Monitoring Programme Design in Transitional and Coastal Waters -

Classification Issues

Dave Jowett, Coast Group Chair and NEA GIG Co-ordinator

CIS Workshop Brussels 27-28 April 2006

Characterisation:UK-ROI typology

© Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Licence GD03135G0019. 2004.Some features of this map are based on digital spatial data licensed from Metoc plc, Data Licence 012004.005 (c) Metoc plc.

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Environment Agency 100026380, 2004

Source (ROI): EPA, Copyright Government of Ireland

18 TypesTransitional Water Bodies = 191Coastal Water Bodies = 576

Source (ROI): EPA, Copyright Government of Ireland

Southampton Water

Beaulieu River

Solent

Isle of Wight East

Chichester Harbour

Portsmouth

Harbour Langstone

Harbour

Coastal Type 3 Sheltered Mesotidal

Lymington

Coastal Type 5 Mod-exposed,

mesotidal

Transitional Type 4 Well mixed,

mesotidal, extensive intertidal

Blackwater Lagoon

Transitional Type 6 Transitional lagoon

Southampton

Portsmouth

Newport

UK Significant PressuresTransitional and Coastal Waters

� Nutrients� Organic Enrichment� Hazardous Substances� Catchment Abstraction� Morphological Alterations � Aquaculture � Industrial Abstraction� Alien Species

R. Blythe

Waste water treatment

Treated sewage discharge

Seaweed mats

Elevated nitrogen in water

Activity

Source pressure

Exposure pressure

Impact

Pressure & Impact Assessment Approach: e.g. Nutrients

Source Pressure/Activity map

Exposurepressures map

Pressure & Impact Assessment Approach

Water body riskcategorisation map

H M LM M LL L N

Sensitivity map

SensitivityHigh Medium Low

Monitoring data (evidence of

impact)

Pre

ssu

re High

Moderate

Low

Implications for monitoring?� Consideration of Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE)� Outside AZE Good Status Achieved� Problem with cumulative pressures� Set a spatial impact threshold above which GES

is compromised� Ensures impacts from all industrial sectors

assessed at the same scale� For physical pressures may lead to Heavily

Modified Water Body designation

Spatial Considerations: Zone of Impact

High ecological status

Good ecological

status

Moderate ecological

status

Zone of impact 0.5 km2. Not separately identified as water

body.

Water body downgraded good to moderate, due to near-shore

impact zone.

Good ecological potential

Poor ecological Potential

Question?� Do we allow a common agreed area of impact

before GES is compromised?� 0.5 km2?� Could adopt a % area approach� Should the maximum allowed area of impact

be single area or cumulative area?� Is this being considered in Member States

classification rules?

Planning Assumptions for England and Wales

Example

Grey Havens

RingloEstuary

Maintenance dredging

Aggregate extraction

Recorded EQS failure (TBT)

Consented discharge

Shoreline reinforcements

Water body boundary

Key

BelfalasPort

Nutrients

Monitoring required

Quality Elements

Mai

nten

ance

dre

dgi

ng

Agg

rega

teex

trac

tion

Sho

re r

ein

for-

cem

ent

Haz

ard

ous

sub

stan

ces

Nu

trie

nts

Tri

bu

tylt

in

Mon

itor

Ecological Q.E.sPhytoplankton XMacroalgae X XSeagrass X X XSaltmarsh X X XBenthic invertebrates X X X X XPhysico-chemical Q.E.sNutrients XTemperatureDissolved oxygenSalinityAnnex VIII substances XHydro-morphological Q.E.sSeabed structure & substrate X X X XDepthWater chemistryAnnex IX substances X X XAnnex X substances X X

Hypothetical sites

Acceptedzone ofeffect

Maintenance dredging

Aggregate extraction

Recorded EQS failure (TBT)

Consented discharge

Shoreline reinforcements

Water body boundary

Key

Macroalgae

Benthic inverts

- dogwhelk

Seagrass

Seabed

Water quality

Monitoring points

Classification

Waterbody Classification Multiple Sites - “One out all out” or “average”?

Waterbody “X”QE Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 OOAO AV

Inverts

Phytoplankton

Macroalgae

Angiosperms

Fish

Overall

Consequences

� The status maps are coloured differently by MSs on the same data

� One instigates a Programme of Measures where another doesn’t

� Which means SOMEBODY spends money when another doesn’t!

Summary

� Waterbodies are selected for either surveillance, operational monitoring or both

� Quality elements to be monitored (operational) are derived from the risk assessments

� Monitoring sites are established based on the numbers of pressures and size of the waterbody

� Question - How are quality elements classified? “One out all out” or an “average”?

� Final classification IS “one out all out”� What do we agree?

THANK YOUFOR YOUR

ATTENTION