Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11912_MSDFINAL...Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit

Analysis for the MSFD:

Final Report

Appendix

February 2012

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for

the MSFD: Final Report

Appendix

This report describes expert advice to support the development of proposals for UK targets and indicators of Good Environmental Status, including an initial cost benefit analysis for the implementation of the MSFD. A large number of contributors from

the marine science community have helped with the development of these proposals, coordinated by expert panels and the Evidence Groups of the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. Significant input to this Cefas project report

(ME5405) has been provided by the HBDSEG Drafting Team and eftec.

February 2012

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Page 2 of 337

Table of Contents

Appendix 1 – Target Templates ................................................................................. 4

Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem ............................................................... 4

Descriptor 3 - Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock. ................................................................................. 10

Descriptor 5 - Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters. ......................................... 16

Descriptor 7 - Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems ..................................................................... 29

Descriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects. .................................................................................................... 36

Descriptor 9 - Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards) ............................................................................................................. 65

Descriptor 10 - Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment. .......................................................................... 74

Descriptor 11 - Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment ................................................... 89

Appendix 2 - Target-indicator template .................................................................... 96

Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species ................................................................. 96

Descriptor 3 - Commercial fish and shellfish ......................................................... 98

Descriptor 5 - Eutrophication ............................................................................... 100

Descriptor 7 – Hydrographical conditions............................................................ 102

Descriptor 8 - Contaminants ............................................................................... 104

Descriptor 9 - Contaminants in fish and shellfish ................................................ 106

Descriptor 10 - Marine litter ................................................................................. 108

Descriptor 11 - Underwater noise ....................................................................... 110

Appendix 3 - Targets and Potential Management Measures .................................. 112

Appendix 4 - Biodiversity components: species & habitat lists ............................... 113

Appendix 5 - Supporting information for the Benthic Habitats Section 3.2 ............. 115

Appendix 5A - Distribution of Benthic Habitats throughout UK waters. ............... 115

Appendix 5B - Relationship between predominant habitats, and Special (listed) habitats and EUNIS habitat classes. ................................................................... 120


Page 3 of 337

Appendix 5C - Draft Regional Seas (2009). ........................................................ 121

Appendix 5D - Summary of the possible baseline-setting and target-setting approaches ......................................................................................................... 122

Appendix 5E - Sensitivity matrix and pressure thresholds .................................. 123

Appendix 5F - Background to sensitivity matrix information ................................ 126

Appendix 5G – Rock and Biogenic Reef Habitats – Additional detail .................. 131

Appendix 5H – Sediment Habitats – Additional detail ......................................... 137

Appendix 6 - Pelagic habitats report....................................................................... 142

Appendix 7 - Birds report ........................................................................................ 157

Appendix 8 - Marine mammals report .................................................................... 172

Appendix 9 - Fish report ......................................................................................... 187

Appendix 10 - Detailed targets and indicators for each biodiversity descriptor ...... 229

Appendix 11 - CBA spreadsheets of biodiversity targets, pressures and measures: ............................................................................................................................... 230

Appendix 12 - Background information on Baseline ............................................... 234

Appendix 13 - Analysis of Impacts of Potential Management Measures ................ 251

Appendix 14 - Method and data used for estimating the economic costs of the potential management measure to ban use of mobile demersal gears (MDGs) ..... 321

Appendix 15 - Analysis of Fuel Tax Subsidies ....................................................... 327

Appendix 16 - UK Marine Valuation Studies .......................................................... 330

Appendix 17 - Note of workshop on Disproportionate Costs Analysis .................... 335


Page 4 of 337

Appendix 1 – Target Templates

Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem

There are some non-indigenous species (NIS) currently present in the marine environment and there are many examples from throughout the world of unsuccessful attempts to remove these. It therefore has to be accepted that for the most part the species already present cannot be eradicated.

GES for non-indigenous species (NIS) in UK waters can therefore best be achieved by preventing new introductions. Management-based targets should be set such that the risk from pathways and vectors which facilitate the introduction and spread of NIS have been significantly reduced. The impact from and spread of invasive alien species (IAS, a minority subset of NIS, which are demonstrated to have an adverse effect on biological diversity, ecosystem functioning, socio-economic values and/or human health) will be reduced as a consequence of this approach. This approach also allows for the fact that it is not always possible to predict which NIS will become AIS. Also, management measures will be more effective if they are applied at least at regional seas (if not international) level and so ideally they should be coordinated between Member States.

Although understanding of the main pathways and vectors of introduction are improving, a better assessment of current status is needed to provide a basis for future measures.

There is some uncertainty that targets based on implementing management measures to reduce impacts will be acceptable to the Commission.

Criterion 2.1 - Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species, in particular invasive species Indicator 2.1.1 - Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species, particularly invasive non indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species

Type of targets

It will not be possible to develop robust targets on the basis of numbers and distribution of NIS in UK waters, due to the lack of sufficiently detailed knowledge on current status that arises from the difficulty of obtaining up to date information. Such targets are also constrained by the difficulty of removing these species once they have become established in any location. There will have to be an acceptance that non-indigenous species, including invasive species, will remain in the marine environment and that new introductions will never be entirely prevented.


Page 5 of 337

Trend based targets, based on long term monitoring at high risk sites for introduction, for example selected marinas or ports, and in marine protected sites identified as vulnerable to introduction and spread of particular IAS, could be developed.

Pathway / vector management targets to prevent or at least minimise the risk of introduction of new non native species and spread of new and existing non native species should be adopted. Given that only a proportion of new species that are introduced become established and only a very small proportion of these become invasive (IAS) these measures will maximise the potential to reduce adverse impacts and associated costs.

Define the targets

Reduction in the risk of introduction of non native species through improved management of the main pathways / vectors.

o There are several generic routes which are perceived as common pathways for the introduction of non-native species into the marine environment. These are shipping, aquaculture and fisheries, recreational boating, marine industries and ship decommissioning. There is also more direct human mediated spread; this includes deliberate release (mainly live bait, live food and aquarium species) and accidental spread. Various management measures are available, particularly development of mandatory codes of practice, strengthening and better enforcement of existing legislation, including an element of increasing awareness amongst industry, government and the public of the problem, and possibly new legislation. It is recommended that a thorough review is conducted detailing

each of the pathways, together with potential methods of mitigation of the risk of introduction and spread of NIS. Some work has already been carried out in this area, e.g. for Didemnum vexillum, and so the review could build on this. This review should provide recommendations on the measures that should be implemented to significantly reduce the risk of introduction and on means of auditing compliance with these measures.

It is recommended that further public awareness campaigns, similar to the ‘Be Plant Wise’ campaign run by the GB Non Native Species Secretariat (GBNNSS) be initiated. The focus for these campaigns will emerge from the recommendations of the review detailed above.

Reduction in the incidence of severely fouled ship hulls. It is recommended that support is given to international

guidelines on this problem that have been developed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Direct monitoring for


Page 6 of 337

this target would be impractical on any scale, but trend analyses on rate of establishment of new NIS would be a proxy measure. An audit of compliance with the guidelines would also be applicable.

Trend analysis to show a reduction in the rate of establishment of new NIS. It is recommended that, where feasible, further monitoring

studies are conducted, to build on information from previous studies (see below) at high risk sites for introductions (ports and marinas) and in marine protected areas.

It is also recommended that a review is undertaken of all current marine species monitoring programmes in the UK with a view to adapting these programmes to more effectively record and report NIS, to provide data for trend analysis. It will be important to include programmes that examine all habitat types to ensure full coverage of where non-native species may occur. It is probable that some taxonomic training to aid identification on non indigenous species will be required.

It is envisaged that by better co-ordination and collation of data from existing monitoring programmes to report NIS that very little additional monitoring will be necessary to provide data for trend analysis.

It will need to be recognised that secondary spread of species present in neighbouring Member States may occur by natural dispersal.

Baseline for targets

Lack of data and full understanding of NIS in respect to abundance, distribution, introduction (vectors and timing) and ability to survive in new environments means that assessments have been limited, leading to a lack of baseline information. There is, however, some baseline information from the Aliens I and II programmes in which marinas in the UK were surveyed for NIS. Also, some further secondary spread of these species may occur due to human mediated dispersal via local vectors e.g. regional shipping, shellfish movements or via natural dispersal, facilitated by climate change. An important feature of the above recommendations is that the proposed measures act as a proxy for the Descriptor in that they will help to prevent transfer of all species and this will inevitably lead to a much lower incidence of new introductions of IAS, despite the difficulties in identifying a trend through monitoring.

Scale of targets

Any targets and/or measures introduced must be considered on a regional seas level to be fully effective. National controls in place in the UK will be less


Page 7 of 337

effective if operated in isolation, depending on the methods of introduction and international distribution of the species concerned.

Criterion 2.2 - Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species Lack of data and understanding of IAS in respect to their abundance, distribution and ability to survive in new environments and ultimately their environmental impact means that assessments have been very limited in the marine environment. It is for this reason that targets that focus on Criteria 2.1 are proposed and that the two Indicators associated with Criteria 2.2 are considered together, below.

Indicator 2.2.1 - Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups (e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs) that may provide a measure of change in species composition (e.g. further to the displacement of native species)

Indicator 2.2.2 - Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where feasible

Type of targets

Trend based targets based on the bio-pollution index may be feasible in some cases. Such targets could for example be developed from monitoring at sites of high conservation value (Marine Protected Areas). They are constrained by a limited amount of baseline data, although there is already some species monitoring in a range of programmes, including Marclim, N2K site monitoring and Water Framework Directive (WFD) Water Body Monitoring. There is also some guidance available on assessment of alien species pressures by the UK Technical Advisory Group of the WFD.

Management targets to minimise both the introduction and spread of new NIS (as a consequence this will lead to fewer introductions of IAS and so prevent the impact of these species on the environment) and as described below should be adopted.

Define the targets

Reduction in the impact of non native species through implementation of effective management measures.

o Risk assessments carried out, and species specific management measures implemented where appropriate, for all IAS identified as already present in or likely to be introduced into the UK in place by 2020. This might include control of some species by removal. Some risk assessments have been carried out by the WFD

UKTAG group and by the GBNNSS to determine the potential threat posed by non-native species currently present in GB waters. It is recommended that this process is built on and extended to cover all NIS in UK waters and, where species are


Page 8 of 337

considered as high risk, extended to suggest potential management measures, where appropriate and feasible.

It is also recommended that a horizon scanning exercise be conducted to identify potential new threats and contingency/rapid response plans developed for species indentified as at high risk of being introduced.

Application of bio-pollution index at selected sites to show a declining rate of increase of impacts.

It is recommended that “fit for purpose” indices for selected species / sites, are developed, using as a basis the bio-pollution index assessment method devised for the EU and building on current species monitoring programmes. It is likely that such work would have to be carried out at sites with long term monitoring data in order for such indices to be effective.


Lack of data and full understanding of NIS in respect of impact in new environments means that assessments have been limited, leading to a lack of baseline information. Management measures based targets may depend on early detection in order to have some chance of success.

Scale of targets

Any targets and/or measures introduced must be considered at the scale of habitats, particularly sensitive areas, usually of designated high conservation value, e.g. marine protected areas.

Evaluation

Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template.


Page 9 of 337

Criteria Targets Commission Indicator Management Measures

Indicator thresholds based on initial assessment

Prevalence of invasive non-indigenous species

Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species, in particular invasive species (2.1)

Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species, particularly invasive non indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species (2.1.1) This is the main indicator for invasive non indigenous species.

Reduction in the risk of introduction of non native species through improved management of the main pathways / vectors, including human mediated spread and ship hull fouling

Trend analysis to show reduction in the rate of establishment of new IAS

Effects of invasive non-indigenous species

Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species (2.2)

Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups (e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs) that may provide a measure of change in species composition (e.g. further to the displacement of native species) (2.2.1) AND Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where feasible (2.2.2)

Reduction in the impact of non native species through implementation of effective management measures, including reducing the risk of introduction and spread (as for 2.1.1)

Application of bio-pollution index at selected sites to show a declining rate of increase of impacts


Page 10 of 337

Descriptor 3 - Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

“Commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks” - is interpreted as applying to the finfish and Nephrops stocks currently managed within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and also stocks of fin and shellfish that would be included on the basis of their socio-economic importance. The latter comprise stocks managed within UK inshore waters (e.g. cockle, lobster) and also shared offshore stocks (e.g. crab, scallops).

Fish stock management within the CFP currently utilises “safe biological limits” within the Precautionary Approach (PA). They are defined in terms of thresholds for the upper level of fishing mortality and lower level of spawning stock (adult) biomass. Scientific evaluation of each stock’s status relative to its safe biological limits is published annually by scientific organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). With relatively minor adjustment the Precautionary Approach framework is appropriate for the definition of GES under MSFD. Apart from Nephrops stocks, which have defined safe levels, shellfish stocks would require the development and adoption of stock specific safe limits.

There is no scientific agreement on whether “exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock” can be defined. Size distribution indices have been developed to provide advice on the status of ecosystems containing a range of species and size groups, but they have not been developed for single species/stocks in isolation. Their utility for stock specific management advice and their response time following management actions is unknown. This part of the GES definition may be redundant as the protracted low rates of fishing required to achieve “safe biological limits” will invariably result in a “healthy” age and size distribution.

Types of targets

Data rich stocks

In general MSFD targets will be based on avoidance of thresholds. Two forms of threshold are currently used to define the PA safe biological limits:

1. Fishing mortality or exploitation rate thresholds – rates which exceed the thresholds will eventually reduce the stock to levels at which its reproductive potential is impaired

2. Spawning stock (adult) biomass thresholds - below which the reproductive potential of the stock is considered to be impaired

To be within the PA safe biological limits the fishing mortality imposed on the stock must be below and the spawning biomass above their respective thresholds. The status of stocks relative to their individual thresholds is reported annually by ICES.


Page 11 of 337

ICES and others are continually undertaking research into stocks which do not currently have defined thresholds and also alternative metrics (e.g. survey indices) for stocks which have limited information on the fishery and biomass.

In addition to defining the PA limits which prevent reproductive failure, ICES has also agreed stock specific targets for fishing mortality rates that are likely to achieve high levels of average yield (maximum sustainable yield, MSY). It has been suggested that achieving this lower level of fishing mortality for all stocks is equivalent to “ecosystem safe biological limits” and it is suggested that they should therefore be linked to GES. While moving towards MSY fishing mortality targets is appropriate, their use as thresholds is not currently advisable. The current values are derived on a single stock basis, they have not been calculated taking into account species interactions; for instance the maximum yield from a prey species will be dependent on the rate at which its predators are exploited.

Data limited/ data poor stocks

For the many fish stocks and the majority of shellfish stocks there are currently no agreed indices of exploitation rate and biomass status due to limited data availability. Studies are being conducted to derive the required proxy indicators and the level of their targets/thresholds but it will take time and resources to evaluate, test and agree their use for the determination of GES.

Scale of targets

The number of stocks

Stock specific targets will be required for the assessment of GES status in each sea area. For example, thresholds for the rate of fishing and the minimum spawning stock biomass for the North Sea cod are related to the productivity and geographic extent of that stock and therefore would not be suited to other cod stocks. For the UK, which utilises many fish and shellfish stocks, this could imply monitoring of a large number of GES indicators (>100), dependent on the interpretation of “all commercially exploited populations”. The list of stocks expands as less abundant, but still commercially valuable, by-catch species (e.g. lemon sole, turbot, brill) and numerous inshore shellfish stocks (cockles) are included. It is reduced by assuming that species which are caught when targeting others in mixed fisheries achieve GES when the target species achieve GES.

It is obviously both impractical and too costly to monitor all of the fish stocks exploited by UK fisheries, consequently criteria such as the following could be adopted to define stocks that will be monitored to determine GES for each fisheries region and make the process practicable:

1) GES status will be determined for predefined finfish and Nephrops stocks of importance to the UK based on ICES annual scientific advice.


Page 12 of 337

2) Other fish stocks that are caught in association with the stocks in (1) will be assumed to be at GES when specified indicator species in (1) achieve GES unless they are highlighted by scientific advice as having particular issues that require individual attention (e.g. vulnerable species such as skates and rays).

3) Eight areas with crab and lobster “stocks” that have regional differences and the major scallop stocks would have GES thresholds for exploitation rate developed and where required agreed internationally.

4) The major cockle stocks would have GES thresholds determined and monitored by the UK.

Spatial scale

The large spatial range of fish stocks, which often overlaps the Economic Zones of other Member States, ensures that information to determine GES status and management actions to achieve it will be required at the international level. Internationally agreed data sets and corresponding indicators will be required to avoid confusion and conflicting interests. Management actions to achieve GES by one Member State are unlikely to be effective for a stock with a wide geographic distribution if other fisheries do not impose similar or equivalent measures.

GES targets should be derived and applied at the scale of the stock spatial distribution. In the majority of cases for finfish this applies to the current management units. For shellfish there are management units that contain several biological stocks (e.g. Nephrops) and status will be derived for each of the specific stocks, contributing to the GES status of the management unit. This may require stronger global management action than if areas were considered in isolation, due to the requirement to protect the most vulnerable components.

Inshore shellfish stocks would be controlled to a greater extent by unilateral UK management action.

Temporal scale

Finfish and Nephrops stock management under the CFP follows an annual cycle of adjustments to the fishing mortality rate by regulating landings to achieve target levels. Current CFP management requires achievement of the fishing mortality corresponding to MSY (the likely candidate for the GES status) for managed finfish and Nephrops stocks by 2015.

Crab and lobster stock management is carried out multi-annually, during which minimum sizes and gear selection characteristics are adjusted.

Criterion 3.1 - Level of Pressure of Fishing Activity Stock specific, quantitative targets: Fishing mortality [or an agreed proxy] is at the level that is likely to achieve maximum yield in the long-term.


Page 13 of 337

Indicator 3.1.1 - Fishing mortality (F)

Type of targets

Within the CFP quantitative fishing mortality rates are currently specified as maximum thresholds below which damage to a stock’s reproductive potential is avoided and targets for achieving optimum yield from the stock. Similar stock specific criteria would be required to define GES and for many of the finfish and Nephrops stocks they could be translated directly from current management metrics. ICES provides annual advice on the status of the stocks relative to management indicators which once agreed as the basis for GES, would also establish the stock’s relative status.

There is a direct linkage between the fishing mortality targets and the SSB targets described in the next section, they must be estimated simultaneously if used together to manage a stock. For some stocks fishing mortality targets and thresholds can be used for management without biomass thresholds, and very occasionally vice versa.

If fishing mortality is at a level consistent with its target over the long-term then that should be sufficient to define GES for species where biomass estimates are impractical, for instance the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the majority of widely distributed shellfish stocks.

There are knowledge gaps concerning the current status of many stocks for instance, the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the majority of shellfish stocks. Consequently although a range of suitable fishing mortality targets can be suggested, the lack of information for many species will delay the assessment of GES for these species. The majority of the stocks would fall within the ICES remit, others the remainder (mostly inshore shellfish stocks) would require UK monitoring and determination of status.

Define the targets

Given the variability inherent in the targets and the difficulty (impossibility!) of simultaneously maintaining all stocks at their optimum target exploitation rate, a range within which the exploitation rate is maintained is considered appropriate rather than using the target values as a specific threshold.

It is proposed that the target would be the exploitation rate is within +/- x% (25%?) of the agreed management target mortality rate that will achieve long term maximum yield. Exploitation rate is used in the definition rather than fishing mortality to allow for the use of proxies.


Stocks with analytical estimates of fishing mortality:


Page 14 of 337

The agreed management plan long-term target fishing mortality/exploitation rate

The ICES estimate of Fmsy or optimum exploitation rate

Stocks without analytical estimates of fishing mortality:

An agreed proxy for exploitation rate derived from the stock age/length structure

Criterion 3.2 - Reproductive capacity of the stock Stock specific, quantitative targets: Spawning biomass [or an agreed proxy] is above the threshold that defines safe biological limits.

Indicator 3.2.1 - Spawning stock biomass (SSB)

Type of targets

Spawning stock (adult) biomass (SSB) thresholds have been used to define unsafe biomass levels in terms of reduced reproductive capacity since the introduction of the Precautionary Approach in 2005. For Nephrops stocks estimates of total stock abundance (TSB) are used. There is also the potential to use other proxies such as survey catch rates to define reference levels of spawning or total biomass.

As with the fishing mortality reference levels the current weakness of the thresholds is that they have been defined on the basis of single species stock theory, without including predator-prey interactions or linkages to ecosystem productivity; consequently they are unlikely to be stable in the long-term and will require recalculation as stocks rebuild and the balance of predators and prey change over time.

There is a direct linkage between the fishing mortality targets defined previously and the SSB targets described in this section, they are coupled and must be estimated and applied simultaneously, if used together to manage a stock.

There are knowledge gaps concerning the total size of the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the widely distributed shellfish stocks which makes estimation of a biomass threshold impractical. However, the lack of an SSB or TSB threshold should not prevent the definition of GES for a stock. If fishing mortality is at a level consistent with its target over the long-term then that should be sufficient to define GES for species where total biomass or proxy estimates are impractical, for instance the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the majority of shellfish stocks.

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target would be the spawning stock biomass / total biomass/ biomass proxy is above the agreed stock specific threshold.


Page 15 of 337


Stocks with analytical estimates of spawning/total biomass or proxies for them the base line would be the agreed, stock specific management threshold. Currently ICES uses the threshold Btrigger in association with the FMSY target value outlined in the previous section.

Criterion 3.3 - Population age and size distribution. Type of targets

Indices that track the structure of the age and size distribution of fish and shellfish stocks have been published, reviewed and have been used to provide qualitative advice on trends in the state of the ecosystem; examples are provided in the EU suggested descriptors e.g.:

1. The proportion of fish older/larger than the mean age/size of first sexual maturity

2. The mean maximum length across all species found in research vessel surveys

3. The 95th percentile of the length distribution observed in research vessel surveys

4. Size at first sexual maturation

Unfortunately, the indicators have not been evaluated for stock specific advice and the process has not been carried forward to the development of linked operational reference levels for stock/fisheries management.

The process requires further work to select and define indicators and associated reference levels that respond to changes in populations subject to fishing. Simulation studies are required to ensure that such indicators provide suitable sensitivity in the time-scales required for management and that they are robust to variation in natural processes such as recruitment variability, regional and seasonal variation in the spatial distribution of juveniles, adults, small and large species.

An area that has not been explored in detail, but is highly likely, is whether meeting criterion 3.1 and 3.2 would lead to fulfilment of 3.3 after a time lag, thereby making 3.3 redundant. This would depend on the definition of “population and age structure that is indicative of a healthy stock”.


Page 16 of 337

Descriptor 5 - Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

‘Human-induced eutrophication is minimised’ is interpreted as being the equivalent of achieving Non Problem Area status, as described in the OSPAR Common Procedure, at the scale of the sub-region.

It is widely agreed that Non-Problem Areas status is the equivalent of Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (and also Water Framework Directive (WFD) Good Ecological Status with respect to nutrient enrichment). The characteristics of good environmental status are set out in the Final Policy Position paper. On that basis, and taking account of the OSPAR Common Procedure (OSPAR Agreement 2005 -3), the WFD CIS guidance of eutrophication (CIS Guidance Document No. 23) and relevant European Case Law (ECJ, 2009), the following overall target is proposed

there should be no undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] at the scale of the (sub) region resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs.

This is in line with our current assessments under which both nutrient enrichment and accelerated growth may occur but undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms or to the quality of the water is not acceptable. This is aligned with the definition of eutrophication (UWWTD, 1991; OSPAR, 2005) and the ECJ judgement (ECJ, 2009) makes it clear that all four criteria have to be met to diagnose eutrophication.

The OSPAR Common Procedure (including Screening and Comprehensive procedures), as modified to support the MSFD, is the best available method used to diagnose the eutrophication status of the marine environment. Assessments of ecological status (resulting from nutrient pressure) in coastal waters covered by the WFD will need to be taken into account. Consideration should be to be given to the use of relevant WFD classification tools where these can be shown to be the most suitable methods available for application to the waters covered by MSFD.

Type of targets

The MSFD (Article 10) requires that environmental targets are set ‘on the basis of the initial assessment’. This implies a need to set different types of targets with respect to Non-Problem Areas (equivalent of good status) and Problem Areas. In essence, the target for Non-Problem Areas will be the maintenance of non-problem status and for Problem Areas it will be to achieve non-problem area status. In the case of Non-Problem Areas, it may be appropriate to consider pressure targets (i.e. relating to nutrient inputs) as part of a risk based approach but prudent also to collect information about environmental status (such as nutrient concentrations and


Page 17 of 337

chlorophyll) where this can be done cost effectively. In the case of Problem Areas, it is also necessary to provide indicators and targets that allow for the tracking of progress towards Good Environmental Status. It is therefore proposed to set targets for each of the Commission Criteria and the relevant supporting parameters.

The targets are quantitative and are both trend and state based. However, none of these targets, for Non-Problem or Problem areas, can be seen as stand-alone elements which should be tracked in their own right, or assessed on the basis of a one out- all out principle, as the essence of good assessment and management of eutrophication is the combination of information that allows a robust evidence based conclusion about eutrophication status.

Scale of targets

Assessment of eutrophication status is carried out on water bodies that are defined largely by physical factors such as depth, stratification and salinity. This [eco]hydrodynamic approach results in large scale [sub]regional water bodies which are the appropriate scale for target setting under MSFD. The scale equates to sub-divisions (2) of each Charting Progress region. There is, as yet, no clear way of combining assessments at the overall MSFD regional scale but consideration is being given to this as part of the discussions on co-ordination taking place through OSPAR.

Most of the Problem Areas identified in the UK are WFD transitional water bodies and therefore do not often overlap with MSFD requirements. However, there are WFD coastal water bodies that overlap with the MSFD areas that have been identified as being less than Good Status as a result of different biological quality elements and some based on nutrient concentrations alone. These will need to be taken into account in the broader scale MSFD assessments. A list of the relevant WFD water bodies is under development in liaison with the Environment Agency (not yet available).

Pressures and Risks

The risk of eutrophication depends on the presence of a relevant pressure. This is the input of anthropogenic nutrients from various land-based sources, delivered to the sea via rivers, ground water and the atmosphere [and sea-based sources, although the latter are normally relatively small at the [sub] regional scale]. As part of the risk based approach to the descriptor there is a need to monitor changes in the loading of nutrients over time, to determine whether pressure on the marine environment is increasing or decreasing.

The starting point for the management of risks due to eutrophication is the Initial Assessment (based on the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure Assessment) for this descriptor [but will also need to reflect any significant sensitivities related to other descriptors especially those related to biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food


Page 18 of 337

webs and sea floor integrity]. Eutrophication status is well established in UK waters through assessments carried out for OSPAR (published in 2002 and 2008) and assessments for the purposes of the Urban Waste Water treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The 2002 OSPAR assessment entailed a screening procedure which identified obvious non-problem areas and areas to be assessed using the Comprehensive Procedure. The outcome of this assessment was the identification of non-problem areas, potential problem areas and problem areas. Most of the problem areas were small estuaries and embayments. The UK assessment also identified some coastal non-problem areas which were of ‘ongoing concern’ due to high nutrient inputs and nutrient enrichment. These latter areas were to be subject to enhanced monitoring to increase the assessed confidence that they were non-problem areas. The second application of the Common Procedure reported in 2008, confirmed that UK marine waters were all non problem areas based on a further screening assessment, full application of the Comprehensive Procedure or assessments conducted for the purposes of the relevant directives. The pressure from nutrient inputs is decreasing in all regions apart from the southern North Sea where the pressure has remained the same.

The design of the risk approach should follow both the level of risk and the steps required to satisfy a diagnosis of eutrophication. For example, if anthropogenic nutrient pressures are present or increasing then evidence of nutrient enrichment is required; if nutrient enrichment is present or increasing then evidence of accelerated growth (elevated chlorophyll concentrations or primary production) is required; if accelerated growth is present or increasing then evidence of undesirable disturbance (e.g. changes in floristic composition) will be required. The evidence needed would differ between areas of unknown status and previously identified Problem Areas, where a full suite of relevant indicators supporting a Comprehensive Procedure assessment would be required, and Non-Problem Areas, where selected indicators would be used to demonstrate that status was being maintained. An integral part of the approach to managing risk for both problem and non-problem areas would be the use of models to both guide the application of any measures and define the extent in both space and time of monitoring required to demonstrate progress towards, or maintaining, target status. Special attention would be given to areas where one or more of the overlapping WFD coastal water bodies was at less than good status to determine the extent to which there is an impact at the larger scale.

Implications for monitoring

To be developed separately following agreement on UK indicators and targets.

Criterion 5.1 Nutrient Levels Qualitative Criterion Target: Nutrient concentrations arising from anthropogenic nutrient inputs do not lead to or pose a risk of undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] resulting from any associated accelerated growth.


Page 19 of 337

Indicator 5.1.1 - Nutrient concentration in the water column

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing nutrient concentrations (to diagnose nutrient enrichment). However, from an ecological perspective and in the context of European case law, nutrient enrichment alone is not considered sufficient to diagnose eutrophication. Therefore, although these thresholds are useful for eutrophication assessment, we should not set a specific concentration target but targets for this indicator will be based on change over time.

Data would be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme, where for Non-Problem Areas monitoring is required ‘about every 3 years in winter’ and for Problem Areas, every year. There is a need to review the current monitoring programme.

Define the targets

It is proposed, therefore, that the target for Non-Problem Areas would be no increase in the nutrient concentration resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs, assessed using data from periodic surveys and for Problem Areas a deceasing trend in nutrient concentration resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs over a [10] year period..


The baseline for the target is the current nutrient concentration (as defined in the Initial Assessment), reflecting the outcome of the Second Application of the OSPAR Common Procedure and described in Charting Progress 2 and the CSSEG Feeder Report.

Thresholds for assessment are also defined in the OSPAR Common Procedure – nutrient enrichment is defined using a threshold that is no more than 50% above an assessment area specific background concentration.

Indicator 5.1.2 - Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus), where appropriate

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to assess nutrient ratios against the Redfield ratio and is already reported for nitrogen:phosphorus ratios. It is a useful assessment parameter as part of the overall methodology but while specific targets are not proposed, information about changing ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon should continue to be collected periodically in Non-Problem Areas and every year in Problem Areas.


Page 20 of 337

Criterion 5.2 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment Qualitative Criterion Target: The direct effects of nutrient enrichment resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs do not constitute or contribute to an undesirable disturbance [adverse effects].

Indicator 5.2.1 - Chlorophyll concentration in the water column

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing chlorophyll concentration (to diagnose accelerated growth). However, setting concentration targets for water bodies would need to be type specific and, if set, would risk losing sight of the need to weigh a broader range of evidence in order to diagnose eutrophication. Therefore, we should not set concentration targets but targets for this indicator will be based on change over time.

Data would be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme where for Problem Areas monitoring is required every year. There is no requirement to monitor chlorophyll concentrations in Non-Problem Areas, though it would be prudent to do so as part of managing risk and if this can be carried out cost-effectively using, for example, remote sensing and appropriate ground-truth and if there is evidence of nutrient enrichment.

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target for Problem Areas would be a decreasing trend in the chlorophyll 90%ile in the growing season over a [10] year period [linked to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient input]. In the case of Non-Problem Areas the target would be no increase in the chlorophyll 90%ile in the growing season [linked to increasing anthropogenic nutrient inputs] based on periodic surveys, where monitoring data is available. Baseline for targets

The baseline for the target is the current chlorophyll concentration, as defined in the Initial Assessment, reflecting the outcome of the Second Application of the OSPAR Common Procedure as described in Charting Progress 2 and the CSSEG Feeder Report.

Thresholds for assessment are also defined in the OSPAR Common Procedure – elevated chlorophyll is defined as being above the region specific 90%ile threshold.

Indicator 5.2.2 - Water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant

This parameter is not currently used in our assessments of eutrophication. For UK [coastal] waters the relationship between water transparency and increased algal


Page 21 of 337

biomass is difficult to interpret because of the influence of tidally resuspended organic matter and terrestrial sources of optically active compounds that influence transparency. For these reasons, water transparency would be an ambiguous indicator. No indicators or targets are proposed.

Indicator 5.2.3 - Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae

This indicator will be relevant for intertidal and shallow sub-tidal areas of coastal waters which are already covered by the WFD. Any identified disturbance would be managed through WFD programmes of measures. Given that the geographic extent of the area covered by this indicator is relatively small, consideration will be needed to determine the weight attached to the indicator in relation to setting targets at [sub] regional scale.

Type of targets

There is sufficient quantitative information available for many water bodies and the WFD opportunistic macroalgae classification tool sets thresholds to diagnose less than good status.

Data would be derived from the relevant WFD monitoring programme1

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target [for Problem Areas] would be to achieve good status assessed using the WFD opportunistic macroalgae tool. The equivalent concept in OSPAR is to avoid ‘shifts from long lived species to short lived opportunistic species’.


The baseline for the target is the current status defined in the relevant WFD classification. The WFD opportunistic macroalgae tool sets out reference conditions.

Indicator 5.2.4 - Species shift in floristic composition such as diatom to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused by human activities

This is a critical indicator of undesirable disturbance but requires further technical development to ensure that it is fit for purpose. There are a of number starting points including the OSPAR COMPP ‘phytoplankton indicator species’ approach, the WFD

1 Reference to WFD monitoring programme


Page 22 of 337

phytoplankton tool, and various phytoplankton indices2. We have consistently rejected the simple ‘phytoplankton indicator species’ approach as there are no species that can be used as universal indicators for the plankton (though there are specific species that can be used in specific locations). The last UK application of the OSPAR Common Procedure adopted an expert judgement approach supported by the, then developing, WFD Phytoplankton Tool to assess plankton status. Scientific developments since then have pointed to a number of different approaches, of which, assessment based on life-form indices is considered to show considerable utility. In operation, the targets will require the adoption of a eutrophication relevant plankton index.

Type of targets

There is a developing body of information, particularly for coastal waters covered by the WFD, including data from long term monitoring stations and the CPR survey that can be used to address the targets set.

Define the targets

For Non-Problem Areas, the target should be that there is no trend in a eutrophication relevant plankton index that is attributable to increasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or a trend in winter nutrient ratios, and for Problem Areas the target should be that there is a trend in a eutrophication relevant plankton index that is attributable to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or a trend in winter nutrient ratios

Another possible target relating to harmful algal blooms and biotoxin events in shellfish may be appropriate, as follows. For Non-Problem Areas a target could be that there is no increase in the occurrence (frequency, spatial or temporal extent) of harmful algal blooms and biotoxin in shellfish events that is attributable to increasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, and resultant winter nutrient concentrations or nutrient ratios3and for Problem Areas that there should be a decrease in the occurrence (frequency, spatial or temporal extent) of harmful algal blooms and biotoxin in shellfish events that is attributable to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, and resultant winter nutrient concentrations or nutrient ratios

2 Development work is underway in parallel with consideration with indicators for plankton and pelagic habitat supporting Descriptors 1, 4 and 6. 3 Opinion is divided as to the usefulness of these targets based on biotoxin in shellfish events as there is evidence that there is no link to nutrient enrichment in UK waters.


Page 23 of 337

Data may be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme (with respect to Problem Areas) [and could be supplemented by information from the Continuous Plankton Recorder]. Data on the occurrence of toxin producing phytoplankters (and other harmful/nuisance species) and biotoxins in shellfish are routinely collected for coastal waters around the UK.


The baseline for the targets is the current status, as defined in the Initial Assessment and described in Charting Progress 2 and the CSSEG Feeder Report.

Some development work is required to make the plankton indices [and biotoxin related indicators] operational. Due consideration should be given to work already carried out to support WFD classifications and previous OSPAR COMPP assessments.

Criterion 5.3 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment Qualitative Criterion Target: The indirect effects of nutrient enrichment resulting from anthropogenic nutrient input do not constitute an undesirable disturbance [adverse effect].

Indicator 5.3.1 - Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass) adversely impacted by a decrease in water transparency

This indicator will be relevant for intertidal and shallow sub-tidal areas of coastal waters which are already covered by the WFD. Any identified disturbance would be managed through WFD programmes of measures. Given that the geographic extent of the area covered by this indicator is relatively small, consideration will be needed to determine the weight attached to the indicator in relation to setting targets at [sub] regional scale.

Type of targets

There is sufficient quantitative information available for many water bodies and the WFD macroalgae and seagrass classification tools sets thresholds to diagnose less than good ecological status.

Data would be derived from the relevant WFD monitoring programme.

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target [for Problem Areas] would be to achieve or maintain good status assessed using the WFD macroalgae and seagrass tools. The equivalent concept in OSPAR is ‘shifts from long lived species to short lived opportunistic species’’.


Page 24 of 337


The baseline for the target is the current status defined in the relevant WFD classification. The WFD macroalgae and seagrass tools set out reference conditions.

Indicator 5.3.2 - Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to increased organic matter4

decomposition and size of the area concerned.

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing oxygen concentration (to support a diagnosis of undesirable disturbance).

Data would be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme where for Problem Areas monitoring is required every year. There is no requirement to monitor oxygen concentrations in Non-Problem Areas though it may/would be prudent to do so if this can be carried out cost-effectively using, for example, a combination of in situ instrumentation and models.

Define the targets

The first target should be oxygen concentrations [or 5%ile] in bottom waters should remain above area specific assessment levels (which for concentrations are likely to be in the range 4 – 6 mg/l) that are related to anthropogenic input of nutrients.

The second target should be that there should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result of oxygen deficiency that are related to anthropogenic input of nutrients.

Evaluation

Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template

4 Organic matter is from increased algal biomass as a result of accelerated growth fuelled by anthropogenic nutrients. It is not organic matter from terrestrial sources (human derived or natural).


Page 25 of 337

Summary Table of Targets and Indicators for Descriptor 5. The three qualitative criterion targets and targets set for the associated indicators, taken holistically, support the overall eutrophication target - there should be no undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] [at the scale of the (sub) region] resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs. Eutrophication status is diagnosed by application of the OSPAR Common Procedure. Failure with respect to any individual indicator does not, on its own, lead to identification of eutrophication problems.

Criteria Criterion Targets (describing desired conditions)

Commission Indicator

Indicators - based on the Initial Assessment

OSPAR Area Specific Assessment level (threshold) 5

Non-Problem Area 2007/2010

Problem Area 2007/2010

5.1 - Nutrients levels

Nutrient enrichment arising from anthropogenic nutrient inputs does not lead to undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] resulting from any associated accelerated growth.

Nutrients concentration in the water column (5.1.1)

This is the main indicator for nutrient enrichment.

no increase in the assessed dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus concentration, resulting from anthropogenic nutrient input using data from periodic surveys

a deceasing trend in dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus concentration, resulting from anthropogenic nutrient input, over a [10] year period.

Elevated levels of winter DIN and/or DIP not exceeding 50% from background.

Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus) where appropriate

no specific target (information is still used in diagnosis of eutrophication)

no specific target (information is still used in diagnosis of eutrophication)

Elevated winter N/P ratio (Redfield N/P = 16)

5 Taken from HASEC 2011 Summary Record, Annex 10. Draft advice document on GES descriptor 5.


Page 26 of 337







(5.1.2)

5.2 - Direct effects of nutrient enrichment

The direct effects of nutrient enrichment resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs do not constitute or contribute to undesirable disturbance [adverse effects].

Chlorophyll concentration in the water column (5.2.1)

This is the main indicator for accelerated growth.

no increase in the chlorophyll 90%ile in the growing season [linked to increasing anthropogenic nutrient input] based on periodic surveys

a decreasing trend in the chlorophyll 90%ile in the growing season over a [10] year period [linked to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient input.]

Justified area-specific % deviation from background not exceeding 50%

Water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant (5.2.2)

No indicator proposed due to difficulty of interpretation in UK waters.

No indicator proposed due to difficulty of interpretation in UK waters.

n/a

Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae (5.2.3)

WFD opportunistic macroalgae tool at good status

Shift from long lived species to short lived nuisance species (e.g. Ulva). Elevated levels (biomass or area covered) of opportunistic green macroalgae.

Species shift in floristic composition such as diatom to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as bloom

If there is evidence of nutrient enrichment and accelerated growth then

no trend in a eutrophication relevant plankton index that is

changes in a eutrophication relevant plankton index that is attributable to decreases in anthropogenic nutrient loading,

Elevated levels of nuisance/toxic phytoplankton indicator species (and increased duration of blooms)


Page 27 of 337







events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused by human activities (5.2.4)

attributable to increases in nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or trends in nutrient ratios.

winter nutrient concentrations or trends in nutrient ratios6.

[decrease in the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and biotoxin in shellfish events that is attributable to decreases in nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or trends in nutrient ratios]

5.3 - Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment

Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment do not constitute an adverse effect (undesirable disturbance)

Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass) adversely impacted by

WFD tools (macroalgae and seagrass) at good status

Shift from long-lived species to short lived nuisance species (e.g. Ulva)

6 Further work required as indicator has not been tested in operation.


Page 28 of 337







decrease in water transparency (5.3.1)

Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to increased organic matter decomposition and size of the area concerned (5.3.2).

Oxygen [concentrations/5%ile] in bottom waters should remain above area-specific oxygen assessment levels (e.g. 4 – 6 mg/l).

There should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result of oxygen deficiency that are directly related to anthropogenic input of nutrients

Decreased oxygen levels

Lowered % saturation

ECJ (2009) European Court of Justice ruling of 10 December 2009 Case C-390/09 Commission v United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. European Court Report I-0


Page 29 of 337

Descriptor 7 - Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems

Definition of this descriptor is still open to discussion due to the lack of guidance from the earlier ICES/JRC deliberations. A potential definition (from discussion within Defra/Cefas) is:

The nature and scale of any long-term changes to the prevailing hydrographical conditions (including but not limited to salinity, temperature, pH and hydrodynamics) resulting from anthropogenic activities (individual and cumulative), having taken into account climatic or long-term cyclical processes in the marine environment, do not lead to significant negative impacts on habitats distributions or habitat functioning or on hydro-geomorphological impacts on the seabed/coastline.

Whilst many of these impacts are potentially pertinent to UK waters, it is envisioned that these are highly unlikely due to the highly naturally dynamic nature of UK waters and other regulatory mechanisms (e.g. EIA Directive, SEA Directive, Water Framework Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives, Marine Planning, Marine Licensing) used to manage anthropogenic activities and ensure that impacts are within safe environmental limits.

Type of targets

The MSFD (Article 10) requires that environmental targets are set ‘on the basis of the initial assessment’. A range of high quality quantitative records are available for key parameters (waves, tidal currents, salinity etc) from a number of established monitoring programs e.g. SmartBuoy, WaveNet, Marine Scotland Science’s coastal Long Term Monitoring network, and JONSIS, Nolso-Flugga, Fair Isle-Munken and Ellett sections which could be converted into a number of indicators. However, these tend to be spatially limited and vulnerable to budgetary changes.

At present there is insufficient information of this descriptor on which to define quantitative targets and thresholds. However, operational targets can be described that set out how GES can be met through existing regulatory mechanisms.

Any assessment of D7 should be undertaken in conjunction with other targets, especially targets for D1 - Biodiversity, D4 - Food webs and D6 – Sea floor integrity. Any anthropogenic effects relevant to D7 will be manifested as impacts on D1, D4, and D6 as well as D7 itself. A potential structure with which to assess targets under D7 is shown in Figure A1-1.

Firstly, all developments are assessed under existing regulatory mechanisms, which take into account the impacts of any change in hydrological conditions. Any assessment of change must already include cumulative effects, and should be assessed at an appropriate spatial scale under the different regulatory mechanisms.


Page 30 of 337

If appropriate guidance is given to inform the existing regulatory mechanisms it is unlikely that any further assessment would be required. Such guidance could set out what should be assessed with regard to changes in hydrographic conditions and should cover the spatial extent of any change, the volume of disturbed sediment and the modification to energy within the hydrographic regime, and could set out thresholds which would be considered as constituting significant impact. The impacts on D1, D4 and D6 should also be considered.

Figure A1-1. A potential structure with which to assess targets under D7

Scale of targets

As with the assessment of eutrophication status, hydrographic assessment is carried out on units or water bodies that are defined largely by physical factors such as depth, stratification, tidal forcing and wave exposure. This [eco]hydrodynamic approach results in large scale regional water bodies which are the appropriate scale for target setting under MSFD as local effects would be captured in site specific assessments for individual developments. One example of the potential scales of assessment is shown in Figure A1-2 delineating the OSPAR assessment boundaries. There is, as yet, no clear way of combining assessments from [eco]hydrodynamic zones into an overall assessment at the MSFD regional scale.

Spatial Extent Volume of sediment Modification of Energy

Descriptor 1 - Biodiversity Descriptor 4- Food webs Descriptor 6 – Sea floor Integrity Modification of Energy

Review under National Legislation/EIAs and existing EU Directives e.g. WFD

Physical Impacts Biological Impacts

7.1.1 Assessment required (permanent changes to Hydrographic regime)

7.2.1 Assessment required (Spatial extent of habitats impacted)

7.2.2 Assessment required (Habitat Functioning)


Page 31 of 337

There may be overlaps in the assessment in terms of Water Framework Directive (WFD) water bodies and River Basin Management Plans as riverine inputs and coastline developments could impact both WFD and MSFD, i.e. the WFD and RBMP assessments would be the inputs into a wider scale assessment under MSFD where larger geographical scale processes may occur (e.g. fronts, shelf mixing events, seasonal stratification). However, it is envisioned that WFD will capture the majority of issues associated with any impacts of developments in estuarine and coastal waters but will not capture offshore locations e.g. Dogger Bank. Regulators should ensure that any development that has far field impacts considers those impacts during the marine licensing and planning process.

Figure A1-2. Draft Eco-hydrodynamic zones in the North Sea as modelled by Cefas using GETM (pers com Dave Mills)

Criterion 7.1 - Spatial characterisation of permanent alterations Indicator 7.1.1 - Extent of area affected by permanent alterations

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for only a relatively small number of key monitoring sites with which a permanent change of hydrographic conditions could be detected. These sites may not be where potential [eco]hydrodynamic pressures or impacts may be encountered. Many sites around the UK exhibit large seasonal and annual natural variations (e.g. river


Page 32 of 337

estuaries, frontal regions associated with either seasonally stratified regions or permanent fronts as well as deep water pumping onto the UK continental shelf) which will need to be differentiated from anthropogenic impacts. Multi -decadal numerical model hindcast datasets may enable annual and climate trend signals to be differentiated from anthropogenic signals.

Data would be derived from a variety of sources including ICES, regional observation systems such as North West Shelf Operational Oceanographic System (NOOS) and national data-centres (including the commercial sector e.g. Oil & Gas and renewables) and would be integrated using a systematic approach such as the EMECO tool (www.emecodata.net).

Define the targets

High Certainty of achieving GES Developments above specific disturbance thresholds (e.g. spatial extent, volume of disturbed sediment, modification of energy / hydrographic regimes) would require a more detailed assessment of the area of permanent hydrographic alteration. Due to uncertainties in data, specific thresholds have not been set at present. Further work will be required to define these levels.

Probable Certainty of achieving GES All developments must comply with the existing UK regulatory regime and guidance should be followed to ensure that regulatory assessments are undertaken in a way which ensures the full consideration of any potential cumulative effects at the most appropriate spatial scales to ensure GES is not compromised.


The baseline for the target will need to be assessed both spatially and temporally due to the large natural variability of physical oceanographic processes and parameters.

Thresholds for assessment are not defined in the OSPAR Common Procedure with the exception of Oxygen deficiency in Category III.1. These thresholds would need to be developed and could be potentially assessed as exceeding at 5% or 95% annual average.

Criterion 7.2 - Impact of permanent Hydrographic changes Indicator 7.2.1 - Spatial extent of habitats affected by the permanent alteration

Type of targets

Whilst at first review this indicator is straight forward, closer investigation uncovers a number of issues. Note in this context a habitat is defined as a physical habitat e.g. substrate, tidal flow, temperature, etc, rather than either a distinct biotope or a succession of biotopes. Firstly, only approximately 10%


Page 33 of 337

of the UKCS has been surveyed in sufficient detail to establish a benthic baseline. The remainder of the seabed has been predictively modelled to produce large scale habitat maps. Secondly, very few sites (only localised areas such as a handful of aggregate extraction sites and Lundy (?)) have underdone repeated survey to determine the variability in the de-lineation of the boundaries between habitats. Thirdly, distinguishing impacts from a reference site may take several years to identify. This indicator overlaps with indicator 6.1.2 - Extent of seabed significantly affected by human activities for different substrate types. For these reasons, an operational target is most appropriate.

Define the targets

High Certainty of achieving GES Developments above specific disturbance thresholds (e.g. spatial extent, volume of disturbed sediment, modification of energy / hydrographic regimes) would require a more detailed assessment of the spatial extent of habitats affected by permanent hydrographic alteration. Due to uncertainties in data, specific thresholds have not been set at present. Further work will be required to define these levels.



The baseline for the target is the current JNCC UKSeaMap 2010 which combines both observations and predictive modelling. The Cefas EARS (Environment Assessment References Stations (see http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/alsf/projects/mitigation-and-management/08p75.aspx) for coarse substrates also provides a framework for establishing local versus climatic or cyclical changes. Similar reference sites would be established for the pelagic ecosystem.

Indicator 7.2.2 - Changes in Habitats, in particular the functions provided (e.g. spawning, breeding and feeding areas and migration routes of fish, birds and mammals), due to altered hydrographical conditions.

Type of targets

Whilst at first review this indicator is straight forward, closer investigation uncovers a number of issues. Note in this context a habitat is defined as a


Page 34 of 337

physical habitat e.g. substrate, tidal flow, temperature, etc, rather than either a distinct biotope or a succession of biotopes. Firstly, only approximately 10% of the UKCS has been surveyed in sufficient detail to establish a benthic baseline. The remainder of the seabed has been predictively modelled to produce large scale habitat maps. Secondly, very few sites (only localised areas such as a handful of aggregate extraction sites and Lundy (?)) have underdone repeated survey to determine the variability in the de-lineation of the boundaries between habitats. Thirdly, distinguishing impacts from a reference site may take several years to identify. This indicator overlaps with indicator 6.1.2 - Extent of seabed significantly affected by human activities for different substrate types. For these reasons, an operational target is most appropriate.

Data would be derived from the National mapping initiatives including SEAs, site specific EIA monitoring and targeted UK Government funded programmes e.g. CSEMP

Define the targets

High Certainty of achieving GES Developments above specific disturbance thresholds (e.g. spatial extent, volume of disturbed sediment, modification of energy / hydrographic regimes) would require a more detailed assessment of the functioning of habitats affected by permanent hydrographic alteration. Due to uncertainties in data, specific thresholds have not been set at present. Further work will be required to define these levels.



No specific baseline for seabed functioning of various habitats exists and as such any target will probably be determined using ecosystem models. These models are presently being used to establish long-term variability with 25 and 50 year hindcasts runs which could be used to establish a baseline (having taken into account natural variability).

Evaluation Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.


Page 35 of 337

MSFD GES indicator assessment template.

Implications for Monitoring A detailed methodology for measuring these targets is a major challenge. There is an inbuilt tension between requiring the developers to undertake monitoring of their own construction and beyond their impact zone in order to develop a wider regional context. Funding for UK Government programmes in order to establish a regional context is under major pressure and there is unlikely to be major changes in funding. Further work will be required to define a monitoring programme but this should be based on existing long-term datasets. Thus, it is proposed to “adopt” a number of key programmes (see non exhaustive sample list below) as sentinels for hydrographic monitoring. Consideration should be made for the use of remote sensing and also the use of numerical models as tools in the assessment process. Technological solutions may provide a solution through the use of gliders, Ferryboxes and passive water samplers.

Quality approved data from localised monitoring / assessment by developers combined with standard national programmes funded by government and other sources such as remote sensing, international programmes and numerical models would be integrated using tools such as EMECO at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales.

Examples of existing Long-term Hydrographic time-series:

AFBINI transects; Cefas Harwich line, SmartBuoy and WaveNet; Met Office MAWS buoys, Marine Scotland Science - JONSIS line (N. Sea; since 1972) and Fair Isle-Munken and Nolso-Flugga lines (Faroe-Shetland Channel; since 1903), Extended Ellet line, Stonehaven/Loch Ewe ecosystem monitoring stations, coastal Long Term Monitoring network; SAMS Tiree passage; PML Western Channel Observatory.


Page 36 of 337

Descriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

Concentrations of contaminants are assessed using toxicologically-derived limit values, such as Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) developed by the EU for Water Framework Directive purposes or Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) developed within OSPAR for use within their Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) and Co-ordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP). Member States may also have set national EQSs for other compounds of importance in their own waters. As not all contaminants will (or can) be measured, techniques which detect the biological effects resulting from contaminant exposure, assessing both exposure to specific contaminants, those with common modes of action, and broad scale impacts, can be deployed to detect pollution effects. ICES/OSPAR have developed assessment criteria for a number of biological effects methods, based upon ranges corresponding to background, exposed and possibly deleteriously affected (ICES WGBEC, 2010, 2011; ICES/OSPAR SGIMC 2010, 2011). Suites of chemical and biological methods which allow cause/effect relationships to be established are being developed (within the ICES Working Group on the Biological Effects of Contaminants; WGBEC and the joint ICES/OSPAR Study Group on Integrated Monitoring of Contaminants and Biological Effects; SGIMC) to facilitate an integrated approach to OSPAR monitoring in the future. As outlined in the Commission Decision, progress towards GES will depend on whether pollution is progressively being phased out, i.e. the presence of contaminants in the marine environment and their biological effects are kept within acceptable limits, so as to ensure there are no significant impacts on, or risk to, the marine environment.

The SGIMC 2011 have suggested a means by which data for a range of chemical and biological effects measurements may be integrated and used in the assessment of GES for Descriptor 8 (see Appendix 1. This approach is currently being tested prior to implementation in the Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme (CSEMP) using data gathered previously. Measurements of various parameters in various environmental matrices at various stations can be progressively summarized into simple visual representations of status at different degrees of data aggregation. At the highest level, data for both contaminant concentrations and their effects can be represented at MSFD sub-regional level by a single three colour “traffic light”. The critical boundary for GES assessment should be the green – red boundary, representing comparisons with EACs and/or EQSs. GES could be expressed as some high percentage compliance with this boundary. 100% compliance is impractical, as it amounts to a “one out all out” approach, and is therefore highly susceptible to perturbations by a small number of errors in sampling, analysis or data handling, or occasional short term variations in environmental quality. 95% compliance at the highest level of data aggregation would be an appropriate threshold level for GES compliance.


Page 37 of 337

Type of targets

The MSFD (Article 9) requires that environmental targets are set “on the basis of the initial assessment”. Within WFD monitoring, initial assessments have already been made and findings within coastal and transitional waters will help to identify individual compounds which may be of concern under MSFD as they exceed Environmental Quality Standards and so have the potential to exert effects further offshore; within CP2 some mixture effects were addressed through bioassay monitoring. Results from atmospheric monitoring on land may also help to identify other compounds which will be deposited in offshore areas and so also may be of concern. Measures to control terrestrial sources (e.g. direct discharges and riverine inputs) of contamination are likely to be taken under WFD and related Directives rather than MSFD. An integrated programme of chemical and biological effects

Documents

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=11912_MSDFINAL...Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the