1. WFD Article 8 Schemas
Yvonne Gordon-Walker

2. Article 8 Timetable Preliminaries: Testing: Workshop: Go-Live
Agree 1st release of schemas
Agree ReportNet for submission process
Testing:
Testing of Schema and Access tool
Testing of ReportNet Process
Workshop:
9th January 2007
Go-Live
January 2007

3. Article 8 Schemas Based on Reporting Sheets
Reporting Monitoring Requirements v5, 27 Nov 2005
1 meeting with MS review group in June
3 schema reviews
Review group: DE, UK, IE, AT, DK, FI. NL, CY
General consultation 18th Sept: BE,HR,DK,FI,FR,DE,HU,IE,IT,LT,LU,NO,PL,SI,ES,SE,NL,UK,CZ,AT,SK
Final review as part of Access tool testing Oct/Nov 2006

4. Article 8 Schemas 3 separate schemas
Monitoring.xsd – summary data defining the programmes
SurfaceWaterMonitoringStations.xsd – details of individual surface water monitoring stations
GroundWaterMonitoringStations.xsd – details of individual groundwater monitoring stations

5. Minor changes following 2nd review Key Issues:
Review Issues
Minor changes following 2nd review
Key Issues:
Quantity of data required
Determine common data requirements – enter once and then only deviations
SW Quality Element and GW parameter coding
Appropriate level for reporting
Detail required by Commission
Ease of reporting for MS

6. QE Coding – Surface Waters
Etc.

7. QE Coding - Groundwaters

8. QE Coding
The highest level of aggregation is shown in blue. This would be the absolute minimum level at which the MS can report.
The recommended minimum level for reporting is level 2 which is shown in yellow. This corresponds to the 2nd level in Annex 5 and has been extended where appropriate (e.g. QE3-3 Non-priority specific pollutants as indicated in Annex 8/9).

9. Minor changes following 3nd review following testing Key Issues:
Review Issues
Minor changes following 3nd review following testing
Key Issues:
Remove inconsistencies
Elements mandatory for SW, not for GW
Added Category for SW Programmes
Further info on Protected Areas
Water Bodies can be provided at Station level rather than at QE/Parameter level
Additions to QE coding

10. Review Issues
Many queries following testing related to interpretation
How to translate what is being done into the data required.

11. Schema Locations
The stylesheets will also be located here.

12. Key Schema Points
Metadata etc
No defined metadata
Can provide text summary and link to own metadata statement.
Use this to define any issues or restrictions with the use of the data.

13. Need to define the extent covered by the submission
Key Schema Points
Need to define the extent covered by the submission
Whole or part of RBD
National or international etc
Please provide a description of extent and why if not providing data for the national part of RBD.

14. Key Schema Points Mandatory Data
‘no field in the WISE submission should be marked as mandatory to allow partial submissions’.
In practice, must have mandatory elements
Need RBD code, Country code to identify and manage submissions
Issue with optional elements not provided:
The element was intentionally excluded (no means no)
The element was unintentionally excluded/forgotten (no means maybe)

15. Key elements made mandatory
Mandatory Data
Key elements made mandatory
Options provided where no information is available
For text, type ‘Not Applicable’, ‘Unknown’ etc
For numerics,
-9999 for ‘Unknown’
-8888 for ‘Yet to be measured’
-7777 for ‘Not Applicable’
Enumeration (Code) lists, have codes for ‘Unknown’ etc as appropriate.

16. Must define at least one SW programme
SW Programmes
Must define at least one SW programme
A programme consists of 1-n sub-programmes
Each sub-programme:
is defined for one surface water body category
Lake, river, transitional, coastal
Defines 1-n Quality Elements

17. SW Programmes SW Programme Sub-Programme Water Body Category
1-n
Sub-Programme
1-1
1-n
Water Body Category
Quality Elements

18. SW Programmes – Quality Elements
You must specify the QE monitored by each sub-programme
QE code and Number of sites
Sampling and Analysis methodologies
Frequency and frequency method
Standards applied and levels of confidence in results of monitoring

19. SW Programmes – Quality Elements
For many MS, the same general standards etc apply for a QE
Sampling and Analysis methodologies
Method of determining frequency
Levels of confidence expected in results of monitoring
These can be defined at a general level
Only need to define deviations
MUST be able to infer at sub-programme level so must provide at either sub-programme or general level

20. SW Programmes – Quality Elements
When interpreting data, the lowest level is taken
So if the sampling method is not provided at the sub-programme
Assumed that sampling method defined at the higher level applies
If the sampling method is provided for the sub-programme
Takes precendance over any defined at the higher level

21. SW Programmes – Quality Elements
The minimum frequency and minimum cycle are used together to describe the frequency at which the quality elements are determined.
For many programmes, an element will be monitored a number of times per year for the first year and future monitoring frequencies will depend on the results of this initial monitoring.
If this is the case, then this should be described
The cycle should be set to 0.

22. SW Investigative Reporting
Minimal requirements
Must provide a summary of the strategy for setting up investigative monitoring
Only need to provide examples of investigate monitoring if an incidence has occurred
This is to show how the strategy works

23. Requirements are very similar to the SW programmes
GW Programmes
Requirements are very similar to the SW programmes
Concept of sub-programmes does not apply
Must define at least one GW programme
A programme defines 1-n parameters
GW Programme
1-n
GW Parameters

24. GW Programmes – Parameters
You must specify the parameters monitored by each sub-programme
Parameter code and Number of sites
Sampling and Analysis methodologies
Frequency and frequency method
Standards applied and levels of confidence in results of monitoring
Same applies for parameters as for QE
Define methods, standards etc at appropriate level

25. Data requirements and process very similar
Monitoring stations
Different schemas for surface water and ground water monitoring stations
Data requirements and process very similar
Define Monitoring stations
Link to (sub-)programme(s)
Identify associated water bodies

26. Must provide basic details on station
Monitoring Stations
Must provide basic details on station
Unique code
Location (x,y)
Water body location
Each station must be part of at least one monitoring (sub-)programme.
Each station must be associated with at least one water body

27. Quality Elements/Parameters
Again only need to provide deviations from programme
Example:
Not all QEs are measured,
Different sampling and analysis methods used
Measured at a greater frequency
Some QEs are only measured at specific waterbodies

28. You must specify the waterbodies associated with station
Use code specified in Article 5
If not provided then assumed only WB_LOCATION is monitored.
Can provide at station level or by QE/parameters
Lowest level takes precedence

29. Feedback from Article 5/Article 8
Access tool is useful as it helps MS to identify the information required
There is a gap between reporting sheets and following schemas
Would be beneficial to see object/data models with reporting sheets.
Future reporting sheets will include modelling exercise before finalisation.

30. Article 8 submissions process will be via ReportNet
Reporting Process
Article 8 submissions process will be via ReportNet
Amend ReportNet processes (voluntary) to support Compliance reporting (obligatory)
Amend workflow to include quality checking step.
Increased validation requirements
Improved reports functionality
Creation of European dataset

31. Reporting Process
Create xml files using either the access tool or generating from own internal systems
Upload files to Central Data Repository
Files ‘locked’ i.e not generally available
Quality-checking of data
Schema validation and cross-validation against Article 3 and Article 5 data
e.g. does the RBD code exist, are monitoring points within the RBD boundary
Submitted files available for compliance checking