CIS - Project 2.4 Transitional and Coastal Waters Den Haag Summary 1 Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom

Where are we? We are different points North Sea states….. Please be patient with ‘The Rest’

Summary Are we using the same optional factors in Annex II? No - but there is common ground (some MSs are using some same factors)

Why? Because there are different optional factors which drive biology depending on complexity of coastline Belgium / Germany - salinity alone may define types. For coastal water systems, other factors (exposure, depth range, tidal range etc.) are all equal. Accept that salinity is enough to distinguish types in this situation

UK / Ireland / France Norway Still using larger numbers of Annex II factors (depth, substratum, exposure, current velocity, salinity, mixing) Norway Norway is using integrators of these (physiographic/ shape integrates - exposure, substratum, depth, mixing etc)

How can we achieve a common framework for typology? In the first instance - by using the factors in the same way so that terms (e.g. micro, meso, macro tidal mean same thing in different MSs.

Proviso MSs need to go back and test this guidance Use factors most applicable to your own situation MSs may then go into more detail if necessary MSs may aggregate types if testing shows there is no biological difference in their circumstance

How might we use mandatory & optional factors? Use system A ranges where they are given OK - maybe we can improve?

Mean / Median Salinity Broad agreement for system A i.e. freshwater < 0.5 oligohaline 0.5 - <5 mesohaline 5 - <18 polyhaline 18 - <30 euhaline 30 - <40 Remember the provisos 3&4!!

Mean predicted (from tables) spring tidal range We can do better than system A! <1 microtidal 1-5 mesotidal >5 macrotidal

Predominant substratum composition 4 sub-divides Hard (rocks, boulders, cobbles) Sand / gravel Muds Mixed sediment (gravels, sands, muds, poorly sorted) Use this by Assign %age to each ‘arbitrary’ water body

Depth & shallow = <30 metres deep = >30 - …….. In estuaries % Intertidal area >50% <50%

Exposure Exposed (western sea board) Sheltered (bays, loughs etc sheltered from prevailing winds) Moderately exposed (the rest) Agreed that 3 enough but… Needs some thought - some better definition (fetch, openness & seabed profile)

Why move away from physiographic types? Comparability may be more difficult Not as reliable as we thought (UK)

Current velocity (not residuals - from tidal stream atlas) <1 knot (50cms /sec) - weak 1-3 knots - moderate >3 knots - strong

Residence time Days weeks months

Mixing Fully mixed Partly Mixed (in time or space) Stratified

Environmental data set - analysis Open coast Estuary Bay Island Strait Lagoon

Ecological data set - analysis Open coast Estuary Bay Island Strait

How do we describe types? Exposed, hard, deep Sheltered, muddy, deep Moderately exposed, reduced salinity, muddy, shallow

Consequences of this approach... Larger number of types than we thought but… Comparability across MSs with similar coastlines which will aid intercalibration Simplify as necessary to meet objectives and retain commonality Identify similar types between MSs and ensure co-operation where appropriate

Consequences….. Transitional / coastal boundary not so important - can be left to MSs if we use the factors in the same way All Member States can demonstrate how they are using the factors Need to discuss with Commission

Next steps in typology…. Incorporate this output into guidance Each MS do typology using factors as specified Identify MSs who need to co-operate (essential for North Sea MSs with neighbouring coastlines, or UK/ROI/France, or Norway/Sweden, Norway/Scotland etc.) Refine or simplify types as appropriate (2002) - agree a follow up.

Working Groups Go back and look at Annex II factors and how to use them or identify volunteers to check on appropriate use (exposure)

Hierarchical approach - coastal Mandatory factors Salinity Tidal range Ecoregion (lat / long) Optional factors (primary physical dividers) exposure depth other factors as appropriate ecologically relevant physical typology

Hierarchical approach - transitional (estuaries in NE Atlantic) Mandatory factors (not hierarchical) Salinity Tidal range Ecoregion (lat / long) Optional factors (primary physical dividers) mixing intertidal area residence time other factors as appropriate ecologically relevant physical typology

Keep it simple Pragmatism Sensible Practical Realistic Logical Systematic Orderly Keep it simple

Purpose of WFD - Marine Prevent further deterioration Protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems (including terrestrial and wetlands) Reduction of priority substances Phasing out of priority hazardous substances Protection of territorial and marine waters

Conclusions What is a red herring? Are categories a red herring? Aren’t Dutch toilets terrific?

Conclusions…. We are making progress towards our objective simple a typology as possible that is ecologically relevant common framework for typology Steering away from 30-40 types, OK if neighbours agree on similar types

Conclusions We are developing a common understanding of everything water bodies, types, categories and each other’s coastlines The process is as useful as the final outcome

Action Points - Project Leaders Circulate slides for end of meeting Reflect discussions in minutes of meeting to be forwarded to HH for Guidance Summarise main points for Baltic & Med workshops to follow Discuss transitional / coastal with Commission Sort out Circa access problems

Typologists Go back and do typology / discuss approach within Member States Come back in January (through WG members) with comments to enable finalisation of guidance by March

Thank you to Netherlands and Jannette