-
Groundwater-Dependent Wetlands in the UKand Ireland: Controls,
Functioning and Assessingthe Likelihood of Damage from Human
Activities
Stefan Krause & A. Louise Heathwaite & Felicity Miller
&Paul Hulme & Andrew Crowe
Received: 24 July 2006 /Accepted: 14 May 2007 / Published
online: 28 June 2007# Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
2007
Abstract Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) the
requirement for goodgroundwater status is dependent upon there
being no significant damage to groundwa-ter-dependent terrestrial
ecosystems, i.e. groundwater-dependent wetlands. An
ecohydro-geological framework was developed to assess the risk of
significant damage forgroundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems
in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Theframework will be used by
the competent authorities implementing the WFD as a decisionsupport
system to apply the WFD guidelines on a local to regional basis.
The frameworkconsiders the variety of groundwater controls and
pathways of different wetland types andallows a specific assessment
to be made of the vulnerability of different wetland types
togroundwater related risks. Seven distinct wetland types were
identified and the potentialpressures were evaluated. A GIS
framework was developed in order to analyse the spatialcoincidence
of potential risks to each wetland type. The framework was tested
for a trialdataset of 10 groundwater controlled wetland ecosystems
in England and Wales in order toevaluate their current risk of
damage.
Keywords Wetlands . Groundwater . Risk . Vulnerability .
Eco-hydrology .
Water framework directive
Water Resour Manage (2007) 21:20152025DOI
10.1007/s11269-007-9192-x
S. Krause (*) : A. L. Heathwaite :A. CroweCentre for Sustainable
Water Management, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster
University,Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UKe-mail:
[email protected]
F. Miller : P. HulmeEnvironmental Agency, Eco-systems Science,
Olton Court, 10 Warwick Road, Olton,Solihull B92 7HX, UK
-
1 Introduction
1.1 The Water Framework Directive
The Water Frame Work Directive (WFD; EU Directive 2000/60/EC)
represents a paradigmshift in policy for the regulation of water.
The WFD takes a holistic approach to theassessment of water bodies
(Carter and Howe 2006), which involves the attainment
andmaintenance of good status through a programme of measures. The
status of a water bodyunder the WFD is defined by both chemical and
ecological measures. This represents amove away from defining water
quality based on critical thresholds. The directive alsobrings
together the management of coastal, surface and ground waters into
one framework,leading to the requirement to manage the landscape as
one interconnected unit on the RiverBasin Scale. This change in
both definition of status and the geographic management unithas led
to a significant change in the requirements for monitoring and
assessment (Allan et al.2006; Moss 2004). Both ecological and
chemical measures must now be considered asinterdependent
functions, leading to organizations that once had quite separate
rolescooperating in the regulatory process (Moss 2004).
One of the major hurdles to be overcome in the implementation of
the WFD is in the useof current data for assessment of status.
Organisations have collected data to be used for aspecific purpose
under a specific directive or policy (SEPA 2002). When the WFD
isimplemented this data then forms the basis on which the
assessment of status is made. Theproblem in using the data for this
assessment is that the original purpose for which the datais
collected may not be closely associated with its use in terms of
the WFD (Dworak et al.2005). For example measures for monitoring
groundwater abstraction, which were collectedto allow regulation of
water supplies for human consumption, may now be used to assessthe
impacts of abstraction on ecosystems.
1.2 Groundwater-Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems
TheWFD specifies the assessment of damage to
groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems(GWDTEs) as a component
of the assessment of groundwater status. If the assessment of
aGWDTE results in the site being recorded as damaged then the
groundwater body with which itis associated becomes of poor status.
GWDTEs represent a substantial fraction of the wetlandswithin the
UK and Ireland. Similar to other aquatic ecosystems, they are under
multiplepressures due to intensive agricultural land use and land
management practices, waterabstraction, pollution from industry and
waste from households. As a result, many GWDTEsare damaged and no
longer offer full ecohydrological functions or ecosystem
services(Heathwaite et al. 2005; Hayashi and Rosenberry 2002;
Hughes and Heathwaite 1995).
This paper reports on the development of an ecohydrogeological
framework to assess thesite specific risks of significant damage
for GWDTEs in order to meet the targets of theWFD. The objective is
to use the framework to evaluate the degree of risk of damage
forgroundwater controlled wetland sites in order to focus actions
and measures on the mostimportant sites. In subsequent sections the
term wetlands can be considered synonymouswith
groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems.
The framework presented in this paper takes into account related
approaches of other EUcountries which are using similar strategies
for the determination of groundwater status.This has been guided by
the IMPRESS working group report and the adoption of
thedriver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework
(European Communities 2003).Most countries in the EU are using a
combination of pressure-vulnerability assessments
2016 S. Krause, et al.
-
coupled with monitoring data, while the Netherlands has
implemented a modelling basedapproach to identifying potential site
status (European Communities 2005)
2 Methods
2.1 Ecohydrogeological Framework
The WFD requires an integrated assessment of the status of
groundwaters. The inclusion ofboth chemical and ecological status
requires a new framework that incorporates ecological,hydrological
and hydrogeological measures. The framework presented in this paper
is basedon the concept that the damage to a GWDTE is the result of
pressures influencing one ormore wetland processes that control the
dynamics and functions of the wetland as well asthe wetland
characteristics (hydrological, ecological, chemical). The
vulnerability of awetland is characterised by its potential for
damage which is dependent upon the pressure itis exposed to and how
this pressure affects the wetland functions. The
ecohydrogeologicalapproach presented here is based on the
assessment of risks for different types ofgroundwater influenced
wetlands. The first step differentiates between wetland types
basedon controlling processes and characteristics. The second step
comprises the framework forthe assessment for potential and actual
risks of damage.
3 Data Availability
The characterisation of the different parameters within the risk
assessment approach relieson the currently available data. A first
trial of the risk assessment framework was carriedout for ten
wetlands in England and Wales as the data availability is best for
these countries.The following data were available for use in the
framework:
& Information for ca 900 wetland site locations, including
geographic boundaries [Environ-mental Agency (EA), English Nature
(EN) and the Country Council for Wales (CCW)].
& Information about the hydrological, geomorphological and
ecological characteristicsderived from geological data [drift
permeability, thickness, aquifer depth, digitalelevation data
(DEM), and ecological information; National Vegetation
Classification(NVC) communities; British Geological Survey (BGS),
EA].
& Information on pressures to groundwaters for point source
pollution, phosphate, nitrateand abstraction (Environmental
Agency).
& Information on recent damage to wetland sites of special
scientific interest (SSSI)(English Nature
http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk); Countryside Council for
Wales).
This data was placed in a GIS framework in order to perform
spatial analysis of the data forthe risk assessment. The
implementation of the ecohydrogeological framework is based on
theevaluation of the specific vulnerability of a wetland site to
particular pressures, followed by atest to determine if these
vulnerabilities are coincident with known or suspected
groundwater-related pressures. The framework comprises four main
steps (Fig. 1) to assess the likely risk ofdamage for
groundwater-dependent wetland sites. The steps are explained in
detail below:
Step 1 Wetland classification and assignment of specific wetland
sites to wetland typesA classification scheme based on wetland
processes was developed that leads to a
differentiation of wetland types according to their unique
geomorphic and hydrodynamic
Groundwater-dependent wetlands in the UK and Ireland 2017
-
settings and takes into account their biological and
hydrochemical status (Sniffer 2006).The characterisation of the
wetland types is based on an adaption of the WETMECSclassification
for wetlands (Wheeler and Shaw 2000).
Seven distinct wetland types have been defined which can be
summarised in three mainclasses (Fig. 2):
A. Seepage slope wetlands, with the sub types:artesian + strong
spring flows (A1)diffuse and permanent seepage slope
(A2)intermittent and shallow subsurface seepage slope (A3)
B. Seepage basin wetlands, with the sub types:fluctuating
seepage basins (B1)seepage and summer dry percolation basins
(B2)
C. Valley bottom wetlands, with the sub types:small floodplain
valley fens (C1)wet valley bottoms (C2)
This classification allows to assign wetland locations to
distinct wetland types, takinginto account the currently available
data described above. However, given better dataavailability and
quality as well as more detailed information in future, the
classification canbe easily adapted to become more sophisticated
and detailed such as in the originalWETMEC classification for
instance.
Within the first step of the framework, any pre-existing
classifications and associateddata for the wetlands under
investigation are assessed in order to examine whether they
Fig. 1 The framework approach for a risk assessment of
groundwater influenced wetlands
2018 S. Krause, et al.
-
have the appropriate supporting data for use in the framework
(Fig. 1).If, for a particularwetland site, the available data is of
sufficient quality to justify the classification, thewetland sites
can be directly assigned to a wetland class (Fig. 1).
For those cases where the quality of the available supporting
data is not sufficiently high,a matrix of wetland type vs key
ecohydrogeological control (Table 1) can be applied to
helpdetermine the wetland type classification for a particular
site. The matrix shown in Table 1lists the ecological, chemical,
hydrodynamic and geomorphic characteristics for the threemain
wetland classes. Comparing these characteristics to those of a
particular wetlandshould lead to the appropriate classification for
that wetland.
Fig 2 The wetland classification scheme including seven
distinctive types of groundwater controlledwetlands
Groundwater-dependent wetlands in the UK and Ireland 2019
-
In some cases the available information may not be sufficient to
apply this matrix. Thereare two further possibilities in the
framework for providing the required information toallow sites to
be assigned to a particular wetland type:
a. incorporation of local expert knowledge where it is available
for example in thedescription of a wetland site (e.g. for SSSI
status) or in conservation reports
b. a generic GIS derived classification filter based on the
hydro-geomorphic (HGM)approach (Brinson et al. 1995, Clairain
2002). Such approach requires topograph-ical, hydrological and
geohydrological information, soil type and vegetation data.A
preliminary test was performed for a small number of trial
locations whichindicated that the HGM approach is viable, however
further development isrequired at this stage.
In some cases, such as sites of greater spatial extent and
heterogeneous characteristics, itmay become necessary to separate
the wetlands present within the site and assign a type toeach
wetland.
Step 2 Analysis of the wetland vulnerabilityA list of
groundwater pressures that affect wetlands was identified (Sniffer
2006). This
list contains qualitative (abstraction and drainage),
quantitative (point source and diffusivepollution of nitrate and
phosphorus) and aesthetical pressures (dereliction).
Each wetland type was then compared to the list of pressures to
determine whichpressures have the potential to specifically affect
that wetland type. This resulted in a matrix(Sniffer 2006) which
can then be applied in the second step of the framework to
determinethe pressures which may affect wetlands at a specific
site. At this time the matrix onlyprovides a qualitative indication
of the vulnerability of the wetland types. Further researchis
required to rank the sensitivities of the wetland types to a
particular pressure.
Table 1 Characteristics and settings of the different wetland
types
Seepage slopewetlands (A)
Seepage basinwetlands (B)
Valley bottomwetlands (C)
Hydrochemical and ecological settingAlkalinity Base richbase
poor base richsub neutral
base poorbase richsub neutral
Fertility Eutrophicoligotrophic
Eutrophicmesotrophic/eutrophicoligotrophic
Eutrophicmesotrophic/eutrophichypertrophic
Water source Groundwater soligenous Groundwater topogenous
Groundwater + surfacerunoff topogenous
Hydrostatic settingFlushing High Lowmoderate NolowStanding Nolow
High HighPressure head driven Lowmoderate Lowmoderate
NomoderateGeomorphic settingValley head High Lowmoderate
ModerateBasin valley head Moderate Moderatehigh ModerateHill slope
High No NoFlood plain Lowmoderate Nomoderate ModerateCoastal plain
Low Nomoderate No
2020 S. Krause, et al.
-
Step 3 Assessment of the potential riskHaving established the
wetland vulnerability in the previous step of the framework,
the
next step is to evaluate spatial coincidence of a particular
site with the pressures to which itis vulnerable.
In a first step in a GIS framework the BGS data of drift
permeability are analysed andintersected with the wetland
geometries in order to assess the connectivity between wetlandand
pressure/risk. In a second step the maps of the identified
pressures (e.g. WFD risk mapsfor N and P pollution, abstraction)
are intersected with the wetland locations. This producesa
preliminary index of risk of damage due to groundwater pressures
which can be used toprioritise sites for investigation. If a site
is characterised as being at potential risk (due to theprior
intersection) but the drift data show that the aquifer is only very
poorly connected thepotential risk is finally evaluated to be
low.
Particularly large wetlands are usually already subdivided into
a number of smallerwetlands in the English Nature SSSI database.
However, while intersection in the GISframework it may occur that
wetland area and the extend of the pressure only partiallyoverlay.
In such cases the entire wetland is characterised as being at
potential risk.
Step 4 Current state of damage - final risk assessmentFollowing
from the analysis of potential risk of damage, a check is made as
to whether
damage is already been recorded for the wetland site and how the
recorded damage can becategorised. Finally, a combination of the
potential risk of damage (step 3) with the list ofrecorded damages
produces the final rankings for prioritising actions for each
wetland site.
Four risk classes will be assigned in accordance with the
surface water risk framework:
& at riskthe site is significantly damaged and is of a type
that is vulnerable togroundwater pressures within that zone
& probably at riskthe wetland is not perceived to be
significantly damaged but is ofa type that is vulnerable to the
groundwater pressures in that zone
& probably not at riskthe site is perceived to be
significantly damaged but is of atype not vulnerable to the
groundwater pressures in that zone (so it can be assumedthat the
damage is not caused by the groundwater related pressures)
& not at riskthe sites is not perceived to be significantly
damaged and is notvulnerable to the groundwater pressures within
the zone.
All sites within the not at risk class are treated as low
priority and do not need not to beconsidered for any measures under
current circumstances. However, they remain on the listin case new
data becomes available on which they can be reassessed. For the
sitescharacterised as at risk or probably at risk, a programme of
measures for remediation orprotection needs to be defined by the
appropriate regulatory bodies. For sites characterisedas probably
not at risk, additional investigation, site visits and the
collection of furtherinformation may be considered.
4 Results and Discussion
For a first cycle of site assessments the approach has been
tested for 10 trial sites (Fig. 2)within East Anglia, Southern
England and Wales (Table 2). The trial wetland sites arechosen from
the list of SSSI designated groundwater controlled wetland sites
and representsthe broad range of wetland types found within England
and Wales. The trial framework was
Groundwater-dependent wetlands in the UK and Ireland 2021
-
applied using data on pressures resulting from diffuse and point
source nutrient pollutionand groundwater abstraction as described
in the methods section.
Within step 1 of the framework, the wetland type classification
step, the geometries ofthe investigated wetlands were extracted
from the SSSI database. A majority of the sitescontained a number
of separate wetlands often of differing wetland type. This required
thesites to be subdivided so that each wetland type within the site
could be assessed.
The assessment of the vulnerability and subsequently of the
potential risk is shown inTable 2. If a site is assessed to be at
high potential risk of damage (Upton Broad &Marshes) this site
is very vulnerable to all of the pressures which are spatially
coincident atthe site. Being classified as low potential risk (Cors
Barfog) suggests that the site is notvulnerable to the pressures
occuring at that site. Only two of the sites are are considered
tobe under high potential risk, six sites are designated to be
under moderate potential risk andtwo of sites are designated as low
potential risk.
The information about the observed damage for the sites, derived
from the SSSI sitereports, indicates an only slightly different
scenario:
& The two sites designated to be low potential risk do not
show significant damage.& Four of the sites designated to be at
moderate potential risk are recorded as being
significantly damaged, one is recorded with a level of damage
which is not consideredsignificant and one is currently considered
to not be damaged.
& Two sites, Upton Broad & Marshes and The Moors,
Bishops Waltham, which are bothdesignated as high potential risk,
are currently considered to not be damaged or minorlydamaged
only.
The occurrence of wetland sites that are designated by the
framework to be at moderateor high potential risk with minor or no
damage could be explained by the fact that theexisting pressures
which constitute the risk have not yet resulted in noticeable
damage or insome cases may indicate the presence of successful
local measures which have released thesite from that pressure.
In order to better explain the framework procedure in the
following the execution of theparticular framework steps are
presented for the example of the Baddesley Commonwetlands in South
England (Fig. 3).
According to the English Nature SSSI characterisation Baldesley
Common issubdivided into 3 singular wetlands which could in
framework step 1 be assigned towetland type C2 Wet valley bottom
wetlands.
Table 2 Results of a test run of the risk assessment approach
for ten sites in England and Wales
SSSI ID Site name Region Potential risk Current conditions
RISK
735 Upton broad and marshes Anglian High Not damaged Probably at
risk126 Bure broads and marshes Anglian Moderate Damaged At risk5
Alderfen broad Anglian Moderate Minor damage Probably at risk430
LudhamPotter Heigham marshes Anglian Moderate Not damaged Probably
at risk695 The Moors, Bishops Waltham Southern High Minor damage
Probably at risk655 Stockbridge common marsh Southern Moderate
Damaged At risk565 River Itchen Southern Moderate Damaged At risk25
Baddesley common Southern Moderate Damaged At risk432 Lye Heath
marsh Southern Low Not damaged Not at risk732 Cors Barfog Wales Low
Not damaged Not at risk
2022 S. Krause, et al.
-
The application of the wetland type vs. pressure matrix (Sniffer
2006) in step twoindicates that the wetlands of Baldesley Common
are vulnerable to diffusive and pointsource pollution in
particular, not so much to abstraction and drainage.
Subsequently the shape files for the wetland geometries are
intersected with the WFDrisk maps for diffusive and point sources
Nitrate and Phosphate pollution and theconnectivity between aquifer
and pressure is checked by the drift characteristics based onBGS
geological data. As a result it was found that the Baldesley Common
wetlands arevery well connected to the groundwater and coincide
with moderate risks of Nitrate andPhosphate pollution according to
the WFD risk maps. Hence, they are evaluated as to be atpotentially
moderate risk (Table 2).
However, in step 4 the potential risk assignment made in step 3
is compared with the EnglishNature SSSI database wherein the
Baldesley Commonwetlands (last observation 06.09.2003)are
characterised as being in unfavourable conditions. Thus, in the
last step of the frameworkthe Baldesley Common wetlands are finally
characterised to be at risk (Table 2).
Within the test data set, no case occurred where a site
designated as low potential riskwas found to be damaged. Records of
damage for low potential risk sites could indicate thatthe damage
is due to a non-groundwater related pressure, but may also indicate
a systemfailure within the framework.
In the final step of the framework, the results of the
assessment of the potential risks arecombined with the current
states of damage in order to come to a final assessment of therisk
of assigning poor status to the groundwater body. With four out of
the ten sitesdesignated to be at risk, four to be probably at risk
and only two sites not at risk, the finalassessment shows a rather
dramatic picture of the condition of the tested wetlands. If
thissample can be taken as indicative of the whole of the UK and
Ireland, then it would appearthat the majority of
groundwater-dependent wetlands are at risk of causing their
associatedgroundwater bodies to be of poor status.
Fig 3 SSSI sites in England and Wales (grey circles) and the
results of the test risk assessment for tenexemplary wetland
sites
Groundwater-dependent wetlands in the UK and Ireland 2023
-
The trial of the framework has proved how crucial the quality of
the information about thewetland conditions is. Whereas the WFD
risk maps represent a good basis for the evaluationof risk and
pressures, the information about characteristics and current
conditions of thewetland sites are not always of high enough
quality to perform a reasonable classification.Thus, taking into
account the current data limitations, the assignment of a wetland
type to aparticular wetland based on the SSSI descriptions involves
a high level of uncertaintyresulting from inconsistencies within
the descriptions. Similarly, the SSSI descriptionsprovide good
information about the current wetland conditions but contain
limitedinformation on the extent to which reported damage is
groundwater related. Taking intoaccount that the trial of the risk
assessment was carried out in England and Wales, for whichthere is
more extensive data available than in Scotland and Ireland, the
results of the trialindicate that the framework may be more reliant
on the available local expert knowledge toreduce uncertainty in the
results for Scotland and Ireland than in England and Wales.
5 Conclusions
With the ecohydrogeological framework, an appropriate tool has
been developed whichallows the assessment of the site specific
risks to groundwater influenced wetlands. Itincorporates a process
based wetland type classification for the assessment of type
specificvulnerability and risk. The framework incorporates data
from a variety of sources andassesses their applicability for
assessment and monitoring under the WFD. Where thesedata are found
to be lacking, the framework is flexible enough to incorporate
alternatesources in support of the core data. This flexibility is
also required to enable management atthe river basin scale where
the river basins cross administrative borders.
The approach was successfully tested for a trial data set of ten
wetland sites in Englandand Wales. It was shown that a ranking of
the investigated sites in regard to theirgroundwater related risks
is possible and thus, that the framework provides an adequate
toolfor the incorporation into the measures employed to address the
WFD in the UK andIreland.
However, the successful application of the framework is
determined by the quality of theavailable spatial data used to
characterise the pressures and risks. The testing of the
approachhas proved the framework is appropriate for England and
Wales, but for other countries itmight be necessary to adapt some
of the routines of the framework. Future developments ofthe
approach will focus on the incorporation of a methodology that
enables the quantificationof the uncertainties associated with the
prediction of risk of damage based of uncertainspatial data within
the proposed approach. The development of the framework may
involvethe use of fuzzy classification techniques to improve the
appropriateness of the frameworksinternal decision transfer as well
as the final risk assessment. The most recent developmentalversion
of the framework has trialled the use of semi-quantitative values
(low, moderate,high) for evaluation within the classification
matrices.
Acknowledgements The work reported here was funded under SNIFFER
project WFD62. The authorswould like to thank Natalie Phillips for
the preparation of the majority of spatial data used within the
GISframework and the project partners from the Environmental
Agency, SNIFFER, SEPA, WWT, EnglishNature and the Geological Survey
of Ireland. The authors would also like to thank Steve Fletcher
(EA) andthe members of the project expert panel: Penny Johnes
(Reading University), Andrew Binley (LancasterUniversity), Andrew
Baird (Queen Mary, University of London) and Paul Johnston (Trinity
College Dublin)for their engagement and constructive input which
substantially improved the risk assessment framework. Weare very
grateful to the reviewers comments which greatly improved the
manuscript.
2024 S. Krause, et al.
-
References
Allan IJ, Vrana B, Greenwood R, Mills GA, Roig B, Gonzalez C
(2006) A toolbox for biological andchemical monitoring requirements
for the European Unions Water Framework Directive. In: 1st
Swift-WFD workshop on validation of robustness of sensors and
bioassays for screening pollutants1stSWIFT-WFD 2004. Talanta
69:302322
Brinson M, Rheinhardt R, Hauer F, Lee L, Nutter W, Smith R,
Whigham D (1995) A Guidebook forapplication of hydrogeomorphic
assessments to riverine wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers
Carter J, Howe J (2006) The water framework directive and the
strategic environmental assessment directive:exploring the
linkages. Environ Impact Asses Rev 26:287300
Clairain E (2002) Hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland
functions: guidelines for developingregional guidebooks. US Army
Corps of Engineers
Dworak T, Gonzalez C, Laaser C, Interwies E (2005) The need for
new monitoring tools to implement theWFD. Environ Sci Policy
8:301306
European Communities (2003) Common implementation strategy for
the water framework directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance document no.
3. Analysis of pressures and impacts. ISBN 92-894-5123-8. Available
fordownload from:
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents&vm=detailed&sb=Title
European Communities (2005) Common implementation strategy for
the water framework directive (2000/60/EC). Groundwater summary
report. Technical report on groundwater body
characterisation,monitoring and risk assessment issues as discussed
at the WG C workshops in 20032004. Availablefor download from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/groundwater_report.pdf
Hayashi, M, Rosenberry, DO (2002) Effects of ground water
exchange on the hydrology and ecology ofsurface water. Ground Water
40(3):309316
Heathwaite AL, Webb BW, Rosenberry D, Weaver D, Hayashi M (2005)
Dynamics And Biogeochemistry OfRiver Corridors And Wetlands. IAHS
Publication No. 294. Wallingford, UK, P 192
Hughes JMR, Heathwaite AL (1995) The hydrology and
hydrochemistry of British wetlands. Wiley,Chichester, UK, p 486
Moss T (2004) The governance of land use in river basins:
prospects for overcoming problems of institutionalinterplay with
the EU water framework directive. Land Use Policy 21:8594
SEPA (2002) The future for Scotlands waters: guiding principles
on the technical requirements of the waterframework directive.
Annual Report 20012002. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, p
116
Sniffer (2006) Project WFD62: wetland and groundwater
interactions. Phase 1 Report: knowledge base andoutline framework
for risk assessment of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems
[05/2006], p 95,http://www.fwr.org/environw/wfd62.htm, cited 09
Jan. 2007
Wheeler B, Shaw S (2000) Awetland framework for impact
assessment at statutory sites in Eastern England.Research and
development. Technical Report W6-068/TR1. Environment Agency, p
267
Groundwater-dependent wetlands in the UK and Ireland 2025
Groundwater-Dependent...AbstractIntroductionThe Water Framework
DirectiveGroundwater-Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems
MethodsEcohydrogeological Framework
Data AvailabilityResults and DiscussionConclusionsReferences
/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict >
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict >
/GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict >
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 600
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None
] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped
/False
/Description >>> setdistillerparams>
setpagedevice
