Monitoring Programme Design in Transitional and Coastal Waters - Classification Issues Dave Jowett, Coast Group Chair and NEA GIG Co-ordinator CIS Workshop Brussels April 2006

Characterisation: UK-ROI typology © Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Licence GD03135G Some features of this map are based on digital spatial data licensed from Metoc plc, Data Licence (c) Metoc plc. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Environment Agency , 2004 Source (ROI): EPA, Copyright Government of Ireland 18 Types Transitional Water Bodies = 191 Coastal 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 Pressures Transitional 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 Exposure pressures map Pressure & Impact Assessment Approach Water body risk categorisation map Sensitivity map Sensitivity High MediumLow Monitoring data (evidence of impact) Pressure 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 km 2. 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 km 2 ? 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 Nutrients

Monitoring required

Hypothetical sites

Classification

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

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 YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION