APAT

1. APAT ELEMENTS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A NATIONAL SOIL MONITORING NETWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POURPOSES IN ITALY Paolo Giandon

2. COM 179/2002 p. 8.2 • …IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MORE COMPLETE: • information basis • monitoring • indicators • TO: • establish the prevailing soil conditions • evaluate the impact of diverse policies and practices

3. COM 179/2002 p. 8.2 The specifications of a Community information and monitoring system will aim to ensure that: • on the identified threats • in the relevant areas • a number of measurements are carried out in a harmonised and coherent way • which results are relevant to and accessible for policy makers • monitoring, before all, those substances that can be transferred from soil to food or have potential health implications in any other way.

4. KNOWLEDGE LEVELS OF THE NSMN • Basic information about soils coming from pedological maps • Information about soil use (CLC) • Results of inorganic and organic contamination monitoring on the basis of a regular grid • Results of pressure-impacts relationship monitoring in few specialist sites

5. OBJECTIVES OF THE NSMN • - Knowledge of soil characteristics and properties • - Short and long period monitoring in different situations of contaminants concentration in soils • Evaluation of soil characteristics and properties changes as consequence of degradation and contamination processes • - Prevision offuture evolution; • - Development and validation of models calibrated on network sites; • - Results diffusion to address choices and policy.

6. IMPLEMENTATION STEPS • Identification of soil types (STU); • Acquisition of land cover information; • Definition of common rules for site selection and positioning, site description, procedures for sampling, samples handling and analysis, quality assurance, data handling and reporting; • Monitoring of a first set of “sensible” parameters with respect to anthropogenic impacts; • Setting of permanent sites for the monitoring of specific degradation processes (i.e. erosion, compaction, etc.); • Functional integration with other monitoring networks.

7. INTEGRATION LEVELS • between regional networks • between different degradation processes (threats) • with other monitoring networks • between typological and systematic approches

8. SYSTEMATIC APPROACH • It needs a regular grid in order to give representative data for statistical elaboration • It generally requires a large number of sites and the number of parameters to measure has to be limited due to costs • It is more suited for monitoring inorganic and organic pollutant contamination

9. TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH • It is based on stratification of soils according to land use and soil type • It is more suited for monitoring soil degradation processes (e.g. erosion, organic carbon losses, nitrates and pesticides leaching, etc.) in sensitive areas • It is feasible to be performed only on few representative sites.

10. SOIL TYPES (STU) PEDOLOGICAL MAPS SOIL USE CORINE LAND COVER NETWORK BASES I° LEVEL CONTAMINANTSAND BASIC PROPERTIES Typological Approach CONCENTRATION MEASURED AT REPRESENTATIVE SOIL PROFILES REGULAR GRID 18x18 o 16X16 KM – NATIONAL NETWORK 6 X 6 o 4 X 4 KM – REGIONAL NETWORK II° LEVELS CONTAMINANTS AND BASIC PROPERTIES Systematic Approach REPRESENTATIVE SOIL SELECTION (SOIL TYPE/SOIL USE COMBINATIONS) AND SITE INDIVIDUATION FOR SPECIFIC MONITORING DEGRADATION PROCESSES: PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION, URBAN SOILS CONTAMINATION PROCESSES

11. OPERATIVE STEPS AND SITES DENSITY • consolidating basic soil properties knowledge through pedological maps (see JRC Manual for Soil Database for Europe at 1:250.000 scale) • measurement of pollutants concentration in profiles most representative of STU (at least 1/250km2) • regular grid sampling, starting from 16x16 (or 18x18) km and coming through more detailed grid (8x8 and 4x4) for analysis of pollutants and basic properties • degradation processes monitoring in specific sites located on the basis of representativeness criteria (1/1000 km2)

12. NSMN MANAGEMENT • Management of NSMN will be done by regional EPA (ARPA) under supervision of national EPA (APAT) • Operative Management Unit: Region (500-5000 km2) • Each region could start soil monitoring through progressive steps, starting from basic soil properties knowledge (see JRC Manual for Soil Database for Europe at 1:250.000 scale) through regular grid and benchmark sites

13. MONITORING PARAMETERS Basic parameters: to be monitored at all sites as necessary to soil characterisation; Specific parameters: to be monitored for specific degradation processes Insensible parameters (static properties) to be monitored at the starting point as they do not change rapidly Sensible parameters (dynamic properties)to be monitored at fixed times as they could change rapidly under degradation pressures

14. NETWORK THEMES • non-point source pollution • physical degradation • biological degradation • urban soils

15. ELEMENTS TO BE DEFINED FOR EACH THEME • criteria for site selection • parameters to be measured at each site • sampling procedures • analysis procedures • data interpretation and reporting

16. Sites choice through representativeness criteria ADVANTAGES 1) Reduction of monitoring sites number 2) Exhaustive characterisation of a priori representative situations 3) Lower costs 4) Monitoring of local situations more significant for environmental impacts

17. Sites choice through representativeness criteria DISADVANTAGES 1) Heterogeneous and not exhaustive geographical covering 2) Scarce attitude to automatic representation 3) Subjectivity in sites designation 4) Risk for loss of sites representativeness

18. Monitoring sites representativeness is evaluated on the basis of: • Soil types in relation to landscapes and climate • Land Cover (Corine) • Soil type-land cover combinations • Soil degradation processes and risk for contamination

19. Soils functional behaviour in relation to main degradation processes For the definition of soil types: Taxonomic classification (FAO-USDA) Soil-Landscape and Soil-Climate relationships

20. ITALY VENETO

21. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA TO VENETO 1) Soil type Simplified ecopedological map (1:250.000 scale) for principal classes (pedoscapes, pedoclimate) 2) Land cover Corine Land Cover classes grouped by predominant type of use (pressures) 3) Soil type-cover combinations

22. Sites representativeness and soil type Simplification in terms of: • Spatial distribution • Spatial variability • Landscapes description capacity • Susceptibility to changes

23. VENETO PEDOLOGICAL MAP 1:250.000 scale

24. VENETO PEDOLOGICAL MAP SIMPLIFIED LEVEL 3

25. Seminativi non irrigui Risaie Vigneti Frutteti e oliveti Prati Colture annuali e colture permanenti Sistemi colturali complessi Terreni agrari e vegetazione naturale Territori agroforestali Foreste (latifoglie, conifere, miste) Pascoli naturali vegetazione in evoluzioni Urbano discontinuo Non suolo VENETO CORINE LAND COVER Simplified Level 3

26. Main Soil Uses Grassland and pastures Mountain Forests Cultivated valley floors Mixed systems (breeding-vineyard-forest) Hill Vineyards Orchards-vineyards Arable land Plan Grassland Urban Areas

27. Forests and pastures Grassland Arable land Arable land with orchards Arable land with grassland Arable land with vineyards Vineyards with forests VENETO SEMPLIFIED LAND COVER

28. VENETO SOIL TYPE-COVER COMBINATIONS

29. REGION Key sites Benchmark sites TOTAL REGION Key sites Benchmark sites TOTAL Abruzzo 2 15 17 Piemonte 4 37 41 Basilicata 2 14 16 Puglia 3 28 31 Calabria 3 21 24 Sardegna 4 35 39 Campania 3 19 22 Sicilia 4 37 41 Emilia-Romagna 4 31 35 Toscana 4 33 37 Friuli-Venezia G. 2 11 13 Trentino-Alto A. 3 19 22 Lazio 3 25 28 Umbria 2 12 14 Liguria 1 8 9 Valle d’Aosta 1 4 5 Lombardia 4 34 38 Veneto 3 26 29 Marche 2 14 16 Molise 1 6 7 Total 55 429 484 Approximate number of key and benchmark sites for each Italian region

30. VENETO BENCHMARK SITES (25-30) ON THE BASIS OF TYPE-COVER COMBINATIONS 1 Auronzo 2 Cordon 3 Villiago 4 Croce d’Aune 5 Asiago 6 Grappa 7 Ist. Sper. Viticoltura – Spresiano 8 Ist. Sper. Viticoltura – Susegana 9 IPSA – Piavon 10 IPSA di Castelfranco V.to 11 Montecchio Precalcino 12 Lessinia 13 Valle Vecchia 14 Ca’ Tron 15 Diana 16 Soave 17 Valpolicella 18 Berici 19 ITAS – Buttapietra 20 Ist. Sper. Tabacco – Bovolone 21 Ist. Di Genetica – Lonigo 22 Centro meteorologico – ARPAV 23 Legnaro – Univ. Padova 24 Sasse Rami 25 IPSA – Trecenta 26 Po di Tramontana 27 Pradon

31. 1 Sasse Rami 2 Legnaro 3 IPSA Castelfranco V.to 4 Lessinia 5 Cordon 5 VENETO KEY SITES (5) ON THE BASIS OF TYPE-USE COMBINATIONS 4 3 2 1

32. ITALY PIEMONTE

33. TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH LANDSCAPE UNITS MAP LAND COVER

34. SYSTEMATIC APPROACH LUCAS 18 X 18 KM

35. CONCLUSIONS Criteria for sites choice must be adjusted to each regional situation It is necessary to define more precisely: - which degradation process have to be monitored - which methodologies have to be used for each degradation process - how monitoring data have to be used