching is given in Table 12. The IDs were matched by data fields listed in Table 13. Table 12: Result of GWB ID match between centroid and polygon datasets MS Centroid IDs Polygon IDs Matched IDs Result AT OK BE OK BG CY OK CZ OK DE DK EE OK ES FI FR OK GR HU OK IE OK IT LT LU OK LV OK MT NL OK PL PT RO SE OK SI OK SK OK UK Total Table 13: Items used for join of attribute data Centroids Item Polygons Item Remark CODE ETC_ID Unique Code of GWB 5. National datasets Compiled ETC/Water polygon dataset and CDR centroid dataset were used for this analysis. 5.1 Austria (AT) Centroids count:

20 Polygons count: 136 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 136 (100%) Polygon dataset provided to ETC/Water by UBA Vienna CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 20

21 Problems: Polygon dataset was not reported by Austria. UBA Vienna provided polygon data to ETC/Water just for ETC/Water needs. Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset provided by UBA Vienna is complete. The Commission should ask the member state for official polygon data delivery. 5.2 Belgium (BE) Centroids count: 80 Polygons count: 80 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 80 (100%) CDR polygons (grouped by RBD) 21

22 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete. 5.3 Bulgaria (BG) Centroids count: none Polygons count: none Problems: None dataset provided by Bulgaria. Conclusion: The Commission should ask for data delivery. 5.4 Cyprus (CY) Centroids count: 20 Polygons count: 20 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 20 (100%) 22

23 CDR centroids Problems: Polygons provided in undefined coordinate system. Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset needs coordinate system definition/verification by Cyprus. 5.5 Czech Republic (CZ) Centroids count: 173 Polygons count: 173 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 173 (100%) 23

24 CDR polygons (grouped by RBD) CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete. 24

25 5.6 Germany (DE) Centroids count: 985 Polygons count: 993 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 958 (96.5%) CDR polygons (grouped by RBD) 25

26 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (features not having corresponding centroid/polygon ID are in yellow) CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 26

27 Problems: There is no exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. There are 35 following polygon GWB IDs not having corresponding centroid ID: GWB ID DE_GB_Elbe IA2 DE_GB_Elbe IB1 DE_GB_HH_El12 DE_GB_HH_El13 DE_GB_HH_El14 DE_GB_HH_El15 DE_GB_HH_El16 DE_GB_HH_El21 DE_GB_HH_N9 DE_GB_HH_NI11_3 DE_GB_NI10_01 DE_GB_NI10_02 DE_GB_NI10_05 DE_GB_NI11_01 DE_GB_SH_El-a DE_GB_SH_El-b DE_GB_SH_El01 DE_GB_SH_El02 DE_GB_SH_El03 DE_GB_SH_El04 DE_GB_SH_El05 DE_GB_SH_El06 DE_GB_SH_El07 DE_GB_SH_El10 DE_GB_SH_El11 DE_GB_SH_El12 DE_GB_SH_El15 DE_GB_SH_El16 DE_GB_SH_El17 DE_GB_SH_El21 DE_GB_SH_N4 DE_GB_SH_N5 DE_GB_SH_N7 DE_GB_SH_N8 DE_GB_ZM2_1 Centroid of groundwater body DE_GB_WP_WA_1 (Warnow-Schweriner See) has no corresponding polygon ID. There is partial match of centroid and polygon ID string of several IDs, final decision on the ID match has to be made by member state. Conclusion: Datasets need verification by Germany. 5.7 Denmark (DK) Centroids count: Polygons count: Centroid and polygon IDs match: (99 %) 27

28 CDR polygons (grouped by RBD) CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (polygon features not having corresponding centroid ID are in yellow) 28

29 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (centroid features not having corresponding polygon ID are in yellow) CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 29

30 Problems: There is no exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. There are 122 following polygon GWB IDs not having corresponding centroid ID: GWB ID DK E DK DK DK E DK DK DK SE DK DK DK E DK DK DK E DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK DK

31 There are following 149 centroid IDs not having corresponding polygon ID: GWB ID DK O DK VardeA(360) DK SneumA DK O DK VardeA(5000) DK SneumA(300) DK SO DK VardeA(5050) DK SneumA(3000) DK O DK VardeA(5100) DK SneumA(3100) DK O DK VardeA(5200) DK SneumA(3150) DK DK VardeA(525) DK SneumA(3175) DK DK VardeA(5250) DK SneumA(3200) DK DK VardeA(5300) DK SneumA(3235) DK DK VardeA(5320) DK SneumA(3250) DK DK VardeA(5340) DK SneumA(3275) DK DK VardeA(5360) DK SneumA(3300) DK DK VardeA(5380) DK SneumA(3400) DK DK VardeA(5400) DK SneumA(3425) DK DK VardeA(5450) DK SneumA(3450) DK DK VardeA(5475) DK SneumA(3500) DK DK VardeA(550) DK SneumA(3550) DK DK VardeA(5500) DK SneumA(3575) DK DK VardeA(5550) DK SneumA(3600) DK DK VardeA(5600) DK SneumA(3650) DK DK VardeA(5650) DK SneumA(3700) DK DK VardeA(5700) DK SneumA(3750) DK DK VardeA(5720) DK SneumA(3800) DK DK VardeA(5760) DK SneumA(5525) DK DK VardeA(5900) DK KongeA DK DK VardeA(5930) DK KongeA(200) DK DK VardeA(6000) DK KongeA(2000) DK DK VardeA(6030) DK KongeA(2100) DK DK VardeA(6060) DK KongeA(2150) DK DK VardeA(6120) DK KongeA(2200) DK DK VardeA(6130) DK KongeA(2225) DK DK VardeA(6160) DK KongeA(2250) DK DK VardeA(6200) DK KongeA(2275) DK DK VardeA(6325) DK KongeA(2300) DK Fano DK VardeA(6350) DK KongeA(2400) DK Fano(390) DK VardeA(6375) DK KongeA(2500) DK Odderup DK VardeA(6400) DK KongeA(2525) DK Bastrup DK VardeA(6420) DK KongeA(2600) DK Stauning1 DK VardeA(6440) DK KongeA(Sja) DK Stauning2 DK VardeA(6475) DK HenneA DK Stauning3 DK VardeA(6480) DK HenneA(515) DK Stauning4 DK VardeA(6600) DK HenneA(520) DK Stauning5 DK VardeA(6660) DK HenneA(5740) DK Billund DK VardeA(6700) DK HenneA(575) DK RibeFm1 DK VardeA(6760) DK HenneA(7000) DK RibeFm2 DK VardeA(6800) DK HenneA(7300) DK Hvidbjerg1 DK VardeA(6825) DK HenneA(7350) DK Hvidbjerg2 DK VardeA(6850) DK HenneA(7400) DK RibeFm3 DK VardeA(6875) DK HenneA(7450) DK RibeFm4 DK VardeA(950) DK HenneA(7600) DK VardeA DK VardeA(VA) Conclusion: Datasets need verification by Denmark. 31

32 5.8 Estonia (EE) Centroids count: 26 Polygons count: 26 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 26 (100%) CDR polygons (grouped by RBD) 32

33 ETC/Water polygons Problems: Centroid coordinates were not provided. Conclusion: The member state should provide centroid coordinates. There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete. 5.9 Spain (ES) Centroids count: 715 Polygons count: 593 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 593 (83%) for centroids and 593 (100 %) for polygons 33

34 CDR polygons (grouped by RBD) - continental CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons - continental 34

35 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (features not having corresponding centroid/polygon ID are in yellow) Problems: There is exact match between centroid and available polygon IDs (continental GWBs). Following 122 GWBs belonging to Baleare and Canary islands were reported just as centroids, there are no polygons available for these centroids: GWB ID ES ES ES30044 ES30065 ES30086 ES30108 ES ES ES30045 ES30066 ES30087 ES30109 ES ES ES30046 ES30067 ES30088 ES30110 ES ES ES30047 ES30068 ES30089 ES30111 ES ES ES30048 ES30069 ES30090 ES30112 ES ES ES30049 ES30070 ES30091 ES30113 ES ES ES30050 ES30071 ES30092 ES30114 ES ES ES30051 ES30072 ES30093 ES30115 ES ES ES30052 ES30073 ES30094 ES30116 ES ES ES30053 ES30074 ES30095 ES30117 ES ES ES30054 ES30075 ES30096 ES30119 ES ES30034 ES30055 ES30076 ES30097 ES30120 ES ES30035 ES30056 ES30077 ES30098 ES30121 ES ES30036 ES30057 ES30078 ES30100 ES30122 ES ES30037 ES30058 ES30079 ES30101 ES30123 ES ES30038 ES30059 ES30080 ES30102 ES30124 ES ES30039 ES30060 ES30081 ES30103 ES30125 ES ES30040 ES30061 ES30082 ES30104 ES ES30041 ES30062 ES30083 ES30105 ES ES30042 ES30063 ES30084 ES30106 ES ES30043 ES30064 ES30085 ES

36 Conclusion: There is exact match between continental centroid and polygon IDs. The continental polygon dataset is complete. The Commission should ask member state to provide missing parts of polygon dataset (island GWBs) Finland (FI) Centroids count: none Polygons count: none Problems: None dataset provided by Finland. Conclusion: The Commission should ask for data delivery France (FR) Centroids count: 560 Polygons count: 560 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 560 (100%) CDR polygons grouped by RBD (Reunion island not shown) 36

37 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (Reunion island not shown) Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete Greece (GR) Centroids count: none Polygons count: none Problems: None dataset provided by Greece. Conclusion: The Commission should ask for data delivery Hungary (HU) Centroids count: 108 Polygons count: 108 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 108 (100%) 37

38 CDR polygons grouped by RBD CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 38

39 Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete Ireland (IE) Centroids count: 757 Polygons count: 757 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 757 (100%) CDR polygons grouped by RBD 39

40 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete Italy (IT) Centroids count: none Polygons count: none Problems: None dataset provided by Italy. Conclusion: The Commission should ask for data delivery Lithuania (LT) Centroids count: 23 Polygons count: 22 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 22 (100%) 40

41 CDR polygons grouped by RBD CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (LT centroid not shown) 41

42 Problems: There is the LT centroid in the point dataset having wrong coordinates (see chapter 2.3) and no corresponding feature in the polygon dataset. This centroid might be very probably erroneous. Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs when excluding the LT centroid from processing. Polygon dataset is complete (when excluding the LT centroid). The Commission should ask the member state for the LT GWB centroid status verification Luxembourg (LU) Centroids count: 3 Polygons count: 3 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 3 (100%) CDR polygons by RBD 42

43 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete Latvia (LV) Centroids count: 16 Polygons count: 16 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 16 (100%) 43

44 CDR polygons grouped by RBD CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 44

45 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (polygons having corresponding centroid ID in centroid attribute table but no corresponding centroid features are in yellow) Problems: The following 5 centroid GWBs have no geometry features (no coordinates) though they have records in centroid attribute table: GWB ID LVD1 LVD2 LVD3 LVF1 LVF2 Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete. The Commission should ask member state for missing centroid coordinates Malta (MT) Centroids count: none Polygons count: none Problems: None dataset provided by Malta. Conclusion: The Commission should ask for data delivery Netherlands (NL) Centroids count:

46 Polygons count: 362 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 362 (100%) CDR polygons grouped by RBD CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 46

47 Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete Poland (PL) Centroids count: 0 Polygons count: 157 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 0 (0%) CDR polygons grouped by RBD 47

48 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons Problems: Centroid dataset was not reported by Poland. The centroids/polygon ID match could not be done. Conclusion: Match between centroid and polygon IDs could not be done. Completeness of polygon dataset could not be verified Portugal (PT) Centroids count: 91 Polygons count: 95 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 91 (96 %) 48

49 CDR polygons grouped by RBD (continental) CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (continental) 49

50 CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons (features not having corresponding centroid/polygon ID are in yellow) Problems: The following 4 polygon GWBs located at Madeira islands have no corresponding centroid ID due to missing centroids: GWB ID PTMDPS PTMDC PTMDMC PTPSPS Conclusion: There is exact match between continental centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete. The Commission should ask member state to update centroid dataset Romania (RO) Centroids count: none Polygons count: none Problems: None dataset provided by Romania. Conclusion: The Commission should ask for data delivery Sweden (SE) Centroids count: 1047 Polygons count:

51 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 1047 (100%) CDR polygons grouped by RBD CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 51

52 Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete Slovenia (SI) Centroids count: 21 Polygons count: 21 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 21 (100%) CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset provided by IWRS is complete. The Commission should ask the member state for official polygon data delivery Slovakia (SK) Centroids count: 101 Polygons count: 101 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 101 (100%) 52

53 CDR polygons grouped by RBD CDR centroids + ETC/Water polygons 53

54 Problems: none Conclusion: There is exact match between centroid and polygon IDs. Polygon dataset is complete United Kingdom (UK) Centroids count: 547 Polygons count: 0 Centroid and polygon IDs match: 0 (0%) Problems: Centroid dataset was reported only. There is no polygon dataset available. The centroid/polygon ID match could not be done. Conclusion: No matching of centroid/polygon IDs was done. The Commission should ask the member state for official polygon data delivery. 6. Geometry errors in polygon datasets The error identification of reported polygon datasets was not the aim of this gap analysis. There was no thorough geometry check done on the whole dataset. Several cases of typical geometry errors were selected just for illustration purposes. The responsibility for correctness of geometry fully lies with member states providing the data. 54

55 BE: CDR filename: gwb.shp inaccurate position of GWB border with respect to other adjacent Belgian GWBs DE: CDR filename: gwb_de5000.shp extra features 55

56 DK: CDR filename: VD80_groundwater1_region.shp inaccurate feature geometry, various degree of detail, extra features DK: CDR filename: VD76_groundwater_region.shp extra features 56

57 DK: CDR filename: VD30_groundwater_region.shp inaccurate geometry EE: CDR filename: gwb_gg_ee2.shp various degree of detail/generalization probably due to various sources used for digitization 57

58 FR: CDR filename: H_GWBody.shp extra features NL: CDR filename: GWB_EM.shp - groundwater body boundary does not match a coastline/netherlands state border 58

59 7. Conclusions The polygon dataset compiled at ETC/Water can be used as a basis for future European groundwater body reference layer on the assumption that following requirements are met: 1. Member states provide missing data or correct/verify datasets 2. Member states provide assignment of groundwater bodies to horizons, see document Visualisation of groundwater body reference layer by Hana Prchalova erbodies/bodies_vers1doc/_en_1.0_&a=d 3. Member states identify uppermost groundwater bodies The following countries have provided complete and matching official polygon and centroid datasets: Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Netherlands, Sweden and Slovakia. There are centroid dataset available for Austria and Slovenia; polygon datasets can be used if officially approved by those member states. Following national polygon and centroid datasets need either correction or verification by member states: Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain. United Kingdom has provided centroid data and should provide a polygon dataset. Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Malta, and Romania have not provided any data and should be asked to provide national centroid and polygon datasets. 59