Appendices Contents · Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay Sea Lettuce Literature review. 2013...

1

Appendices

ContentsD1. Appendices for Deliverable 1 ..................................................................................................4

1.1 Overview of historic water quality issues.............................................................................4

1.2 Review of macroalgal blooms..............................................................................................9

1.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................9

1.2.2 Assessing excessive growth of opportunistic macroalgal mats ...................................10

1.2.3 Assessing percentage cover .......................................................................................10

1.2.4 Assessing macroalgae biomass ..................................................................................11

1.2.5 Assessing adverse environmental effects...................................................................11

1.3 European Environmental Directives for eutrophication .....................................................11

D2. Appendices for Deliverable 2 ................................................................................................13

2.1 St Aubin’s Bay – Water Framework Directive Outcomes....................................................13

2.2 Case Study 1 - Newtown Harbour......................................................................................16

2.2.1 Background ...............................................................................................................16

2.2.2 Issues ........................................................................................................................16

2.2.3 Outcomes..................................................................................................................18

2.3 Case Study 2 - Portsmouth Harbour, UK ............................................................................20

2.3.1 Background ...............................................................................................................20

2.3.2 Issues ........................................................................................................................20

2.3.3 Outcomes..................................................................................................................20

2.4 Case Study 3 - Langstone Harbour .....................................................................................21

2.4.1 Background ...............................................................................................................21

2.4.2 Issues ........................................................................................................................22

2.4.3 Outcomes..................................................................................................................23

2.5 Case Study 4 - Chichester Harbour ....................................................................................26

2.5.1 Background ...............................................................................................................26

2.5.2 Issues ........................................................................................................................27

2.5.3 Outcomes..................................................................................................................27

2.6 Data used in Chichester Harbour assessment ....................................................................28

2.7 Supporting evidence as used in the UK WFD assessment of the weight of evidence approach ......................................................................................................................................29


3.1 Consent requirements for STWs and discharges ................................................................30

3.2 UWWTD designation and selection of TN flows. ................................................................32

3.3 Regulatory Road Map........................................................................................................32

3.4 Data holdings ....................................................................................................................39

2

3.5 Master Database. ..............................................................................................................42

3.6 Summary and mapping of data..........................................................................................42


4.1 A brief overview of the history of investigation, monitoring and regulation of nutrient pressures affecting St Aubin’s Bay ................................................................................................43

4.2 States of Jersey reports and monitoring of nutrient pressures and effects on St Aubin’s Bay.45

4.3 Comments by the Cefas review on previous recommendations. ........................................46

4.4 Sediment sampling methodology ......................................................................................48

4.5 References – Jersey studies...............................................................................................51

4.6 Additional sources of information .....................................................................................55

4.7 Additional data provided during review.............................................................................55

3

Table and Figures

Figure 2-1: Decision-tree illustrating the criteria determining the different ecological status classes.14

Figure 2-2: Location of Newtown Harbour and monitoring sites........................................................17

Figure 2-3: Source apportionment for Newtown Harbour..................................................................18

Figure 2-4. Relative changes with respect to the baseline run for the Langstone Estuary model........24

Figure 2-5: Modelling of wet weight weed in response to different management permutations. ......28

Table 1-1: Timeline summary of main reports delivered to State of Jersey on Water Quality issues............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.6

Table 2-1: Summary of the chemical and ecological status for each pressure indicator based on the results obtained from the St Aubin’s Bay monitoring programme.....................................................14

Table 2-2. DAIN and DAIP loads to the Langstone Estuary.................................................................22

Table 2-3: Change in predicted average seasonal values of N, P, and chlorophyll in the Langstone model with a range of reductions to nutrient loads (note N & P are reduced at the same time). Values are % relative to Baseline. ................................................................................................................23

Table 2-4: Model ratios of Annual offshore N to total N (%) along with the direct (riverine) and offshore total annual loads for Langstone Harbour. ..........................................................................24

Table 2-5: Model ratios of Annual offshore P to total P (%) along with the direct (riverine) and offshore total annual loads for Langstone Harbour. ..........................................................................24

Table 2-6: WFD Chlorophyll standards. .............................................................................................25

Table 2-7. Results of the observations and model macroalgal density with respect to the WFD standard...........................................................................................................................................25

Table 3-1: Summary of datasets reviewed in current assessment. ....................................................39

Table 4-1: Table of the States of Jersey water quality data provided to Cefas for assessment ………….56

4

D1. Appendices for Deliverable 1

1.1 Overview of historic water quality issues

This section summarises some of the existing documentation around Jersey’s water quality issues, specifically nutrients and their impact on St Aubin’s Bay. Providing a historical overview of the work undertaken and a short summary of how this knowledge can provide recommendations and appropriate assessments for future work. The reports reviewed go back to 1981 to the current day as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1-1: Timeline summary of main reports delivered to State of Jersey on Water Quality issues

timeline Date Company Project1993 September 1993

CREH Assessment of bacteriological quality of bathing

waters and land drainage to the coastal zone during bathing season

1994 1994 BGS Nitrate in Jersey’s groundwater: results of unsaturated zone pore water profiling

1995 March 1995 CREH Further assessment of non-outfall sources of bacterial indicator organisms to the coastal zone of the Island of Jersey.

1996 1996 BGS Groundwater resources degradation in Jersey: Socio-economic impacts and their mitigation

1997 November 1997

CREH Trophic status of St Aubin’s Bay

1997 October 1997

CREH Trace element chemistry of modern and archaeological limpet shells from Jersey and environs.

1997 June 1997 CREH Stream water quality of the Island of Jersey1998 1998 BGS The Jersey Groundwater Study2000 2000 BGS The water resources of Jersey

2000 January 2000 CREH Evaluation of the Fort Regent storm retention scheme in relation to fecal indicator loading and bathing WQ.

2001 Oct 2001 University of Plymouth Nitrates and phosphates in Jersey surface waters – sources and land management strategies. (4-year study)

2001 2001 BGS The State of Jersey Groundwater2004 February 2004

Ecoscan An assessment of water quality objectives.

2004 January 2004 CREH Water quality objectives and water catchment management on the Island of Jersey.

2006 April 2006 CREH Assessment of surface water quality at SSSIand Plemont, St Brelade and waterworks valley catchments

2008 March 2008 PML Applications An investigation into the causes of the odour at West Park beach, St Aubin’s Bay, Jersey."

2009 December 2009

CREH Reassessment of the Trophic status St Aubin’s Bay (Interim report).

2009 October 2009

PML Applications A review of the ecological status of the SE Jersey RAMSAR site.

2009 March 2009 Planning dept. The Water Code (Jersey)2010 June 2010 Ecoscan Quinquennial review of Jersey flowing waters

(2005 – 2009).

5

2010 2010 Marcon Divast model of St Aubin’s Bay hydrography (mentioned but I can’t see a report?)

2012 April 2012 Marcon Proposed sewage treatment works renewal feasibility studies: Modelling Stage 1 –Hydrodynamics.

2012 January 2012 WCA environment Scoping study to define the status of St Aubin’s Bay according to WFD:- Modelling – Stage 1

2013 December 2013

Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay loading Study.

2013 October 2013

Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay Sea Lettuce Literature review.

2013 August 2013 Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay winter and spring 2013 water quality monitoring report.

2014 November 2014

Atkins Challenges for the water environment of Jersey.

2014 October 2014

DoE report What causes green tides? A comparison between Brittany and Jersey

September 2014

DOE/Ifremer Minuets – meeting between DoE and Ifremer (France)

2015 March 2016 Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay – Ulva studies 2014-2015.

2015 November 2015

WCA environment The environmental status of St Aubin’s Bay, Jersey according to the requirements of the WFD."

2015 July 2015 Cascade Consulting Review of available historic freshwater and marine data from St Aubin’s Bay and surrounding areas.

2017 November 2016

DoE/Atkins Water Management Plan for Jersey.

Background: There is a significant history and legacy of nitrates in Jersey’s groundwater and surface waters. Subsequently work commissioned by the State of Jersey focuses on and around the Sewage treatment catchment loads entering St Aubin’s Bay, which receives nutrients from the following sources:

Freshwater streams draining into the Bay, transporting nutrients from urban and agricultural land.

Road drains and urban run-off, particularly from St Helier area. Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Works (STW) - treated effluent discharges. Possible overflow (Fort Regent Cavern) and other Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO’s). Mineralisation from sediments (largely un-reported or monitored). Marine water brought into the Bay by the tide from further out to sea. Marine sources include the wider marine environment, including regional inputs into the Bay

of St Malo.

Research has shown that Jersey’s untreated water resources have some of the highest concentrations of nitrate in Europe: with approximately half of all samples taken from either surface or groundwater exceeding the threshold of 50 mg/l nitrate. This compares to about 3% of surface water and 15% of groundwater samples exceeding 50 mg/l of nitrate in the countries of the EU1.

1 Water Management Plan for Jersey 2017 – 2021 - The WMP is based on an integrated water management planning approach, with all stakeholders working together towards a common goal to achieve improvements in water quality through sustainable management.

6

Historic land use has resulted in high nitrate levels in groundwater, as groundwater comprises 60% of the Island stream base flow, therefore contributing to the nitrates entering into St Aubin’s Bay2.

Nutrient losses from agriculture and high groundwater concentrations are well correlated, although agriculture represents 50% of land use it is not solely responsible for elevated nutrient levels in St Aubin’s Bay, which is a combination of direct (treated sewage effluent) and diffuse (agricultural) loads.

The CREH work carried out between March 1997 to May 2001 provides one of the main studies into water catchments and water flow in relation to nutrients entering St Aubin’s Bay. This report contains details on farming Best Management Practices, including activities around cattle rotation and effective use of fertilisers in agriculture. In 2001 CREH recommended limiting the discharge certificate of Bellozanne STW to maximum 15mg/l total nitrogen (whilst the population remains below 100,000), as specified in UWWTD. The WQO (Water Quality Objectives) report, completed in 20043, assessed compliance to all relevant legislation and produced an access database with a GIS interface (which highlighted data gaps at that time).

University of Plymouth (2001) reported on the sources and land use management strategies to control losses of nitrates and phosphates from agriculture to surface waters on Jersey and focused primarily on losses from cropping systems. This research was commissioned to fulfil the recommendation of the then Nitrate and Pesticide Working Party (now Action for Cleaner Water Group) to investigate the relationship between agricultural practices and nitrates in water. The elevated nutrient concentrations come from agricultural, domestic and natural sources and requires a fully integrated approach for reducing nitrates in drinking water, river and coastal systems.

The PML report in March 2009 has an extensive list of recommendations around these impacts and provided a good set of references with imagery of H2S production by bacterial mats in dead and decaying macroalgae and sediments. The PML report of the Ramsar site (Oct. 2009) was commissioned to assess the current ecological status of the Ramsar site located on the SE Jersey Coast. It details the ecological significance of migratory birds and seagrass beds found in the Ramsar site. The report provides a few recommendations, with the main one being to monitor the effects of extensive epiphytic growth on the Zostera beds.

The Cascade study (2013) was commissioned by the States of Jersey DfI (formally Transport and Technical Services Department) to assess the relative contributions and nutrient loads into St Aubin’s Bay from both freshwater and marine sources. It follows the source-pathway-receptor approach currently being adopted more broadly by the Department of Environment under their integrated catchment management initiative. Outputs of the study support decision making regarding the proposed renewal of the Bellozanne STW.

The “Cascade” report use the “Marcon” DIVAST 2D model (2012). This Marcon model report has provided a useful starting/reference point for the development of a coastal growth model. This model used the UKHO tides, Cascade ADCP data and some drogue studies by Partrac Ltd. to validate their model. The tides and current speeds were well predicated but the prediction of current direction did not perform well, especially at spring tides.

The Cascade Consulting literature (2014) review of Ulva offers many examples of other places with similar issues, however it does not refer to the modelling applied to UK estuaries (e.g. Poole,

2 A series of reports by the British Geological Survey (BGS) focused on the issues around groundwater. The early report (BGS, 1991) reported on the groundwater resources of Jersey. The following BGS report (1994) measured nitrate in groundwater pore water from boreholes.3 CREH (2004). Water Quality Objectives and Water Catchment Management on the Island of Jersey, Centre for Research and Environment and Health, University of Wales.

7

Langstone and Chichester Harbours etc.) which have had major opportunistic algae issues (some are on-going). It does refer to the preferential ammonium uptake of Ulva and that sediments can be a source of nutrients and may be an influence on the kick start of the bloom.

The Cascade “Ulva studies report 2014-2015” provided useful data to prime and test a model on the growth of the algae. The report also recommended further studies in the source of overwintering population, some growth rate studies, a water quality sonde deployed in the bay, more nutrient sampling offshore to quantify external sources and the role of organic material captured in sediments. These are all recommendations that would provide what is required for a full working model. The recommendations on the use of stable isotopes and DNA tracers to pinpoint nitrogen sources in the algae are also interesting but not seen as crucial for the application of a model.

Further reports focused on the area impacted by the macroalgae and the extent of the bloom. This work also investigated the negative impacts that the large biomass of macroalgae could have on the underlying system.

WCA in 2015 reports on the water quality of St. Aubin’s Bay in relation to WFD criteria. The final report is thorough and reports on the adequacy of the monitoring programme designed by WCA specifically for WFD implementation after an initial scoping study in 2012. Discussion on the WFD requirements and the outcomes of these early assessment can be found in section 1.4.2.

The minutes from the meeting between DoE and Ifremer (Sept 2014) raises some interesting discussion points. Ifremer reported that the only long-term solution to reduce the green tides is by reducing the catchment inputs. In the interim, they remove vast quantities by bulldozer to deal with the large biomass problems occurring every year. The French reportedly have a working model to forecast Ulva growth, but this has proved not to be reliable; because it requires all parameters that cause growth, which is not realistically quantifiable, therefore making green tides difficult to predict.

The French have tried other interesting solutions, such as removing overwintering fragments of Ulvaby filtration to try to reduce the starting population for next year. Unfortunately, the filters blocked too easily and this process removes other phytoplankton too. Modelling used on Locquirec Bay (France) predicted that to reduce Ulva biomass by 40% would take a reduction of nitrate to 5 mg/l in water discharging from the river mouth4.

That meeting was closely followed by an internal report in Oct. 14. This report outlined many of the well-known factors and discusses many useful points about proliferation of Ulva.

Ulva prefers NH4 – N source to NO3

Ulva become N limited in the maximum growth period in June whilst P stays stable and available.

An internal review was completed in “Background data for the Nitrates Working Group” (now Action for Cleaner Water), produced in 2014, one of the most useful documents produced over the last 10 years. This effectively summarises the issues and available information and data, to that date. The final report (2014-2015) from this group of 16 members, drawn from various legislative and agricultural stakeholder groups, made many recommendations for a holistic approach to the management of Jersey’s water.

Their recommendations covered six main areas:

4 Ménesguen, A. (2003) LES "MAREES VERTES" EN BRETAGNE, LA RESPONSABILITÉ DU NITRATE - direction de l’environnement et de l’aménagement littoral - Ifremer

8

general measures to inform, encourage and incentivise codes of good practice cultivations and land use soil testing nutrient management and planning precision fertiliser and organic manure applications organic manure storage

There were also recommendations to reduce nitrates from private drainage systems and grassland, which include:

nitrates from farming a new code of practice for private drainage systems limits on the application of organic wastes to land register of fertiliser imports and sales for all commercial users of nitrogen and phosphorus

The group's recommendations have been incorporated in the Water Management Plan. A report on the development of a Water Management Plan (delivered by Atkins) recognised the limited resource that is available to implement a WMP and proposed that the first cycle should focus on the priority issues. The key issues identified for the first five-year plan are:

Nitrate: reduce the nitrate concentrations in our groundwater and surface water; Phosphate: Increase our understanding of the scale of the likely phosphate (p) issue on the

Island in our inland waters and encourage or require further good practice measures to reduce soil P indices and the associated losses to freshwater; and Pesticides: Improved understanding of the levels of pesticides in surface and groundwater throughout the Island. Strengthen the mechanisms to regulate, control and monitor pesticide use. Carry out a screening for priority and priority hazardous substances.

There was also a strong recommendation to improve the monitoring strategy in order to increase understanding of environmental risks where there is a current lack of information.

This report highlights the elevated levels of nitrate in the streams and groundwater and acknowledges that Jersey Water cannot guarantee to meet drinking water standards for nitrate in the mains drinking water supply at all times. There is also a very relevant discussion on the collection of good baseline data to ensure the appropriate decisions can be made with confidence and highlight as and when there is a need to change priorities and policies to tackle emerging issues in future iterations of the WMP. In the future, for example, upward trends in the Island’s population may place more pressure on water availability or further contribute to diffuse urban pollution; climate change may result in rising water temperatures and more extreme weather events; economic trends may result in a changing agricultural focus of the Island. Ongoing monitoring and review will allow amore appropriate response to this.

The development of the Water Management Plan (WMP) has provided guidance for a more holistic approach to reducing nutrient pressures through a series of measures. This can be seen through the adoption of the WFD approach, where the assessment of ecological health is completed at a river basin level looking at chemical and biological status.

Conclusion of overview: Overall the quality of the previous work has been high. Most aspects have been covered in multiple reports but with different scenarios (variable scenarios of the issues around freshwater contamination, coastal assessment, upgrading to sewage treatment works (STW), the source of nutrients). There seems to be general agreement that nutrients are high and causing downstream issues.

9

Whilst there is no contention in this statement, there have been more contentious issues around the source of the nutrients, and the appropriate activity to take to reduce the freshwater and coastal nutrients. Remediation has focused on the improvement of the STW, but faces several limiting factors to achieve the required reduction in loads. Conversely water managers are also questioning the role of diffuse nutrients and the impact of offshore nutrients (sourced from the French coast) into the coastal area. Some of the outputs raise questions as to how much would be achieved by further improvements in the STW and if remediation should focus on a bilateral approach for direct and diffuse nutrient loads.

There is a limit to how much more can be sourced from these reports and the current monitoring programme without additional modelling that could better describe the source of nutrients, and how much could be reduce through a prioritization exercise for the most appropriate programme of measures. Action for Cleaner Water (Formally the Nitrates Working Group) made some excellent recommendations on the way forward. Further collaboration with the French might be productive to utilise their work on the regional scale.

1.2 Review of macroalgal blooms

1.2.1 IntroductionThe main issues that have been identified as affecting the health of Jersey coastal waters are the elevated levels of nutrients (particularly nitrate), the risk of elevated levels of the nutrient phosphorus (in freshwater) and the risk of pesticide contamination. Reports dating back to the 1990’s have already been commissioned and form a strong baseline of information around the history of anthropogenic loading into the St Aubin’s Bay system. These reports have been driven by concerns around high groundwater nitrate and potential eutrophication impacts as well as concerns on the requirements for operational and regulatory requirements. Nuisance blooms of Ulva have been occurring for over 30 years but are seemingly more frequent in St Aubin’s Bay over recent years (pers. Comm. DoE). The opportunistic algae create a thin layer across the surface of the intertidal area of St Aubin’s Bay which is subsequently piled at the high tide mark and cause nuisance blooms which require removal through DfI activity.

Evidence from well-studied UK sites demonstrates considerable inter-annual variation in the extent and location of cover5. The impact of weed cover will be greatest on those sites consistently covered by opportunistic seaweed during the growing season. Sites affected only intermittently can recover, with recycling of sediment-bound nutrients. Most algal mats encountered in UK locations are ofEnteromorpha and/or Ulva, although Cladophora and Chaetomorpha have also been reported.

Whilst, there are no reported public health impacts, the main issues are with public perception due to the sight of rotting algae and the associated odour. The ecological impacts of blanketing macroalgae have been documented at several other locations worldwide and could be a problem in the future. This is recognised as one of the key attributes that would result in moderate or failing assessment outcomes under both the UWWTD and the WFD assessment tools for opportunistic macroalgal biomass 6.

5 Wither A. (2003). Habitats Directive: Sites impacted by algal mats (green seaweed). Environment Agency. Habitats Directive Technical Advisory Group

6 www.wfduk.org

10

1.2.2 Assessing excessive growth of opportunistic macroalgal matsAnthropogenic forces (increased nutrients) have visibly affected many estuaries and coastal waters with restricted flushing7 in the UK and Europe similar to the impacts that are seen in Jersey. A key cause of change in the distributions and abundance of benthic community species is attributable to the effects of eutrophication and the increase in nutrient loading8. Large macrophytes such as Fucus vesiculosus and Zostera marina are more restricted than several decades ago9 whilst there has been a concurrent increase in abundance of annual filamentous and foliose algae8. Such algal forms may be regarded as opportunistic species characterised by high rates of mineral nutrient uptake and enhanced reproductive capability10 11.

All potential bloom-forming species are a natural component of shore ecosystems, which under certain conditions may become a nuisance. On rocky shores macroalgal opportunists like Ulva sp. may be abundant in the upper shore as they are euryhaline and able to cope with elevated salinity in top shore pools, and with reduced salinity adjacent to freshwater inflows. They may also be abundant in areas of sand scour. In such cases their presence may be neither anthropogenic in origin nor deleterious. In soft sediment urban waste water treatment directive environments such as estuaries or lagoons, however, their presence as bloom-forming mats may be of nuisance proportions, indicative of anthropogenically elevated nutrient inputs. The ecological impacts can be highly variable.

Assessment of intertidal areas include tools that test for the presence and amount of opportunistic macroalgal blooms. These assessments use a scoring system that combines 3 criteria to provide increased confidence in the overall classification. It is not expected that any single tool would be used in isolation to understand the ecology or to derive a classification, though initially the availability of data in the correct form may be limited as monitoring is implemented. Tools are being developed for the assessment of all marine plants including other biological quality elements such as angiosperms, phytoplankton and perennial macroalgae. Together, the assessment of the marine plants in different areas (water column, intertidal, subtidal) form part of the biological quality elements’ toolkit for establishing reference conditions, setting class boundaries and provide the information for the classification of water bodies for the Water Framework Directive.

1.2.3 Assessing percentage coverThe intertidal areas included in an assessment are soft-sediment only, as high levels of macroalgae can naturally occur on rocky shorelines. This may present difficulties in coarser sandy areas or mixed sediment estuaries as to how much of the intertidal area is suitable for such growth, and further investigation is necessary so that potentially significant problems are not hidden. Opportunistic macroalgal blooms are assessed using the Comprehensive Studies Task Team (CSTT) criterion 12)

7 Lotze H.K, Schramm W., Schories D & Worm B (1999). Control of macroalgal blooms at early developmental stages: Pilayella littoralis versus Enteromorpha spp. Oecologia, 119: 46-54.

8 Kruk-Dowgiallo L. (1991). Long –term changes in the structure of underwater meadows of the Puck lagoon. Acta Ichthyol. Piscator. Supplement, 22: 77-84.

9 Vogt H. & Schramm W (1991). Conspicuous decline of Fucus in Kiel Bay (Western Baltic): what are the causes? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69: 189-194.

10 Hoffmann A.J. & Ugarte R. (1985). The arrival of propagules of marine macroalgae in the intertidal zone. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 92(1): 83-95

11 Wallentinus I. (1984). Comparisons of nutrient uptake rates for Baltic macroalgae with different thallus morphologies. Marine Biology, 80: 215-225.

12 CSTT (1997). Comprehensive studies for the purposes of Article 6 & 8.5 of DIR 91/271 EEC, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, second edition. Published for the Comprehensive Studies Task Team of Group Coordinating Sea

11

adapted for both the UWWTD and the WFD marine plants assessment criteria (Foden et al., 200113). This states that a symptom of eutrophication is when more than 25% of the available intertidal area is covered with opportunistic macroalgae with greater than 25% cover of those sub-areas.

The following recommendations, adapted from the original criteria, were made in 2001:

The preliminary reference level = 5% cover; A problem area is one with > 15% cover of intertidal area on soft sediments;

The WFD criteria scoring system has been based on this guidance. Note, on some rocky shores very high cover (up to 100%) by Ulva spp. is not necessarily deleterious, as this can occur naturally under certain circumstances such as freshwater inflow or sand scour.

1.2.4 Assessing macroalgae biomassThe CSTT (1997) guidelines state the following for macroalgae biomass wet weight m-2:

Reference level for mass of weed = <100gm m-2 wet wt. Up to 500 gm m-2 wet wt. is not a problem if there are no other impacts. 1 000 gm m-2 wet wt. is a problem.

As with percentage cover, the WFD criteria scoring system has been based on this guidance.

1.2.5 Assessing adverse environmental effectsConsideration needs to be given to the consequences of excess algal coverage for the functioning of the ecosystem (Wither, 200314). To demonstrate a problem there should be some supporting evidence of adverse effects, for example:

Invertebrate fauna reduced. Wading bird feeding distribution modified (although it can be very difficult to establish

precise cause and effect of such changes due to bird populations and transients being affected by a large variety of factors).

Cockle numbers reduced. Deposited weed smothers seagrass and salt marsh vegetation. Public complaints about odour. Floating rafts of weed affecting boating activity. Anoxia in surface sediment layer; e.g. top 2 cm. If sediments are consistently anoxic, de-

nitrification processes will break down and the system may become self-sustaining. The criteria scoring system is based on the presence and number of adverse effects noted at a site.

1.3 European Environmental Directives for eutrophication

Marine eutrophication is an issue of global concern, and it has been given a high priority of action at the European (EC) and Regional seas (OSPAR) level through Directives and Strategies, which seek to manage the undesirable consequences of nutrient enrichment. Various European Union (EU) directives all consider the assessment of eutrophication through measurement of key indicators such as concentrations of nutrients, Chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen (Devlin et al., 2011), e.g. the Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD) (CEC 1991a), the Nitrates Directive (ND) (CEC 1991b), the

Disposal Monitoring by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Water Services Association.

14

12

Habitats Directive (HABSDIR) (CEC 1992), the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (CEC 2000) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (CEC 2008), the Oslo Paris Convention (OSPAR 2003a, b).

The scope of these directives has allowed European governments to put in place various management systems as an attempt to preserve the overall “health” of the marine environment whilst also allowing exploitation of a range of resources at a level that balances conservation with the requirement for economic sustainability and growth. All EU member states with a marine area actively monitor many different aspects of their seas, both within and beyond their shared boundaries with other EU states. Management measures and monitoring drivers are typically (but not exclusively) weighted towards measuring the impact of defined pressures e.g. fishing, or pollution. Monitoring the status and health of the marine ecosystem, and compliance with minimum standards, is a critical component of national and European legislation. The adoption of the MSFD in 2008, the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) implemented in 2014, and other, existing marine environmental drivers such as MACAA (marine and coastal access act), WFD (Water Framework Directive), HABSDIR (Habitats Directive) and OSPAR comprehensive procedure has substantially increased the demand to collect evidence on the status of the marine environment.

Environmental water directives have been constructed to identify waterbodies of concern. Nutrient loads can be either a direct source (sewage outfall) or diffuse sources (from industrial and agricultural land). Direct sources require a program of measures that deal with the contamination discharging directly from the sewage treatment plant. Diffuse loads require a programme of measures that identify the land that drain to polluted waters and which contribute to the pollution of those waters. Polluted waters include those which are eutrophic or may, soon, become so if the regulations were not applied there15.

Whilst the environmental directives can be applied at the individual waterbody, they can also be applied over the transboundary characteristics of adjacent waterbodies and can provide assessment of the coastal and marine waters, the basis of the hydrological boundaries, and if necessary via cross-institutional or even international cooperation.

Despite not being a member of the EU, small island jurisdictions, such as Jersey can benefit from applying the WFD approach to environmental assessment since it provides an effective means of considering the combined effects of all identified chemical pressures on the island’s waterbodies in an integrated manner while also delivering reliable information on which combinations of pressures may be driving reduced ecological status16.

The assessment of the coastal and marine waters in Jersey has been through the application of the Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWTD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (CEC, 1991; 1999). In the UK there is also the Nitrates Directive, which has not been applied to Jersey coastal and marine waters17.

15 http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/141443.aspx .16 The environmental status of St. Aubin’s Bay, Jersey according to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive –data management and assessment for monitoring program: WCA- Environment 2013. .17 The Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC, sets out clear rules for nitrates pollution from agriculture, one the main sources of groundwater pollution as well as of eutrophication of surface waters in many regions of Europe. There is a two-level approach: Within nitrate vulnerable zones (i.e. regions with elevated nitrates concentrations in groundwater or surface water >50 mg/l, and/or with eutrophic waters, or in danger of becoming eutrophic) legally binding measures are required, such as minimum manure storage capacities coherent with the nitrogen demand of soil and crop; restrictions for manure application in terms of time, location and nitrogen load per hectare and year etc. Outside vulnerable zones codes of good agricultural practice have to be promoted on a voluntary basis.

13

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991)18 provides obligations that will protect the downstream environment from direct discharges related to sewage and industrial wastes. It aims to ensure that wastewater treatment is provided for all agglomerations at the level specified by the Directive and within the required deadline. Secondary treatment is the basic level that should be provided, with more stringent treatment being required in sensitive areas and their catchments; For agglomerations with a population equivalent of less than 2000 but equipped with a collecting system, appropriate treatment must be provided.

The WFD aims to establish good ecological status in all European waters by 2015. Marine plants, along with benthic invertebrates, estuarine fish19 and macrophytes are one of four biological quality elements of the WFD. The WFD uses a “classification scheme” for the overall classification of the waterbody which includes some measure of these four biological elements.


2.1 St Aubin’s Bay – Water Framework Directive Outcomes

The Water Framework Directive prescribes that management activities should aim to achieve the goals of the directive within geographical areas or river basin districts (RBDs). These are based largely on surface water catchments, together with the boundaries of associated groundwater and coastal water bodies. For each river basin district, a river basin planning process must be set up. The first milestone of this planning process (analysis, monitoring, objective-setting and consideration of measures to maintain or improve water status) is the initial river basin management plan. The river basin management plan should:

record the current status of water bodies within the river basin district;

set out the measures planned to meet the objectives;

act as the main reporting mechanism to the Commission and the public.

The status assessment focuses on one specific area of the Jersey coastline (St. Aubin’s Bay and the immediate surrounding area), and the specific pressures and chemical inputs identified in this area20. However, the study21 on the challenges for the water environment of Jersey identified a wide range of pressures on the coastal environment of Jersey including wastewater management, industry, fisheries and coastal aquaculture, road run-off, agriculture, tourism and recreation. While the WFD-based assessment reported here provides a holistic approach to evaluating the status of St. Aubin’s Bay in response to such pressures, it is largely chemical focused, and only measures the concentrations, and long-term ecological effects, of chemicals entering the environment. Other types of direct pressures from these sources (e.g. physical damage, overfishing, and competition for space) are also likely to be important and should not be ignored when attempting to assess the overall condition of the coastal environment22.

18 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/index_en.html19 Estuary fish - not applied in jersey20

WCA environment (2013) The Environmental Status of St. Aubin’s Bay, Jersey According to the Requirements of the Water Framework Directive - Data Management and Assessment of Monitoring Programmes: Monitoring Programme Results and Status Assessments (2012-2013). For the States of Jersey Department for the Environment.21 States of Jersey – Department for the Environment/ Atkins (2014) Challenges for the water environment of Jersey. 22 WCA environment (2015) The Environmental Status of St. Aubin’s Bay, Jersey According to the Requirements of the Water Framework Directive - Data Management and Assessment of Monitoring Programmes: Monitoring Programme Results and Status Assessments (2012-2015). For the States of Jersey Department for the Environment.

14

The current status of St Aubin’s Bay, based on a recent assessment provided by WCA environment is Moderate with chemical status as good, and ecological status as moderate. The outcomes of each of the WFD elements is shown in Table 2-1. Issues around the high concentration of dissolved nutrients and opportunistic macroalgae blooms are shown in the moderate assessments for physio-chemical parameters and opportunistic macroalgae. The one-out-all-out assessment for WFD will be driven by the lowest classification outcomes and thus St Aubin’s Bay will continue to be reported as moderate status while issues around high nutrient concentrations and macroalgal blooms continue.

Table 2-1: Summary of the chemical and ecological status for each pressure indicator based on the results obtained from the St Aubin’s Bay monitoring programme.

This status comes with caveats, as it provides an interim assessment based only on three years of data, which despite the conclusions of the WCA report, are not sufficient to derive an overall status. Typically, WFD assessments are required to have a minimum of 6 years for greater confidence in the assessment outcome and to ensure that the frequency of sampling is adequate to provide high statistical confidence. The monitoring of nutrients, including NH4, NO3 and NO2 should continue, however other chemical monitoring should only be implemented if a problem with chemical contamination was considered an issue Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Decision-tree illustrating the criteria determining the different ecological status classes.

15

However, these latter pressures can only be included as supporting evidence and would not provide any further data for use in the chemical and ecological status. Further work should continue to collect data in the designated WFD monitoring sites and to build a long-term timeline of chemical, water and ecological data that will allow appropriate status assessment and potentially provide greater certainty in trend assessments.

The whole process of river basin management planning includes the preparation of programme of measures at basin level for achieving the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive cost-effectively. The planning, implementation and evaluation of the programme of measures is an iterative process that will probably include the river basin management plan of the first (2009), second (2015) or further cycles (2021, 2027).

Basic measures include control of pollution at source through the setting of emission limit values as well as through the setting of environmental quality standards. The use of economic instruments, such as water pricing, is part of the basic measures. Here the 'polluter pays' principle should be considered. The directive aims to ensure that pricing policies improve the sustainable use of water resources.

DRAFT

16

2.2 Case Study 1 - Newtown Harbour

2.2.1 Background

Newtown Harbour is situated on the North side of the Isle of Wight and empties into the Solent (Figure 2-2). It is a multi-armed estuary that receives input from several small freshwater streams. The area around the harbour is predominantly rural with a catchment area of approximately 50km2 draining to the harbour. The area of the harbour below the mean spring high water mark is approximately 2.1km2, the area below the mean spring low water mark is approximately 0.2km2. Consequently, most of the water in the harbour is replaced each tide and the flushing time is very short. Newtown Harbour has the remains of salt-works where sea-water was evaporated to produce salt, the saltpan lagoons. There was a historic oyster fishery situated in the harbour and there is now a designated shellfish bed covering 1.84km2. The harbour has considerable amenity value and is used for both bird-watching and for recreational boating. Newtown Harbour had 330 moorings (Solent Forum Website) between 1993-1994. The harbour and surrounding land is owned by the National Trust.

2.2.2 Issues

There are no qualifying sewage discharges into the harbour but there are 10 indirect qualifying discharges into the Solent (serving a population of approximately 900,000). The estuary receives run-off from a large catchment dominated by agricultural land. The estuary has a high salinity indicating the importance of the water from the Solent to the nutrient budget of the Harbour in comparison to the freshwater load.

Survey work, collecting physico-chemical, water quality, sediment and macroalgae data was required to get the data to determine the percentage contribution from each source, especially as the nutrients are derived from catchments quite far away from Newtown Harbour. The source apportionment was modelled and shows, whilst background concentrations are important, there is still a significant proportion of the nutrient loads that enter from direct and diffuse sources (Figure 2.2).

The predictions of green seaweed growth suggest that half of the macroalgal growth in Newtown Harbour is supported by background nutrients and that a third is supported by riverine nutrients, predominantly from Southampton Water (i.e. mainly from the rivers Test and Itchen). Only 18% of the macroalgal growth is attributed to sewage discharges. Of these, sewage discharges to Southampton Water and associated estuaries account for about 9% of the macroalgae. If the percentage of DAIN at the Harbour entrance is compared to the weed growth modelled from each area, an estimate can be made of the proportion of weed growth attributable to each discharge.

If the reduction in nitrogen is then applied to the qualifying discharges an estimation of the corresponding reduction in weed growth can be made. Using this principle, a maximum reduction of 10.1% in weed growth could theoretically be achieved in Newtown Harbour by applying nutrient stripping to all qualifying discharges.

DRAFT

17

Figure 2-2: Location of Newtown Harbour and monitoring sites.

Approximately 56% DAIN is from background coastal seawater sources (Figure 2-3), and this accounts for 51% of the predicted macroalgae growth. Thus, nearly a half of the macroalgal growth in Newtown Harbour might be maintained even if nutrients from all other sources were removed. ‘Background’ sources, by their nature, cannot practically be targeted for improvement under the terms of either of the two Directives at present.

DRAFT

18

Approximately 26% DAIN at Newtown Harbour entrance is from rivers that discharge to the Solent. These discharges, in turn account for about 31% of the predicted macroalgae growth. The rivers in question are predominantly the Test and Itchen and the streams directly discharging to the harbour are relatively unimportant. Modelling shows that most the DAIN load in these rivers derives from diffuse sources. These sources could potentially be targeted for improvement (nutrient removal) under the terms of the Nitrate Directive but potential benefits from reductions in DAIN are uncertain.

Figure 2-3: Source apportionment for Newtown Harbour.

It has been modelled that 17% DAIN at Newtown Harbour entrance is derived from STW sources and 18% of macroalgal growth is attributable to this nutrient load. Seven indirect sewage discharges were initially identified, but detailed modelling identified that Peel Common, Eastney and Sandown also contributed to the DAIN concentrations entering through the Harbour entrance each tide.

The factors controlling macroalgal growth are complex but nutrients, specifically nitrogen can be the growth limiting factor. In Newtown Harbour, coastal, background and indirect river and effluent sources dominate the summer nutrient budget and subsequent macroalgal growth. Widespread nutrient removal from qualifying indirect STW's and reductions in agricultural inputs of nitrogen may subsequently modify macroalgal growth in the harbour. It may be the case that this nutrient removal is justified when the combined impact on other sensitive areas is taken into consideration.

2.2.3 Outcomes

The UWWT Directive has specific requirements for nutrient removal from qualifying sewage discharges and requires 70-80% reduction in total nitrogen (relative to influent) or a discharge

DRAFT

19

concentration of 10 or 15 mg/l total nitrogen depending on the people equivalent (PE23). It is, however, essential to determine whether reducing DAIN inputs to Newtown Harbour would affect the levels of macroalgal growth there. As Newtown was designated a sensitive area24 under the UWWT Directive, it requires nutrient stripping at qualifying discharge. However, the nutrient stripping is enforced only if the benefits of remedial nutrient removal can be demonstrated.

Newtown Harbour has significant response parameters to this nutrient load, with a high cover of macroalgae likely to cause an impact on the macrobenthos, oxygen deficiency and super-saturation. There was no reported undesirable disturbance due to planktonic algal blooms, but there have been public concerns about macroalgal mats causing physical obstruction to boating interests and their visual impact.

Modelling of the various sources of nutrients into the Solent showed that at the Newtown Harbour mouth, background coastal seawater sources accounted for 56% of the DAIN load with Rivers contributing 26% and sewage sources contributing 17% of the load. None of these sewage sources contributed more than 4% of the DAIN load individually. The largest three contributors; Fairlee, Pennington and Peel Common contributed a total of 8.9% of the DAIN load to Newtown Harbour.

When macroalgal growth in the harbour is modelled this DAIN load gives a very similar pattern to the weed growth with 51% of growth attributable to background sources, 31% attributable to rivers and 18% attributable to sewage related sources. The largest three STW discharges mentioned above are likely to have a measurable effect on weed growth; Fairlee (4.2% of weed), Pennington (3.3% of weed) and Peel Common (2.8% of weed).

The riverine contribution to macroalgal growth shows that the rivers of Southampton Water contribute 16% of the weed, the rivers of the Eastern Solent contribute 2.1% of the weed growth and the rivers of the Western Solent contribute 8.5% of the growth.

The case for designating Newtown Harbour (Isle of Wight) as a Sensitive and Polluted water was successful and it now has NVZ and STW improvements.

The program of measures for Newtown Harbour was based on the outcomes of the source apportionment. The modelling work showed 51% of the DAIN is from background sources, however it was clearly shown that, even with background sources, that reductions in the direct discharges contributions by STW improvements could still provide a significant reduction in the weed growth. From this, a targeted reduction of STW load was implemented.

23 Population Equivalent- 10 for >100,000, 15 for less than 10000024 This lists current designations of sensitive areas identified under the urban waste water treatment directive across the UK. Environmental waters are designated as sensitive areas where they are in need of protection through the provision of tertiary treatment at sewage treatment plants whose discharges adversely impact the waters. There are various types of sensitive areas and their type will influence the form of tertiary treatment provided: for example bathing and shellfish waters sensitive areas will be protected by UV treatment, and waters adversely affected by nutrients in discharges will receive phosphorus and/or nitrogen reduction

DRAFT

20

2.3 Case Study 2 - Portsmouth Harbour, UK

2.3.1 Background

This summary assesses the evidence used in proposing an area of land around Portsmouth Harbour as one which should be, or should continue to be, designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) for the purposes of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2015 and designated as a moderate status under the Water Framework Directive.

2.3.2 Issues

Portsmouth Harbour has dual designation as both a Sensitive Area (Eutrophic) and Polluted Water (Eutrophic). It was designated a Sensitive Area (Eutrophic) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) in 2002. There are no direct sewage treatment works (STW) discharges into Portsmouth Harbour but because of its designation, nutrient stripping was undertaken at two indirect qualifying sewage discharges to the Solent outside Portsmouth Harbour (Peel Common and Eastney/Budds Farm STWs). Portsmouth Harbour was designated a Polluted Water (Eutrophic) under the Nitrates Directive in 2008, with a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) established in its catchment. In addition, the catchment forms part of the Solent Diffuse Water Pollution Plan which was set up to tackle diffuse nutrient sources in the Solent European Marine Sites.

At the time of the designations there was clear evidence that Portsmouth Harbour was eutrophic, based on the widespread growth of the opportunistic macroalgae Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva spp. Macroalgal surveys undertaken in 1998, 1999 and 2000 indicated that macroalgae (25 to 100% Report for existing Polluted Water Portsmouth Harbour cover) covered 382 to 437 ha of the intertidal area, exceeding the ‘25% of the intertidal area’ UWWTD criteria in all surveys.

Evidence from more recent studies shows that Portsmouth Harbour remains hypernutrified with nitrogen concentrations exceeding the standards used to assess UWWTD compliance and producing a classification of Moderate under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Similarly, macroalgal cover remains high. Macroalgal surveys undertaken in 2009 and 2011, indicate that in the whole of Portsmouth Harbour between 389 and 567 ha of intertidal area was covered in macroalgae (density 25 to 100%). This represents between 43 and 63 % of the available intertidal area which exceeds UWWTD criteria. The WFD macroalgae classification is Moderate, based on the combination of percentage cover, biomass and the presence of entrained algae. Macroalgae in Portsmouth Harbour has been shown to persist throughout the winter. There is therefore clear evidence that there remains a eutrophication problem in Portsmouth Harbour.

The nutrient budget for Portsmouth Harbour shows that approximately a quarter of the nitrogen is from combined freshwater diffuse agricultural sources (from both direct rivers to the harbour and other rivers outside the harbour via the Solent). Coastal background sources account for about two thirds of the nitrogen and only a small amount of nitrogen comes from sewage works. The modelling supports the existing Polluted Water designation in that nitrogen from agricultural sources is a substantial contribution to the nitrogen inputs into Portsmouth Harbour.

2.3.3 Outcomes

Current measures to reduce nitrogen into Portsmouth Harbour from agricultural and sewage sources include a mixture of statutory and voluntary measures.

DRAFT

21

Statutory measures include:

Nutrient stripping at offshore qualifying sewage works and

Mandatory agricultural practice rules in the NVZ known as the Action Programme Measures.

Voluntary measures include:

Advice and incentives to farmers and landowners

Catchment Sensitive Farming projects,

Environmental Stewardship Schemes and other measures detailed in the Solent Diffuse

Water Pollution Plan.

Nutrient control measures should not be removed as the process of nutrient/ eutrophication reduction in Portsmouth Harbour will take a long time for a variety of reasons including the influence of groundwater (in which nitrogen will decline very slowly), the relatively recent and/or ongoing implementation of measures, the variety of sources, natural biological time lag and natural inter-annual variation.

A steady concerted effort to reduce different nutrient to Portsmouth Harbour is ongoing and will not be interrupted or stopped until designation improves under UWWTD and WFD classification.

2.4 Case Study 3 - Langstone Harbour

2.4.1 Background

The UK government, managed by the Environment Agency, as part of ongoing work for estuaries have identified eutrophication problems, either under OSPAR or the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for several estuaries, including Langstone harbour. To test the proportion of loads that are entering this designated area, they have applied the dynamic Combined Phytoplankton Macroalgal (dCPM) model25 to the Langstone Estuary in the SE region26.

The Langstone Estuary CPM model is part of suite of CPM modelling works carried out nationally in 2012/ 2013 by the National Marine Monitoring Service, Environment Agency.

The objective of this study is to quantify the nutrient contributions from river inputs and to assess the effect of these nutrients and any limiting nutrients on the trophic status of the estuarine system. There are no direct Sewage Treatment Work (STW) discharges within the harbour. The existing STW in Langstone, Budds Farm now discharges via the Eastney long sea outfall located 5km off the coast.

The model used in this study is the latest version of the dynamic Combined Phytoplankton and Macroalgae (dCPM) model as developed by CEFAS 28B. The dCPM model treats a water body as a single well-mixed box with direct nutrient inputs from rivers and point source discharges along with

25 Aldridge J.N., P. Tett , S.J. Painting, E. Capuzzo, D.K. Mills, (2010a). The dynamic Combined Phytoplankton and

Macroalgae (CPM) Model: User Guide. Contract C3290 Report, Environment Agency.

Aldridge J.N., P. Tett, S.J. Painting, E. Capuzzo, D.K. Mills, (2010b). The dynamic Combined Phytoplankton and Macroalgae (CPM) Model: Technical Report. Contract C3290 Report, Environment Agency.

26 This is the model that could be applied in Jersey.

DRAFT

22

exchanges of nutrients and chlorophyll with coastal waters. The model then determines daily phytoplankton and macroalgal production within the box. The model has been updated in recent years to include multiple boxes linked together in a flexible configuration. Each box represents a different portion of the water body and can have its own characteristics such as depth, area available for macroalgal growth and light attenuation. Nutrients and phytoplankton are exchanged between the boxes with the outer-most box having the only direct exchange with the coastal zone.

The main outputs from the model include:

average summer and winter nutrient concentrations;

average summer and winter chlorophyll concentrations and macroalgal biomass; and

an indication of factors limiting primary production (light, N, P or space). Space only applies to macroalgae due to its availability of suitable growth habitat within the harbour.

2.4.2 Issues

Nutrient loads were calculated as nutrient concentration (mg/l) x flow (m3/s). Table 2-2 provides a summary of the nutrient loads to the Langstone Estuary. The DAIN loadings from the Lavant (catchment area 58 Km2) are approximately 10 times higher than that of Hermitage Stream (catchment area 20 Km2). The differences for DAIP between rivers are much smaller than seen for DAIN.

Table 2-2. DAIN and DAIP loads to the Langstone Estuary.

Season River name DAIP load (kg/d)

DAIN load (kg/d)

% of total riverine nutrient loadingDAIP

% of total riverine nutrient loadingDAIN

Winter Lavant 3.94 341 91 73

Winter Hermitage 1.45 33 9 27

Summer Lavant 1.92 261 92 56

Summer Hermitage 1.49 24 8 44

The calibrated model was used to predict the effect of a range of reductions to direct nutrient loadings. An additional scenario looking at the effect of a 25% reduction in the offshore nutrient loadings was also run. The results, relative to baseline, are presented in Table 2-3 and Figure 2-4.

The scenario tests also show that chlorophyll is very difficult to change with nutrient reduction scenarios. This is most likely due to the fact that the phytoplankton are generally light limited all year round. For the macroalgae, the data shows a different picture, where the summer standing stock is predicted to decrease >10% with 10% decrease in nutrient loadings and down to 40% of the standing stock with 50% reduction in nutrient loadings. Additionally, macroalgae already suffer from nitrogen limitation at the baseline levels. The reduction in offshore nutrients would have an effect on the macroalgae standing stock of a similar magnitude to the reduction of river nutrient loadings.

DRAFT

23

Table 2-3: Change in predicted average seasonal values of N, P, and chlorophyll in the Langstone model with a range of reductions to nutrient loads (note N & P are reduced at the same time). Values are % relative to Baseline.

Scenario Mean Winter DAIN

Mean Summer DAIN

Mean Winter DAIP

Mean Summer DAIP

Mean Winter CHL

Mean Summer CHL

MeanMacroalgaeSummer stock

Baseline 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%10% Reduction

97% 99% 99% 104% 100% 100% 86%

20% Reduction

94% 97% 99% 108% 100% 100% 72%

30% Reduction

91% 94% 98% 112% 100% 100% 60%

40% Reduction

88% 90% 98% 115% 100% 100% 48%

50% Reduction

85% 86% 97% 118% 100% 99% 40%

10% Reduction Offshore

93% 100% 90% 87% 100% 100% 82%


82% 99% 76% 68% 100% 96% 64%


64% 100% 52% 41% 100% 81% 48%

2.4.3 Outcomes

For nutrient apportionment, the model also indicates that most of the P within the box is provided by offshore inputs (approximately 95% in baseline) while the model N is more evenly balanced between offshore and freshwater inputs (Table 2-4, Table 2-5), approximately 60% in baseline but increasing to 78% in the 50% reduction scenario). The results, therefore, show that the model P is only changed in winter through the change in offshore nutrients while model N is easier to change through reductions in freshwater input especially in the summer. With the general N limitation in the macroalgae, reductions in N only increase the N limitation during the summer growing season and, therefore, have the effect of reducing the macroalgal growth but also of slightly increasing available P in the system (Table 2-4, 2-5, Figure 2-4).

DRAFT

24

Figure 2-4. Relative changes with respect to the baseline run for the Langstone Estuary model.

Table 2-4:Model ratios of Annual offshore N to total N (%) along with the direct (riverine) and offshore total annual loads for Langstone Harbour.

Scenario Annual offshore / Total N input rate ratio (%) theory

Annual River & other direct Loads - N (kg/year)

Annual Offshore Loads (kg/year)

Baseline 63.7% 120,364 211,471 10% Reduction 66.1% 108,328 211,471 20% Reduction 68.7% 96,291 211,471 30% Reduction 71.5% 84,255 211,471 40% Reduction 74.5% 72,218 211,471 50% Reduction 77.8% 60,182 211,471 10% Reduction Offshore 61.3% 120,364 190,324 25% Reduction Offshore 56.9% 120,364 158,603 50% Reduction Offshore 46.8% 120,364 105,736

Table 2-5: Model ratios of Annual offshore P to total P (%) along with the direct (riverine) and offshore total annual loads for Langstone Harbour.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Mean Winter DAIN

Mean Summer

DAIN

Mean Winter DAIP

Mean Summer

DAIP

Mean Winter Chlo

Mean Summer

Chlo

Summer macroalgae

standing stock

%M

od/O

bs

Baseline 10% Reduction 20% Reduction

30% Reduction 40% Reduction 50% Reduction

10% Reduction Offshore 25% Reduction Offshore 50% Reduction Offshore

DRAFT

25

Scenario Annual offshore / Total P input rate ratio (%) theory

Annual River & other direct Loads – P (kg/year)

Annual Offshore Loads (kg/year)

Baseline 94.9% 1,606 29,670 10% Reduction 95.4% 1,445 29,670 20% Reduction 95.8% 1,285 29,670 30% Reduction 96.3% 1,124 29,670 40% Reduction 96.9% 964 29,670 50% Reduction 97.4% 803 29,670 10% Reduction Offshore 94.3% 1,606 26,703 25% Reduction Offshore 93.3% 1,606 22,252 50% Reduction Offshore 90.2% 1,606 14,835

One of the goals in this study was to evaluate the effect of the nutrient reduction scenarios with the WFD standards for Chlorophyll (Table 2-6) and macroalgae (< 500 g (wet weight)/m2 affected area). For chlorophyll, the tests are applied to the observations from 2006 through 2012 for salinities >1ppt and chlorophyll values < 200ug/l. The observations are first sorted into high and low salinity bands with separate standards then applied as shown in Table 2-6. For macroalgae, two surveys have been carried out in Langstone Harbour, one in 2009 and the other in 2011.

Table 2-6: WFD Chlorophyll standards.

Low Salinity (0-25ppt)

High Salinity (> 25ppt)

Average Chl-a concentration <= 15 <= 10Median Chl-a concentration <= 12 <= 8% Chl-a < 10 ug/l > 70% > 75%% Chl-a < 20 ug/l > 80% > 85%% Chl-a > 50 ug/l < 5% < 5%

Table 2-7 provides the results of the macroalgal WFD standard with respect to both the surveys and model results. Both the years of observations and all the model scenarios have biomass less than the required WFD threshold and therefore pass the test. Both the chlorophyll observations and model observations also pass the WFD thresholds provided in Table 2-6.

Table 2-7. Results of the observations and model macroalgal density with respect to the WFD standard.

Wet Weight (g/m2) < 500 g/m2?OBS 2011 268.56 passOBS 2009 463.31 passBaseline 333.44 pass10% Reduction 286.54 pass20% Reduction 241.38 pass

DRAFT

26

30% Reduction 198.89 pass40% Reduction 161.04 pass50% Reduction 132.79 pass10% offshore 275.08 pass25% offshore 212.72 pass50% offshore 159.28 pass

Using observed values of nutrient loadings, river flows and other water body characteristics, the CPM model for Langstone Harbour performs well when compared with monitoring data. The baseline model can’t be further refined without causing further negative impact on the output variables. However, the model works well with the predicted productivity output being within ~10-20% range of observed values. The chlorophyll productivity was limited by light 100% of the year and macroalgae for most of the year was limited by nitrogen at 76% of the year, while light limitation take up the remainder.

A range of nutrient reduction scenarios have been run and comparison to the baseline is provided. The nutrient reduction scenarios have a larger impact on macroalgae standing stock than phytoplankton as it is already limited by nitrogen within its baseline levels so that a 50% reduction in riverine nutrient loadings would reduce macroalgae standing stock by a significant 58%.

The main conclusions are:

For the phytoplankton, light was predicted to be the limiting factor for 100% of the year making any reductions very difficult to achieve.

Macroalgae is predicted to be N limited for the majority of the year allowing for large reductions in macroalgal growth with the nutrient reduction scenarios tested.

For nitrogen, the river and other diffuse sources account for about half of the N load in the harbour; while the majority of DAIP is predicted to come from offshore input (> 90%).

Both the model and observations pass both the macroalgal density and WFD CHL-a standard tests.

2.5 Case Study 4 - Chichester Harbour

2.5.1 Background

Most of the work on tightening up STW discharges in the South East was carried out under UWWTD prior to the implementation of the WFD. The occurrence of opportunistic macroalgae was a major issue and they need to provide management guidelines around the DWF (dry water flow). Work using an early version of the CPM model provided the initial guidance of the recommended consents.

The seaweed modelling was carried out for the Habitats Review of Consents work. Managers in the South East used a modelling approach similar to the CPM (called the EcoS weed model) to predict the impact of sewage work improvements on seaweed growth. The EcoS model breaks the harbour/estuary into cells and predicts weed growth for each cell. For the same assessment under WFD implementation, the ‘CPM’ model was used. It’s similar to EcoS but just treats the estuary as

DRAFT

27

one cell and averages weed across it so more simplified. Both models need calibrating so monitoring data on weed mass and extent is required to validate.

Another option, if data to build and calibrate a weed model is limited, is to calculate nitrogen loads from each input (STW, rivers, estuary mouth) and look at the relative significant of the STW Nitrogen load. This approach will not provide information on the impact on weed growth.

2.5.2 Issues

The modelling package ‘ECoS’ was used to assess the impact of nutrient loads from sewage treatment works (STW) on green weed growth in the estuaries and harbours of the Solent.

The specific ECOS model for each harbour was updated using latest data for river flow and quality and sea boundary quality using Environment Agency monitoring data from 2002 – 2006 (seasonal sine / cosine curves were plotted from the data for use as the model inputs).

The sewage treatment works loads were also updated (whole year loads were used as there was little seasonal difference and whole year gave more data). STW flows were taken from daily flow data provided by Southern Water Services Limited (SWS Ltd) for the period 2004 – 2006 (where available – some STWs only had data available from 2005 onwards). The concentration data was taken from Environment Agency monitoring results. Instantaneous loads were used, that is pairing a given average flow for a particular day with a given concentration taken on that day. Then averaging these 'paired' loads (as opposed to taking the average flow for the 3-year period and multiplying it by the average concentration). This method is expected to more accurately represent average load. (NB Peel Common flows - no daily flow data was available from SWS Ltd. Instead the model used the 1.25 * actual current DWF as supplied by SWS Ltd).

Each ECOS estuary/harbour model was run to give a best case output of green weed mass at observed inputs. The weed mass and percentage of weed in each model cell, attributable to a particular STW (at current loads) was predicted.

Various scenarios or options were then created. In most cases these had the STW flows being increased from observed flows to consented flows, that is 1.25 * consented DWF. Chichester is currently discharging above current flow consents. SWS have provided a position statement of what they believe the flow consents need to be for 2015 and this was the ‘position statement’ current flow was used, not the existing consent. From this modelling, the impact of the STW, at consented loads on green weed growth was assessed. Consent modification applications have been submitted by SWS to amend to the required consents.

2.5.3 Outcomes

The development of the model provided guidance around the wet weed weight given a series of possible consent thresholds (Figure 5). These outcomes were a key discussion point to convince Southern Water that their consents needed tightening to achieve a better environmental outcome under the UWWTD. The consents under WFD have remained the same.

DRAFT

28

Figure 2-5: Modelling of wet weight weed in response to different management permutations.

Figure 2-5 shows different permutations of consent flows. The pink line represents the seasonal growth of weed cover through the days with the SRW consent at 17.45mg/L and a DWF (dry weather flow) of around 10,534 m3/d. The yellow and light blue lines are the amount of weed with a tightened consent of 10mg/l, but with the allowance of a greater flow. This still showed a reduction of about 200g/m2 of weed) and even better results where the flow was kept low. The dark blue line is the amount of weed formed if the STW was not there. The scenario without any input from a STW clearly shows it makes that the input from the STW makes a significant contribution to the weed biomass.

2.6 Data used in Chichester Harbour assessment

The data collected for Chichester Bay can be found

EPR-R-2018-02-27_Appendix 2.7_Chichester_annual_pattern

DRAFT

29

2.7 Supporting evidence as used in the UK WFD assessment of the weight of evidence approach

DRAFT

30


3.1 Consent requirements for STWs and discharges

Sewage effluent can vary in nature depending on the degree to which the sewage has been treated. Discharges of sewage effluent can arise from a number of different sources and be continuous or intermittent in nature:

treated effluent from urban sewage treatment plants (continuous);

storm discharges from urban sewage treatment plants (intermittent);

effluent from 'package' sewage treatment plants serving small populations (continuous);

combined sewer and emergency overflows from sewerage systems (intermittent);

septic tanks (intermittent); and

crude sewage discharges at some estuarine and coastal locations (continuous).

Treatment of sewage ranges from:

none at all (crude sewage);

preliminary (screening and/or maceration to remove/disguise solid matter;

primary (settling to remove suspended solids as sewage sludge). Typically removes 40% of

BOD, 60% of suspended solids; 17% of nitrogen and 20% of phosphorus from the untreated

sewage;

secondary (settling and biological treatment to reduce the organic matter content). Typically

removes 95% of BOD, 95% of suspended solids, 29% of nitrogen and 35% of phosphorus

from the untreated sewage. Nutrient removal steps can be incorporated into secondary

treatment which can reduce ammonia - N down to 5 mg/l and phosphorus to 2mg/l.

tertiary (settling, biological treatment and an effluent polishing step which may involve a

reed bed (unlikely for a coastal works) or a treatment to reduce the load of micro-organisms

in the effluent). Typically removes 100% of BOD, 100% of suspended solids, 33% of nitrogen

and 38% of phosphorus from the untreated sewage.

The form of the consent for these discharges depends both on the type of effluent discharged and their periodicity. In general, discharges of continuous sewage effluent (i.e. effluent discharged at all times) have consents with numeric conditions for substances or groups of substances among other conditions on the consent. For intermittent discharges (usually of sewage effluent or storm sewage), consents are descriptive and relate to the number of discharge events in a specified time period (termed the spill frequency).

Numeric consents for sewage effluents are generally expressed in terms of a 95 percentile, which means that samples of the effluent must not exceed the numeric condition for that substance on

DRAFT

31

more than 95 percent of occasions, and an upper tier, which means that exceedance must not occur on more than 99.5% of occasions. Look-up tables are used by the regulator to enable this condition to be translated into the number of samples that are allowed to exceed the conditions. The use of the 95 percentile reflects the fact that dischargers of sewage have little control on the variability in composition of sewage entering treatment works such that, occasionally, the treatment process will not be able to deliver the typical reductions in the main components of the sewage. The use of the upper tier prevents flagrant abuse of the 5% of occasions when 95 percentile consent limits can be exceeded.

The numeric limits in discharge consents are set such that the quality of the receiving water is maintained for all existing uses and to comply with relevant statutory requirements (e.g. passing WFD). The process of relating concentrations of a substance in the receiving water to numeric limits in a discharge consent can be complex, especially in tidal waters. The concept of the mixing zone is applied to allow consent conditions to be related to environmental concentrations of polluting substances. The mixing zone is an area of receiving water around the discharge point within which EQSs can be exceeded. The choice of the size of a mixing zone is somewhat arbitrary and a diameter of 100 m is commonly used. For the majority of situations, mass-balance or modelling approaches are adopted. Mass-balance calculations essentially involve defining the effective volume of the receiving water and calculating the amount of a substance that can be discharged into that volume to achieve a desired concentration. More complicated modelling approaches can be undertaken but these are usually reserved for particularly sensitive situations, e.g. where more than one discharge is under consideration, where discharges are close to bathing waters and when compliance with appropriate standards is likely to be borderline.

Decisions on appropriate consent conditions include consideration of the uses to which the receiving waters are put and the application of a policy of 'no deterioration' under e..g the Shellfish Waters Directive.

For tidal waters, the following receiving water uses are considered:

basic amenity and conservation of the general ecosystem;

passage of migratory fish;

commercial fisheries for fish, molluscs and crustacea for public consumption;

bathing and other water contact based recreation;

other recognised uses, such as industrial abstractions and harvesting of edible seaweed.

DRAFT

32

3.2 UWWTD designation and selection of TN flows.

STWs serving >10,000pe discharging to tidal waters designated as Sensitive Areas subject to

eutrophication under UWWTD require Total Nitrogen standards.

UWWTD nitrogen standards are fixed at 10 or 15 mg/l annual mean TN depend on the p.e.

of the works. A Total Nitrogen (TN) standard of 10mg/l is applied for works >100,000 p.e.,

with a TN of 15mg/l only applying to STW 10000 --100,000 p.e.

It is the annual mean UWWTD standards which must be used in licence conditions.

These TN standards should be inserted in the UWWTD schedule in the STW licence and will

therefore be based upon composite sampling.

This is reproduced below in the table below. Compliance with either the concentration or

the % reduction requirements would mean the discharge is compliant with UWWTR.

Table A1: Apply Concentration Value or % Reduction

3.3 Regulatory Road Map

Regulatory Road Map for the replacement of the Sewage Treatment Works at Bellozanne Valley using a phased approach

1. Background

1.1 Purpose of the Regulatory Road Map

The regulatory road map is attached to the Formal Warning Letter - Total nitrogen exceedence of discharge permit, DC2000/07/01 for the Sewage Treatment Works during 2009 and 2010 dated 30/06/2015.

The road map provides clarification of relevant aspects of the build and commissioning of the new sewage treatment works and the monitoring and protection of the receiving environment (St Aubin’s Bay). The road map will help both Environmental Protection (the regulator) and Transport and Technical Services (the permit holder) to work together to share and target resources and limit any delay in project completion.

The sections that the road map covers are:

DRAFT

33

i. details of the principles of the phased approach. ii. an outline the current understanding of effluent quality of the replacement works

iii. details of what ‘no deterioration’ means and the process for further investigation.iv. an overview of the design process v. the ongoing regulatory position regarding compliance with the existing discharge permit,

prior to the commissioning of the replacement works or prior to the revision of the permit. vi. an outline of conditions to be considered as part of any future discharge permit that will

ensure safeguard of the receiving environment.vii. provisions for the future review of the road map.

1.2 The Phased approach

The regulator considers that the replacement of the sewage treatment works (the works) by the permit holder using an evidenced based phased approach that reflects the precautionary principle of the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 as the most pragmatic way forward for the Island.

The rationale for the current phased approach is that the scientific understanding of the Bay’s ecosystem (and the impact the current works is having upon it) does not support the required high expenditure on nutrient removal at this time.

Phase 1 is the replacement of the current works with a conventional carbonaceous plant that does not include specific nutrient removal technology. Phase 2 are the addition of staged nutrient (nitrogen) removal technologies or any other treatment process in an area that has been identified and set aside for these purposes during Phase 1 and the Planning process.

From a Regulatory perspective, the need for Phase 2 is reliant on evidence that either links environmental deterioration of St Aubin’s Bay to the existing performance of the works or that evidences that added treatment processes can lead to enhanced environmental conditions of the Bay. For clarity, this could apply to any constituent of the discharge over the operational lifetime of the replacement works and will consider the cost/benefit.

The provision of Phase 2, specifically for nutrient (nitrogen) removal, however, is also dependant on the success, or the anticipated success, of the integrated catchment management work (and any associated wider Water Strategy) to address nitrates at source. In this context, source control is recognised as the most sustainable approach for the island, rather than end of pipe treatment, hence an integrated catchment management approach will take precedence.

1.3 Final effluent quality from the replacement works

As mentioned in Section 1.2, specific nutrient (nitrogen) removal from the effluent will not be included as part of Phase 1.

However, the permit holder has indicated that the replacement works will have the following benefits:

i. an effluent discharge that overall is of equal, if not higher quality, and is more stable over time than the effluent from the current works.

DRAFT

34

ii. an effluent discharge that has reduced bacterial loading.iii. higher volumes of fully treated waste water.iv. lower volumes of partially treated storm flows and higher volumes of treated storm flows.v. reduced operating costs and lower carbon footprint.

vi. reduced odour levels.

The permit holder will keep the regulator informed as to the extent of these expected improvements and whether any further environmental benefits can be derived from the replacement works through close liaison during the design stage.

1.4 The principle of ‘no deterioration’

One of the main principles of the regulatory road map, and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) approach, is that there is ‘no environmental deterioration27’. This means that there should be no deterioration in:

i. the quality of the end of pipe discharge of treated effluent arising from the replacement works compared to the existing works.

ii. the receiving environment as a result of the replacement works.

The baseline data to be used for the comparison of the quality of treated effluent from the existing versus replacement works will be agreed by the regulator after consultation with the permit holder. The expected output figures on the quality of the treated effluent of the replacement works will inform the ongoing design process.

In this context, deterioration of the end of pipe treated effluent from that which is discharged by the current works will include, but not be limited to:

i. total nitrogen and its component parts.ii. suspended solids.

iii. bacterial loading as informed by a measured applied dose or similar.iv. COD and BOD.v. priority hazardous substances.

The deterioration of St Aubin’s Bay (the receiving environment) will include:

i. deterioration of the overall classification of the Bay environment as evidenced by onward monitoring in accordance with the WFD.

ii. deterioration of any assessment criteria used in the overall classification in WFD status28 29. iii. the Bay being classed as sensitive according to the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

(UWWTD).30

27 The WFD also contains an overarching aspiration to achieve good status for all water bodies. Deterioration of the receiving environment is considered to occur as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of St Aubin’s Bay as a whole. 28 The no deterioration principle is an integral part of the implementation of the WFD. 29 Criteria assessment includes the opportunistic macro algae, Ulva30 Whereby reduced status or sensitive assessment is evidenced as such and not as a result of changes in the methodology used for these assessments.

DRAFT

35

iv. failure of the Imperative Standard of any bathing water compliance point (current compliance sites at La Haule and Victoria Pool) according to the revised EU Bathing Water irective.

Note: The Bay in this context includes the intertidal surf zone. Factors influencing either deterioration of the Bay (for example, increased inputs from outside the Bay, receiving streams etc.) or the deterioration of the treated effluent (reduced quality of the incoming raw influent etc.) will be considered during any regulatory action and may require routine monitoring to inform.

Any deterioration will prompt further investigation as detailed in Section 7.

The shellfish beds and Ramsar site to the south-east of Jersey are important island resources. The shellfish beds are monitored and classified by the Department of the Environment. Any significant or widespread reduction in classification status of the beds will prompt further investigation as detailed in Section 7.

1.5 Aspiration to improving the status of the receiving environment

The aspiration for an improvement of the receiving environment (St Aubin’s Bay) over the operational lifetime of the replacement works will include an:

i. improvement of any assessment criteria used in the overall classification in WFD status. ii. improvement of overall classification of the Bay environment to good status as evidenced by

onward monitoring in accordance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

It is recognised that the addition of any treatment processes to achieve the aspiration of good status, irrespective of any evidenced deterioration (as detailed in section 1.4) will be based on a cost/benefit model that will include stakeholder engagement and willingness to pay.

2. Ongoing maintenance and operation of the existing works

The permit holder will continue the maintenance program of the current works. The regulator will be kept informed of this program during monthly permit holder /regulator meetings.

Prior to any decision, any items of maintenance considered not practical or cost effective due to the planned replacement of the works will be consulted with the regulator during the above meetings.

Any maintenance or operation considerations that affect, or have the potential to affect, the quality of the final effluent shall be notified to the regulator within 14 days of the issue arising or as soon as reasonably practicable.

3. Timeframe for construction of the replacement works

That the final commissioning of Phase 1 of the replacement works takes place within six years of the date of the attached Formal Warning Letter (providing planning permissions, funding etc. proceeds without delay).

4. Design of the replacement works

The permit holder will ensure that the regulator is kept regularly updated as the design of the replacement works progresses. This is to ensure that the replacement works is designed in such a

DRAFT

36

way as to minimise the discharge of total nitrogen and its component parts (given that no specific nutrient removal process will be included as part of Phase 1 of the build process) and will maximise other benefits (as mentioned in Section 1.3).

The permit holder will ensure that an independent review of the process design is undertaken as part of the design specification. The regulator will be provided access to the review team in relation to effluent quality therefore providing assurance of the above points.

The regulator will require that the design for the replacement works includes designated areas of land for any future upgrade/added treatment as identified and required by Phase 2. This needs to be secured as part of the initial planning permission.

5. Exceedences of the present discharge permit prior to the full commissioning of the replacement works or prior to the revision of the existing discharge permit.

This primarily relates to the exceedence of the total nitrogen limit, but does not preclude other regulatory aspects as contained in the current discharge permit (DC2000/07/01).

Prior to the commissioning of the replacement works:

i. the permit holder will continue to make all reasonable efforts to comply with compliance limits of the discharge permit. Notwithstanding, there is to be a principle of no deterioration as defined by this regulatory road map.

ii. the regulator will continue to inform the Attorney General on any ongoing exceedences of the present discharge permit prior to the commissioning of the replacement works31.

The regulator will consult with the permit holder regarding revised consent limits during the period prior to the full commissioning of the replacement works. These figures will be either based on current limits where they have been achieved (e.g. suspended solids, BOD, COD, UV) or on figures that represent historic outputs (e.g. total nitrogen), thereby ensuring ‘no deterioration’ in treated effluent quality.

Notwithstanding the above, the regulator will take a practical approach, in consultation with the permit holder, when defining limits, taking into account the build and commissioning processes etc.

The regulator will vary the existing discharge permit as appropriate and as detailed in Section 6.

6. Revision of the Discharge Permit

The permit holder shall provide the regulator with historic operational data to inform future compliance. The historic operational data will inform discussions between the regulator, permit holder and the detail design team regarding the performance of the replacement works.

Upon confirmation and agreement of operational data, the permit holder will apply to the regulator for a variation to their existing discharge permit (DC2000/07/01). The permit will cover the period both prior to the full commissioning as well as the operation of the replacement works thereafter.

The regulator shall determine the discharge permit after full public consultation as defined by the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000.

31 Through the regulatory Quarterly Report submitted to the AG’s Office

DRAFT

37

Future conditions of the revised permit could include, but not be limited to:

i. the requirement of a site working management plan.ii. monitoring/screening for priority hazardous substances (as listed and updated by the WFD).

iii. continued monitoring of bacterial loading using a measured applied dose.iv. improvement of the process and the policy of the receipt and treatment of Trade Effluent

Consents as issued under the Drainage Law. Given the agreement of a phased approach, monitoring requirements will include, but not be limited to:

a) sensitivity assessment according to the EU UWWTD.b) status assessment according to the WFD.c) annual assessment of bathing water compliance according to the revised EU Bathing Water

Directive.d) annual classifications of the shellfish beds on the south-east coast according to the EC

Regulation 854/2004. e) end of pipe measurements.

The methodology and implementation of all research and monitoring shall be agreed between the regulator and permit holder so as to optimally target resources.

Notwithstanding the historic discharge permit compliance figures, the principles of no deterioration as detailed in Section 1.4 shall prevail.

In the interim period, prior to full determination of the revised discharge permit application, the permit holder shall continue to operate the works in accordance with the existing discharge permit. This includes compliance with previous improvements which have been agreed with the regulator (for example, measured applied dose).

7. Actions resulting from deterioration of the end of pipe or the Bay

i. the regulator will inform the permit holder of when deterioration has been evidenced and provide details of the deterioration.

ii. the permit holder will notify the regulator as soon as possible of anything that might cause a deterioration in effluent quality.

iii. the regulator shall consider the reasons for, and implications of, the deterioration and liaise with the permit holder to instigate further monitoring/assessment as appropriate.

iv. if the deterioration is found to be linked to the sewage treatment works the regulator shall advise the Attorney General of the circumstance of the deterioration for his consideration and legal opinion.

v. if appropriate, the regulator and permit holder will discuss the approach to reversing the deterioration. This may include source control and/or treatment.

vi. the permit holder will propose and seek funding for the most appropriate solution if it involves an engineering/treatment fix.

8. Changes to the build or commissioning timetable

DRAFT

38

The permit holder will notify the regulator within 14 days of any changes to the build or commissioning timetable for the replacement works, including the provision of the phased approach (for example caused by changes to the capital funding or corporate/States policy).

The regulator, will in turn, notify the Attorney General who may review any further requirement for enforcement action.

9. Review and revision of the regulatory road map

The regulatory road map has been reviewed by the Attorney General. Environmental Protection will provide updates on the implementation of the regulatory road map to the Attorney General as part of the quarterly reports submitted to his Office.

Given the longevity of the design and operation of the replacement works, the road map is subject to review as more information/data becomes available.

The regulator will consult with the permit holder and advise the Attorney General on all changes made to the road map.

DRAFT

39

3.4 Data holdings

Table 3-1: Summary of datasets reviewed in current assessment.

Name Type Location of data Current status Description

Biotoxin Not relevant

Cascade transect sample points WQMIS, Additional info added - data links to report in added to folder

EPR-SD-2014-07-09 Transect sample pointsinvestigative work - looking at different tides.

Cascade3, 5 data rolling average

Additional 2017 data EPR-SD-2013-05-13 Transect run data

Cascade TTS monitoring data

Saline WQ data In-Situ data

Not in WQMIS. Integrated into Cefas combined

file

All data links to EPR-R-2013-08-03 StAubinsBay-

WinterSpringMonitoringReport (in Jersey reports - cascade)

Adjusted stream depth data 130401-0520

In-Situ Data

Saline Fresh Full Results 130610CREH

Site locations confusing Not currently in WQMIS

Data links to CREH - Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus budget St Aubin’s 1997 (in Jersey report- CREH)

SeatempNot required for review but required for modelling

2016 data provided in additional data folder

EPR-SD-2011-01-16-SeawaterTemperature 2001-2013

EPR-SD-2011-01-16-SeawaterTemperature 2011EPR-SD-2014-01-16- Seawater Temperature Monthly means 1960 - 2020

St AB near shore sampling

data required for WFD assessment

Not in WQMIS. Integrated into Cefas combined file

EPR-SD-2014-05-01-Field data - nutrient monitoring St AubinsEPR-SD-2014-05-01-Nutrient monitoring Zone A St Aubins Bay 2014 - CURRENT

DRAFT

40

Waste regulation WQ and STW data.

Not currently in WQMIS, Check sites in report.

X/Y coordinates provided along with database with all data EPR-SD-2017-01-09 La Collette Sample Point ID

Outfalls


EPR-SD-2000-01-01 STW compliance spreadsheetSTW

Not currently in WQMIS

EPR-SD-2013-01-07 Outfall Results 2013 Sarak AlteredSTW

EPR-SD-2014-02-10 Outfall Results 2014STW

EPR-SD-2015-01-20 Outfall Results 2015 Sarak AlteredSTW EPR-SD-2015-12-22 St Aubin's Bay WFD Assessment -

Chemical MonitoringWCA Not required for review

but required for modelling

Not currently in WQMIS


EPR-SD-2015-12-22 St. Aubin's Bay WFD Assessment -Ecology – CopyChemical assessment

WCA

WQ and ecology

data

Provided WQ

assessment for St

Aubin’s bay

Not currently in WQMIS 2016 data provided in

additional data folder

EPR-SD-2015-10-01 Nutrient St Aubin's Bay 2015-17WCA

EPR-SD-2015-10-01-Observation recordsWCA

EPR-SD-2016-05-17 Chlorophyll Feb-May-June 2016WCA

EPR-SD-2016-05-17 Chlorophyll Feb-May-June 2016WCA

EPR-SD-2016-05-17 Phytoplankton results Feb 2016SOC JER Marine invasive

species list. No change

EPR-ID-2014-07 Jersey Marine Invasive Species ListWQMIS DOE WQ, Jersey DOE heavy Many of the parameters have been entered into this

DRAFT

41

Database sediment, STW, heavy metal,

pesticide and

stream-water data

WQMIS -2.1

metal, data. database

Heavy metals

Heavy metal data not required for review

Heavy Metal - Common Limpet DataHeavy metals

Heavy Metal - Fucus serratus DataHeavy metals

Heavy Metal - Slipper limpet DataHeavy metals sampling analysisSSI Jersey

WQMIS -2.1

WQMIS In database -all data providedSSI 2000 - 2004

Trinity catchment

WQMIS No change

All data

42

3.5 Master Database.

Dropbox\CEFAS\current cefas projects\Jersey\state of jersey_Shared folder

EPR-R-2018-02-27 Appendix 3.4_master_database

3.6 Summary and mapping of data

Dropbox\CEFAS\current cefas projects\Jersey\state of jersey_Shared folder

EPR-R-2018-02-27 Appendix 3.5_Analysis of Jersey data

43


4.1 A brief overview of the history of investigation, monitoring and regulation of nutrient pressures affecting St Aubin’s Bay

1994 Nitrates in Jersey’s groundwater

1997 Investigations into nutrient pressures affecting St Aubin’s Bay were instigated to inform decisions about various developmental stages of the Island sewage treatment works. This included an assessment of the trophic status of St Aubin’s Bay and an investigation into the source apportionment of nutrients entering into the Bay.

2000 The Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 was introduced, which required permits for controlled discharges to the environment. The STW discharge permit (DC2000/07/01) set the limit for total nitrogen of annual average of less than 10 mg/l.

2000 – 2016 STW consistently breached its discharge consent limit for total nitrogen

2002 - 2010 STW breached the total nitrogen consent limit resulting in the modifications to nutrient removal technology. STW timeline, see page 10

2007 The trophic status of the bay/ source apportionment of nutrients entering into the Bay was re-assessed with a similar outcome to 1997.

2009 The diffuse pollution project was established to monitor nitrogen in Jersey streams and engage with the local farming community.

2009/2010 Formal warning letters sent to the Department for Infrastructure (then Transport and Technical Service Department) for breaching the discharge consent for total nitrogen. Please see Sewage Treatment Works Timetable – Page 2.

2011 Environment Security Panel Review of marine waters in Jersey, made recommendations for the monitoring of Jersey’s coastal waters under the principles of the EU Water Framework Directive

2012 (onwards) Monitoring of St Aubin's Bay began in 2012, for the following reasons:

Coastal waters are a key element within the then future Water Plan, focus was given to St Aubin’s Bay because it was considered the most ‘at risk’ coastal waters from pollution.

To provide a base line water quality status with which to measure any changes water quality or ecology of the bay following the development of the STW.

Detailed investigations into the occurrence of Ulva, by DOE and DFI as part of the planning process for the new STW32

32 Please see appendix 3 for a list of the report and monitoring programmes

44

2013 Research into nutrient pressure on St Aubin’s Bay

Reviewed the available historic freshwater and marine data from St Aubin’s Bay and surrounding area

TTS briefing note on Regulatory framework St Aubin’s Bay winter and spring 2013 water quality monitoring report St Aubin’s Bay, Sea lettuce literature Review St Aubin’s Bay stakeholder workshop

2014 DOE visited Ifremer (France) to understand what causes green tides and undertake a comparison between Brittany and Jersey.

2015 Regulatory road map was developed to provide a clear understanding of the phased approach and the regulatory requirements during the developmental stages of the replacement STW.

2015 Final status assessment of St Aubin’s under the criteria of the WFD completed.

2016 (onwards) Water Plan finalised, measures to be instigated to help tackle diffuse pollution, including nitrate.

45

4.2 States of Jersey reports and monitoring of nutrient pressures and effects on St Aubin’s Bay.33

Department for Environment: commissioned/undertook the following work relating to nutrient pressures on St Aubin’s Bay and/or the occurrence of Ulva 2013 – Cascade – St Aubin’s Bay, Sea lettuce literature Review 2014 – DOE - What causes green tides? A Comparison between Brittany and Jersey 2015 – WCA environment – St Aubin’s Bay WFD status (final)

MonitoringMarine status assessments: Initial monitoring began in 2012 using the Water Framework Directive - UKTAG guidance and included an initial chemical screening of the Bellozanne STW and the bay. The result of which informed longer term (3 year) chemical/ phys-chem monitoring programme34. The final status assessment was carried out in 2015 resulting in a Moderate status due to the low ratings for the phys-chem (nutrients) and opportunistic algal (Ulva) assessments.

Current monitoring using WFD standards:Water: chemical (reduced to 5 yearly), nutrients (monthly), temperature (monthly), pH (monthly), DO (monthly), salinity (monthly)

Ecological: phytoplankton, chlorophyll-a (monthly), benthic invertebrates (yearly), opportunistic algae (yearly), RSL seaweed (abundance of seaweed on the rocky shore) and seagrass (yearly).

Outfall monitoring: Monthly monitoring of St Aubin’s Bay outfall for nutrients, DO and other parameters.

St Aubin’s nearshore zone: Bi -Monthly monitoring of St Aubin’s for nutrients (including nitrates) at five locations along the bay, with a control site at St Brelade. The aim is to better understand the nutrient pressures acting on the bay from both catchment and STW sources.

Time-lapse camera: Cameras are situated in two locations around the bay taking photos to assess the occurrence and distribution of the seaweed.

WFD Freshwater monitoring – nutrients (including nitrates) measured in streams which discharge into St Aubin’s Bay.

Stage discharge monitoring - programme about to start to measure amount of water entering into St Aubin’s from catchment sources.

Regulatory and operational data on nutrients (including total nitrogen) from the treated waste water discharge.

Historic photographic assessment – photographs of St Aubin’s bay were obtained from various sources and assessed for the occurrence of Ulva.

33 As summarised in main report34 WCA environment 2013 report

46

Offshore transect – A once off nutrient monitoring along a transect from St Aubin’s Bay to les Minquiers off-shore reef (approximately 9 miles south of Jersey)

The Department for Infrastructure: commissioned the following work relating to nutrient pressures on St Aubin’s Bay and/or the occurrence of Ulva

1997, 2007 and 2009 –Trophic status assessments of St Aubin’s Bay 1997, 2009 – Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus budgets entering St Aubin’s Bay, Jersey 1997 – A review of available historic freshwater and marine data from St Aubin’s Bay and

surrounding area 2013 – TTS briefing note on Regulatory framework 2013 – St Aubin’s Bay winter and spring 2013 water quality monitoring report 2016 – St Aubin’s Bay Ulva studies

4.3 Comments by the Cefas review on previous recommendations.

Recommendations of previous reports Cefas comment1. More data are required to establish the complex interaction of

nutrient, temperature and hydrological conditions necessary for an Ulva bloom in St Aubin’s Bay. Monitoring of the relative load contributions from the wider marine environment, the STW and from other land-based runoff towards nutrient conditions in the Bay, along with more frequent Bay temperature and hydrodynamic data, will enable managers to better predict the timing of a bloom.

Yes, this could be completed with in-situ sampling of coastal waters and the application of the estuarine model.

A measure for Ulva biomass is required to compare productivity with prevailing environmental conditions. This will allow the relationship between Ulva growth to be analysed against environmental conditions, leading to a defined bloom trigger analysis and action plan. This is the first key step needed before management strategies to cope with Ulva blooms can be more efficiently implemented.

Yes, but would involve sampling outside of the current WFD monitoring activity. Modelling estimates what relationship between the weed biomass and prevailing environmental conditions –could be used as a proxy prior to additional measures.

A longer term nutrient control strategy is required. It must consider all significant loads over the full seasonal and inter-annual cycle to promote an integrated catchment and marine management strategy.

Effectiveness of the various strategies can be determined by an estuarine model, with appropriate input data.

The existence of additional management measures, including the utilisation of harvested biomass, has been noted throughout the production of this report, however it has not been the focus of the review. It would be useful for the States of Jersey to further investigate the experience of others and the available literature for management measures to determine which would be most suitable for trialing in St Aubin’s Bay.

Harvesting has not typically been part of the known estuarine modelling activity so this element would need to be added. Several municipalities have used harvesting and disposal and there are some

47

indicative costs in the reports.It could be beneficial to add a cost benefit to the model.

Additional work on selected sites suffering from green tides, such as those in southern Ireland and the eastern English Channel in France, could enable a comparison of these sites with St Aubin’s Bay to establish the similarities and differences in hydrodynamics and water quality as well as ecology. A nutrient budget of the Bay, with Ulva growth as key parameter, could be created to enable better management of the nutrient flow into the Bay in order to minimise the likely development of green tides

We already have access to data on several estuaries, such as Langstone Harbour which has very similar issues to St Aubin’s Bay and can model those compared to St Aubin’s.

The changing climate will have an increasing effect on the Bay and near coast ecosystems, and may lead to increasing nuisance bloom formation as sea temperatures rise in winter and spring. A study of the implications of climate change on the marine ecosystem is recommended

This would only be achieved through knowledge of outside forces and inclusion of climate in the modelling scenarios

Further time could usefully be spent on French literature to see if data and evidence are available. It is likely that such data do exist as the problems in French bays are well established.

Agreed, but difficulties to translate all literature. Look to peer reviewed scientific literature.

48

4.4 Sediment sampling methodology

Site requirement

Reasonable coverage of sediment types (fine to coarse), high and low impact weed sites, high and low tide and possibly sub-tidal as well. Minimum of 8 to 12 sites I would estimate. Then need seasonal sampling, monthly would be ideal.

We mostly use clear Perspex cores 5.8cm dia core tube – sliced at 1cm intervals to 10cm then every 2cm to maybe 20cm?

PSA - useful Porosity – vital Organic Carbon and Nitrogen (OCN)– vital Sediment chlorophyll – useful Adsorbed ammonium – very useful Pore water nutrients (no3, no2, po4, Si, NH4) – very useful

Cores should be collected and subsequently sliced asap. PSA, OCN and porosity samples should be frozen asap. Sediment chlorophyll samples may also be frozen. Adsorbed ammonium slices need to have the 1M KCl added, shaken thoroughly, left for minimum 1 hour then filtered and refrigerated (full method available).

Sediment sample analysis

Sediment slices for PSA were analysed following the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) method, whereby sediment is split at 0.5 phi (�) intervals, combining laser diffraction of the <1mm with sieved weights of the >1mm (Mason 2011). Statistical data and Folk and Ward classifications (Folk 1954; Folk and Ward 1957) were then acquired using the software tool Gradistat (Version 8) (Blott and Pye 2001). Porosity samples were weighed, freeze dried and weighed again to get the dry:wet sediment weight ratio (Danielson and Sutherland 1986). Additional sediment was freeze dried, ground and weighed, before sulphurous acid was added. Acidified samples were oven dried at 40oC until dry, then analysed for Organic Carbon and Nitrogen (OCN) using a Carlo Erba EA1108 Elemental analyser (Kirsten 1979).

Pore water

Samples of pore water nutrients were collected by a novel in situ device developed at Cefas (Sivyer, 1999) since proven in many studies (Duplisea et al., 2001; Trimmer et al., 2000; Trimmer et al., 2005; Weston et al., 2008). The device is a set of probes, each consisting of a porous plastic filter ring mounted on a hollow support, connected to a vacuum chamber by narrow bore tubing. The porous plastic filter ring (15 mm high x 27mm o.d. x 20mm i.d.) is made of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene with a mean flow pore size of between 7 and 11mm (Vyon T, Porvair Technology Ltd, Clwyd, UK.). The filter is mounted between two O-rings on an acetal copolymer body. This filter and body assembly (the probe head) is mounted on hollow support tubes of varying length depending upon the depth of sample required (depths here were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 10,14,17 and 20 cm). The probe head is attached to a vacuum chamber by nylon tubing (4mm o.d. x 2.5mm i.d.) which is fed through the hollow support tube. The vacuum chamber has ten sample ports, each with an

49

independent shut off valve. During deployment each probe assembly is inserted vertically into the sediment through a guide plate placed flush to the sediment surface. The guide plate has ten equi-spaced holes around a diameter of 17cm with an outer ring at 20 cm diameter that penetrates the sediment to improve stability. The interstitial water sample from each probe is collected in a separate test-tube (11.5ml) inside the vacuum chamber. A vacuum pump was normally used for evacuation. Once each test tube fills up with sample, the valve connecting the inlet from the probe is closed manually. The first set of samples (usually ~6ml) is discarded to eliminate potential contamination during probe insertion and a second 10ml sample is collected. All samples were immediately filtered through a 0.2um syringe filter and preserved with mercuric chloride for later analysis. The samples were analysed for nitrate+nitrite (TOxN), nitrite, phosphate, silicate and ammonium.

Pore water may also be extracted from 1cm slices of sediment either squeezed or centrifuged under nitrogen then preserved for analysis as above.

Total and Adsorbed ammonium

The bio-available ammonium pool of sediments is usually defined as that which may be extracted by a solution of KCl and may be represented as:-

NH4(pool) = NH4(ads) + NH4(pw)

Where:-

NH4(pool) = total extractable ammonium (1cm slice shaken with 40ml 1M KCl) NH4(ads) = adsorbed ammonium NH4(pw) = interstitial water ammonium

NH4(pw) is measured from profiles collected using interstitial water probes. NH4(pool) however needs correcting for dilution incurred due to added 1M KCl solution and interstitial water in the sediment, and then multiplying up to a square metre of sediment so a useful comparison with fluxes can be made, NH4(tp).

so:-

NH NH voltp ex

total4 4

10003785( ) ( )

( ) .

where:-

NH4(ex) = ammonium concentration of KCl extract (�mol.l-1) vol(total) = volume of interstitial water (vol(pw)) + volume of KCl (vol(KCl))

and:-

vol(pw) = vol(sed) porosity vol(sed) = 26.42 cm3 (a perspex core of diameter 5.8cm has an area of 26.42 cm2 and each slice

is 1cm thick)

50

378.5 = conversion factor from a 26.42 cm2 core to 1 m2 sediment

To calculate the percentage adsorbed ammonium in the total pool (NH4(%pool)) use the following equation.

NH NH NHNH

poolpool pwm

pool4

4 4

4100(% )

( ) ( )

( )

( )

where:-

NH4(pwm) = NH4(pw) porosity 10

Using the above equations and relationships it is possible to calculate the total ammonium pool and the fraction of the total ammonium pool adsorbed onto the sediments at any horizon, with the following five parameters.

NH4(pw), NH4(tot), NH4(ex), vol(sed) and porosity

51

4.5 References – Jersey studies

CSTT (1997). Comprehensive studies for the purposes of Article 6 & 8.5 of DIR 91/271 EEC, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, second edition. Published for the Comprehensive Studies Task Team of Group Coordinating Sea Disposal Monitoring by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Water Services Association.

Fletcher, R. L. (1996). The occurrence of “green tides”—a review. In Marine benthic vegetation (pp. 7-43). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Hoffmann A.J. & Ugarte R. (1985). The arrival of propagules of marine macroalgae in the intertidal zone. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 92(1): 83-95

Kruk-Dowgiallo L. (1991). Long –term changes in the structure of underwater meadows of the Puck lagoon. Acta Ichthyol. Piscator. Supplement, 22: 77-84.

Lotze H.K, Schramm W., Schories D & Worm B (1999). Control of macroalgal blooms at early developmental stages: Pilayella littoralis versus Enteromorpha spp. Oecologia, 119: 46-54.

Pye K. (2000). The effects of eutrophication on the marine benthic flora of Langstone Harbour, South Coast of England. Unpublished phd thesis, University of Portsmouth.

Scanlan, C. M., Foden, J., Wells, E., & Best, M. A. (2007). The monitoring of opportunistic macroalgal blooms for the water framework directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55(1), 162-171.

Smith, Val H. "Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems a global problem." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 10.2 (2003): 126-139.

Vogt H. & Schramm W (1991). Conspicuous decline of Fucus in Kiel Bay (Western Baltic): what are the causes? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69: 189-194.

Wallentinus I. (1984). Comparisons of nutrient uptake rates for Baltic macroalgae with different thallus morphologies. Marine Biology, 80: 215-225.

Wither A. (2003). Habitats Directive: Sites impacted by algal mats (green seaweed). Environment Agency. Habitats Directive Technical Advisory Group

PML Applications Ltd. (2008). Final report - An investigation into the causes of the odour at West Park beach, St Aubin's Bay, Jersey

Allaway, C. and A. Ltd (2014). Challenges for the water environment of Jersey: A summary of the main water management issues, Atkins Ltd.

Bennett-Jones, L. (2014). The impact of a wastewater treatment works on the health of a Zostera noltii bed in Jersey, Channel Islands., Plymouth University. B.Sc. (Hons) Marine Biology and Coastal Ecology.

Bradford, M., et al. (2003). Water quality objectives and water catchment management on the Island of Jersey., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Chilton, P. J. and M. J. Bird (1994). Nitrate in Jersey's groundwater: Results of unsaturated zone porewater profiling. Hydrogeology, British Geological Survey.

52

Conlan, K. (2013). DOE briefing note - regulatory framework, Cascade Consulting, Bristol.

Conlan, K. (2013). St Aubin's Bay loading study - non-technical summary, Cascade Consulting, Bristol.

Conlan, K. (2013). Ulva Literature Review, Cascade Consulting, Bristol.

Consulting, C. (2014). St Aubin’s Bay Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Modelling Specification, Cascade Consulting.

CREH (2004). Water Quality Objectives and Water Catchment Management on the Island of Jersey, Centre for Research and Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Fairhead, A. and K. Conlan (2013). St Aubin’s Bay: Sea Lettuce Literature Review, Cascade Consulting, Manchester.

Fairhead, A. and K. Conlan (2016). St Aubin’s Bay - Ulva Studies 2014-2015, Cascade Consulting, Manchester.

Foster, I. D. L., et al. (1989). "Agriculture and water quality: a preliminary examination of the Jersey nitrate problem." Applied Geography 9(2): 95-113.

Gould, D. J. and WRc (1981). Investigation of the problem of Sea Lettuce (Ulva Lactuca) on the beach of St. Aubin's Bay, St. Helier, Jersey., Water Research Centre.

Grass, G. M., et al. (1996). Groundwater Resources Degradation in Jersey: Socio-economic impacts and their mitigation. Hydrogeology, British Geological Survey.

Green, A. R., et al. (1998). "Identification of the source and fate of nitrate contamination of the Jersey bedrock aquifer using stable nitrogen isotopes." Geological Society, London, Special Publication 130: 23-35.

Hawkins, S. (2014). What causes green tides? A comparison between Brittany and Jersey. DoE, States of Jersey.

International, M. C. (2012). Proposed Sewage Treatment Works Renewal Feasibility Studies: Modelling – Stage I. Hydrodynamic Model Development and Calibration, Marcon Computing International.

Jones, F. and CREH (1992). Recreational water quality for the States of Jersey 1992, Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Jones, F., et al. (1993). Assessment of the bacteriological quality of the bathing waters and land drainage to the Jersey coastal zone during the 1993 bathing season., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.

Langley, J. and S. Kett (2004). An assessment of Water Quality Objectives., Ecoscan Environmental Surveys, Middlesex University.

Langley, J. and S. Kett (2005). Quinquennial Review of Jersey Flowing Waters (1998-2004), Ecoscan Environmental Surveys, Middlesex University.

Langley, J. and S. Kett (2010). Quinquennial Review of Jersey Flowing Waters (2005-2009), Ecoscan Environmental Surveys, Middlesex University.

53

Langley, J. and S. Kett (?). Towards Water Quality Objectives, Ecoscan Environmental Surveys, Middlesex University.

Langley, J., et al. (1997). Stream water quality on the island of Jersey, Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.

Leverett, D. (2012). Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Mercury in Sediments: Comparions of St Helier port area, Jersey to other UK ports WCA Environment, Faringdon.

Leverett, D. (2013). Final status assessment - The environmental status of St. Aubin’s bay, Jersey according to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive WCA Environment, Faringdon.

Leverett, D. (2015). The Environmental Status of St. Aubin’s Bay, Jersey According to the Requirements of the Water Framework Directive - Data Management and Assessment of Monitoring Programmemes:Monitoring Programmeme Results and Status Assessments (2012-2015), WCAEnvironment, Faringdon.

Leverett, D. and C. Moore (2012). The Environmental Status of St. Aubin’s Bay, Jersey, According to the Requirements of the Water Framework Directive –Monitoring Programmeme Technical Specification, WCA Environment, Faringdon.

Leverett, D., et al. (2012). Scoping study to define the status of St Aubin's Bay, Jersey Acorrding to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive, WCA Environment, Faringdon.

Linley, A., et al. (2009). Review of the current ecological status of the SE coast Jersey Ramsar site, PML Applications Ltd.

Lowe, N., et al. (2000). Recommendations for interim and long term Certificate conditions for Bellozanne Waste Water Treatment Works, Jersey., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Martin, G. and K. Conlan (2013). St Aubin’s Bay Winter and Spring 2013 Water Quality Monitoring Report, Cascade Consulting, Manchester.

McInnes, R. (2011). La Collette Developments Ramsar Interface Review, Bioscan (UK) Ltd, Oxford.

McLean, C. (2015). A study of the ecology and health status of Jersey’s intertidal seagrass (Zostera noltii) areas. School of Science and Technology, Bournmouth University.

Parkinson, R. (2001). Nitrates and phosphates in Jersey surface waters - sources and land management strategies, University of Plymouth.

Pearce, N., et al. (1997). Trace element chemistry of modern and archaeological limpet shells from Jersey and environs., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Pitts, M. (2013). Shellfish Waters Investigation: Step 2: Monitoring Programmeme, Cascade Consulting, Bristol.

Roberts, K., et al. (2016). Water Management Plan for Jersey 2017-2021, Atkins Ltd

Dept of Environment, States of Jersey.

54

Robins, N. S. (1989). Groundwater Resources of Jersey: A review with recommendations for further study. Hydrogeology Series, British Geological Survey.

Robins, N. S. (1997). The lanDfIll legacy in Jersey and the risk to surface and groundwater. Hydrogeology, British Geological Survey.

Robins, N. S. (2000). The water resources of Jersey: an overview, British Geological Survey

Wrc.

Robins, N. S., et al. (2001). The State of Jersey groundwater 2000 and some topical issues. Technical Report, British Geological Survey.

Robins, N. S. and P. L. Smedley (1991). Hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical survey of Jersey. Hydrogeology Series, British Geological Survey.

Robins, N. S. and P. L. Smedley (1998). The Jersey Groundwater Study. Research Report, British Geological Survey.

Sholi, O. (2013). Review of available historic freshwater and marine data from St Aubin's Bay and surrounding areas, Cascade Consulting, Bristol.

Stapleton, C., et al. (1997). Trophic status of St. Aubin’s Bay, Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.

Stapleton, C., et al. (2016). Nutrient Survey of surf-zone waters in St Aubin's Bay 2014 to 2016, Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Stapleton, C., et al. (1997). Estimation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Budgets entering St. Aubin's Bay, Jersey., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.

Wyer, M., et al. (1995). Further assessment of non-outfall sources of bacterial indicator organisms to the coastal zone of the Island of Jersey, Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.

Wyer, M., et al. (1994). Assessment of bathing water quality for the States of Jersey 1994., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.




Wyer, M., et al. (2000). Evaluation of the Fort Regent storm retention scheme in relation to faecal indicator loading and bathing water quality., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

55

Wyer, M., et al. (2006). An Assessment of Surface Water Quality at Sites of Special Interest and in the Plémont, St Brélade and Waterworks Valley Catchments on the Island of Jersey., Centre for Research into Environment and Health Ltd, University of Wales.

Wyer, M. D., et al. (1998). Assessment of bathing water quality for the States of Jersey 1998., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Leeds.

Wyer, M. D., et al. (1999). Assessment of bathing water quality for the States of Jersey 1999., Centre for Research into Environment and Health, University of Wales.

Wyer, M. D., et al. (1996). "Delivery of microbial indicator organisms to coastal waters from catchment sources." Water Science and Technology 33(2): 37-50.

Wyer, M. D., et al. (1995). "Indicator organism sources and coastal water quality: a catchment study on the Island of Jersey." Journal of Applied Bacteriology 78(3): 290-296.

4.6 Additional sources of information

Papers or reports that are referenced elsewhere but have not been available as part of this review. These are not necessarily required reading in terms of the current deliverable but useful to include as part of the historical review.

1976 – A report on ground water resources T&C Hawksley, Aldershot (includes translated records from German occupation)

1986 - Watson Hawksley 1986 – St Ouens Bay aquifer. Preliminary assessment of annual water balance

1989 - Littlejohn, Newman and Kettle. Ground Engineering January 22-30 - grouting to control groundwater during basement construction in St Helier.

1990 - Williams BGS tech report wd/90/40. – St Ouens Bay: numerical modelling of the groundwater resource of part of the sand aquifer

1991 – Gardner and Ince – microbiological analysis of groundwater samples from Jersey - BGS technical report WE/91/1.

1992 - Jones F –Recreational water quality for the States of Jersey 1992. CREH

4.7 Additional data provided during review

Bathing water profiles – A profile has been produced for each of Jersey’s monitored bathing waters. As well as providing useful information they are a requirement of the revised Bathing Water Directive CREH- St Aubin’s Bay nearshore nutrient report

Local research- Historical news reports (and a French paper on tidal streams) Tidal information for the golf of St Malo from Ifremer

http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00047/15837/ Seagrass survey (2013/14) (additional to the WFD annual assessment) the full 2015/16

reports aren’t currently available. Marine Resources Annual report 2015/2016. This is linked to the reporting of OPSAR. GIS – GIS layers produced as part of the WMP were provided Data provided by DoE is listed in Table 4-1

56

Table 4-1: Table of the States of Jersey water quality data provided to Cefas for assessment.

Name Type Location of data Notes

Biotoxin Not relevant Not used in review

Cascade transect sample points

NOT in WQMIS Investigative work - looking at different tides. Additional info added - data links to report in added to folder

Cascade TTS (now DfI)

In-Situ data NOT in WQMIS All data links to EPR-R-2013-08-03StAubinsBay-WinterSpringMonitoringReport (in Jersey reports -

57

cascade)

Database DoE FH2O and marine data

DoE WQ data, Jersey WQMIS - 2.1 latest version. Holds streamwater data.

Cavern Spill monitoring point

Not relevant

CREH NOT in WQMIS, Check sites in report.

Data links to CREH - Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus budget St Aubin’s 1997 (in Jersey report-CREH)

Heavy metals Entered into database

Database format in Additional data folder

Sea temp NOT in WQMIS, 2016 update in additional data folder

SOC JER Marine invasive species list.

The marine invasive species list is not based on OSPAR – it is something that was put together for local purposes

SSI FH20 data Entered into database

In database -all data provided

St AB nearshore sampling

NOT in WQMIS, updated version in additional data folder

STW NOT in WQMIS, updated version in additional data folder

Trinity catchment

Entered into database

No change - no report

Tide information

Tidal information for the golf of St Malo from Ifremer can be found using the following link: http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00047/15837/

Waste regulation

NOT in WQMIS X/Y coordinates provided along with database with all dataWQ Data

WCA WQ & ecology data

NOT in WQMIS, Some 2016 data provided in additional data folder. Provided WQ assessment for St Aubin’s bay

WCA Chemical assessment

NOT in WQMIS, 2016 data provided in additional data folder

Appendices Contents · Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay Sea Lettuce Literature review. 2013...

Documents

Transcript of Appendices Contents · Cascade Consulting St Aubin’s Bay Sea Lettuce Literature review. 2013...