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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. 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

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

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

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

11. 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

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

13. 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)

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

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

16. Residence time
Days
weeks
months

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

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

19. Ecological data set - analysis
Open coast
Estuary
Bay
Island
Strait

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

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

25. 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

26. 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

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

28. 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

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

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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. Thank you to Netherlands and Jannette