c2343: environmental indicators: a structured approach to ...randd.defra.gov.uk ›...
TRANSCRIPT
1
C2343: Environmental indicators: a structured approach to the evaluation of
impacts arising from human activities at sea
Project manager: Ed McManus [email protected]
2
3
Table of Contents
1 Executive summary ..................................................................................... 5
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 5
1.2 Specific issues addressed by this project ........................................... 5
1.3 Summary of recommendations............................................................ 6
2 Introduction and project summary .............................................................. 8
2.1 What is the need for the project?: ....................................................... 8
2.2 Aims and management of the project: ................................................ 8
2.3 Which policy areas will the research inform?‟ ..................................... 9
2.4 What are the results from the project and how will they be used? ... 10
3 Legal Aspects ............................................................................................ 11
3.1 General ............................................................................................... 11
3.2 International ........................................................................................ 13
3.3 National .............................................................................................. 14
3.4 Regional ............................................................................................. 15
3.5 Recommendations on the Design of Indicators ................................ 18
4 Pressure Indicators ................................................................................... 21
4.1 General ............................................................................................... 21
4.2 Approach ............................................................................................ 23
4.3 Scaling and aggregation .................................................................... 45
4.4 Indicator performance ........................................................................ 46
5 State and Impact Indicators ...................................................................... 54
5.1 General ............................................................................................... 54
5.2 Indicator selection and application to meet UK regulatory and policy
specific needs ................................................................................................ 54
5.3 Indicator selection and utility in meeting national and international policy objectives ............................................................................................ 70
5.4 Novel Indicators ................................................................................. 79
5.4.1 Functional Indicators: Application and Utility................................. 79
5.4.2 Indicators incorporating different ecological components:
Meiofauna .................................................................................................. 90
5.4.3 Indicators incorporating different ecological components: Microorganisms ......................................................................................... 92
6 R+D modules ............................................................................................. 94
6.1 R&D MODULE i. Development of indicators for the assessment of the significance of PAH concentrations in marine sediments...................... 94
6.2 R&D MODULE ii. Development of an integrated indicator of biogeochemical and ecological status in marine sediments........................ 97
6.3 R&D MODULE iii. Potential of Acoustic Techniques for Deriving
Summary Indicators of Seabed Environmental Status .............................. 101
6.4 R&D Module iv: The role of simulated data sets in evaluating the management utility of environmental indicators ......................................... 103
6.5 Module Name: R&D MODULE V. Developing new tools for identifying indicators of anthropogenic changes: age determination in a widely-distributed marine benthic polychaete. ........................................... 104
7 Socio-economic indicators ...................................................................... 106
7.1 UK marine monitoring and socio-economic monitoring. ................. 106
7.2 Routinely used socio-economic indicators in relation to the UK
marine environment. ................................................................................... 106
4
7.3 Benefits, costs and risks relating to the employment of currently available socio-economic indicators ........................................................... 106
7.4 Guidance in developing socio-economic indicators. ....................... 107
7.5 Novel Indicators Socio-economic indicators ................................... 107
8 Integration and development of findings ................................................ 110
8.1 Indicator Requirements/Checklist Template and explanatory notes. 111
8.2 Case Study: Development of Pressure Indicators for application to
Thames Estuary Dredging activities. .......................................................... 117
8.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 126
References ...................................................................................................... 127
Papers produced............................................................................................. 133
5
1 Executive summary
1.1 Introduction
Indicators have increasingly become an important tool to monitor the impacts of human activities at sea. Indicators can illustrate a specific aspect of the environment with the aim of guiding policy makers and informing the public of
the effectiveness of both legislation and management in improving the state of the environment. However, due to the increasing prevalence of these tools it has become evident that a much more integrated approach is needed, for
both the UK and internationally, to help support policy makers in the development, comprehension, and application of such marine indicators.
The aim of the project is to improve the operational use of environmental indicators that relate directly to UK Government‟s marine management and reporting obligations. We have shown the necessity of linking the producers of
indicators (scientists) to the users of indicators (policy customers, decision-makers and regulators), provides guidance on how the indicators should be used and when. We emphasise that by looking at the operational utility there is the ability to narrow the gap between the producers and users of indicators.
1.2 Specific issues addressed by this project
Although the use of indicators are widespread, and sometimes legally binding, there is often a paucity of definitions/guidelines on
how legal systems should consider indicators. Therefore increasing the risk for policy makers in accepting the introduction of environmental indicators. This report addresses this issue by
providing definitions, criteria, and guidelines (Chapter 3), and checklists for indicator development (Chapter 8).
Information on sectoral activities (human Pressures) is provided in
different data units (e.g. fisheries - catch per unit effort, aggregate extraction – tonnes per unit area) and thus an appreciation of the
accumulated pressure for any one area is compromised. This report addresses this issue by providing an approach to quantitatively evaluate accumulated pressure „levels‟ for multiple human activities
across and between sectors (Chapter 4). Identified indicators are systematically assessed against criteria identified in (Chapter 3).
Indicators describing the State of, or the Impact on the marine
environment exist. However, in many instances these indicators can not easily be applied across different spatial and temporal scales,
and across sectors. This report recommends approaches to develop state and impact indicators to address these challenges including the proposal of several novel indicators (Chapter 5). Indicators are systematically assessed against identified criteria.
Many agencies have developed socio-economic indicators to be used in sustainable development programmes. However many of
these indicators are heavily biased towards economic assessments.
6
This report addresses this issue by proposing approaches to further develop the social component of these indicators (Chapter 7).
The state of the marine environment is often described in isolation from human activities. This project has demonstrated an approach
to present spatially referenced state and pressure related data sets in a web based data integration and assessment system referred to as the EMECO datatool. These tools were initially develop with
Defra funding as part of the European Marine Ecosystem Observatory (EMECO) project. Screen grabs are included to illustrate (Chapter 5).
1.3 Summary of recommendations
Decreasing the legal risks associated with indicator development. 1. A set of definitions and a „check-list‟ to guide indicator development
to increase the resilience of indicators to legal scrutiny is presented in this report ((Chapter 8). These definitions are tested in a case-study. Indicators should have the following features: (1) policy
relevance – they correspond to a management framework with operational objectives; (2) legal relevance – they may be influenced by legal obligations, which are mandatory; (3) communication –
there should be an effective line of communication of indicators to both policy-makers and stakeholders, which may involve expert interpretation; (4) responsiveness – indicators should be designed
to meet management needs; (5) scientific rigour – they should be accurate and of good quality; (6) quality control review – they should be subjected to independent and objective quality control;
(7) process standards – indicators should be designed according to a process that ensures the indicator can withstand critical scrutiny. Indicators do not always need to fulfil these criteria at all times. The
need for, and importance attached to, the above criteria will depend upon the context within which the indicators are used.
Increasing the operational utility of pressure, state and impact indicators. (Chapters 4 & 5)
2. In designing a monitoring program, realistic „targets‟ or „thresholds
of change‟ should be considered to allow the design of „cost effective‟ surveys with sufficient power to detect change at the desired level.
3. When indicators are used to describe „environmental status‟, they are more operationally useful if the value is reported in the context of a „target value‟ along with an associated „status descriptor‟ for
that value or range of values (e.g. poor, moderate, good). An approach is trialled and presented in this report.
4. An understanding of dose-response relationships is required to set „target levels‟ that can provide an early warning of the onset of
significant ecosystem change. 5. To ensure that consistent and policy relevant assessments are
carried out methods of measuring biodiversity, and at what level
(species, habitat, ecosystem or geographic region), must first be defined. After this appropriate baseline levels and natural variability
7
of these values be assigned.
6. It is recommended that assessment units or regions consist of comparable habitat types or ecological units. This will ensure that realistic values or target levels, which accommodate spatial
variability, are set for given descriptors. Assessment of community function may reveal changes that would not otherwise be detected when comparing structural parameters alone.
7. Assessments of trophic structure across spatial scales are most meaningful when restricted to comparable environmental units (e.g. similar sediment types).
8. Measures of taxonomic distinctness, as well as functional diversity and structure of communities appear to be more responsive to the origin (and hence frequency) of disturbance, and confounding
factors. These indicators should therefore be treated with caution before being recommended as universal diagnostic indicators of physical disturbance in benthic biota.
9. Use of both meiofauna (animals ranging in size from approximately 0.1 mm to 1 mm that live within the sediments) and macrofauna (animals larger than 1 mm size living within sediments) in the
assessment of the effects of seabed disturbance in the marine environment is advantageous.
10. Initial assessments of performance across spatial scales should
be based on higher taxonomic levels (e.g. phylum and groups) 11. Assessments of performance across temporal scales are most
meaningful when undertaken either regularly throughout the year
or inter-annually in specific seasons. This report highlights the issues noted above (points 1 – 11) and provides a case study to illustrate a potential approach for presenting data for
operationally meaningful combinations of pressure, state and impact indicators (Chapter 8).
12. Socio-economic monitoring should be treated distinctly differently from monitoring of the bio-physical environment. Therefore a deliberative process is essential to develop an indictor framework,
criteria, to choose indicators, and to review the monitoring on a regular basis (Chapter 7)
Novel approaches. 13. An approach trialled in this project utilising the Living Planet Index
is a useful approach for communicating temporal trends in
pressure to the public (Chapter 4). 14. An approach trialled in this project utilising existing or routinely
collected then analysing and displaying using an existing web
based EMECO datatool is shown to be capable of allowing evidence based, realistic and achievable levels of Good Environmental Status to be set and tested.
Novel indicators were also developed in this project including microbial community based indicators of human impact, seabed environmental status indicators using acoustic techniques, techniques to develop indicators of
biogeochemical and ecological status in marine sediments, toxicity
8
indicators, and advancing statistical methods for indicator development and monitoring (Chapter 6).
2 Introduction and project summary
2.1 What is the need for the project?:
In recent years a considerable amount of new environmental legislation has
been presented with the aim of monitoring, conserving and protecting the marine environment (e.g. the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, etc). The overall objectives of these policies and directives revolve around attaining
sustainable development, while assessing the current state of the marine environment and the extent of human impacts.
Indicators have increasingly become an important tool to monitor the impacts of human activities at sea. Indicators can illustrate a specific aspect of the environment with the aim of guiding policy makers and informing the public of
the effectiveness of both legislation and management in improving the state of the environment. However, due to the increasing prevalence of these tools it has become evident that a much more integrated approach is needed, for both the UK and internationally, to help support policy makers in the
development, comprehension, and application of such marine indicators.
2.2 Aims and management of the project:
Communication is the main function of indicators and they should enable
information exchange regarding the issue they address. Indicators should always simplify a complex reality and at the same time be resilient to legal and scientific scrutiny.
The aim of the project is to improve the operational use of environmental indicators that relate directly to UK Government‟s marine management and
reporting obligations. The project will produce guidelines that will facilitate the development and application of indicator formulations. In some instances the project will also propose novel indicators (specifically for state and impact).
This will be achieved through three interrelated scientific themes (and one theme dedicated to integration of the activities and outputs).
Theme 1, entitled “Legislative Aspects”, emerged due to the increasing trend which has risen towards employing indicators and/or thresholds within new policy and regulatory frameworks hierarchically (i.e. at a domestic/UK,
European, and international level) in order to assess progress towards set goals and objectives.1 Within this theme, the project seeks to produce a regulatory risk assessment framework for effective operational use of
indicators.2
1 H Rees (2006) supra note 3 (at p 4)
2 H Rees (2006) supra note 2 (at p 3)
9
Theme 2 of ME4118 is entitled “D & P Indicators” and focuses on the
development of driving force and pressure indicators, identifying whether current data is adequate for developing and applying such indicators within policy and legislation.
Theme 3 of ME4118 is termed “S & I Indicators” and focuses on the development of state and impact indicators, in an attempt to test the validity of
such indicators across all spatial scales and to create indicators that are more globally applicable.3 These are “the most familiar and widely used in a scientific context, [and have] the highest profile in the public imagination.”4
A fourth theme covers the integration of activities, syntheses of products and customer liaison needs. Five R&D modules of a more specific nature address
some important gaps in knowledge or capability, including the development of promising new metrics.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of interrelationships between Themes.
2.3 Which policy areas will the research inform?’
The products of this work will facilitate delivering the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Marine and Coastal Access Act.
Specifically the outputs will enable Defra and the Marine Management
3 H Rees (2006) supra note 2 (at p 6)
4 H Rees (2006) supra note 2 (at p 6)
PROJECT
OUTPUTS
1) Guidelines to develop
and interpret
marine indicators.
2) Map/Report card to
demonstrate
behaviour of
indicators, and
provide a
framework for
future monitoring
and reporting.
3) Peer reviewed papers
on ‘P’ and ‘S/I’
indicator
development and
application,
including
potential novel
formulations.
Theme 1: Legal regulatory risk assessment
Themes 2+3:
P, S&I
Selection ApplicationOperational
use
Target setting PerformanceImplementation
guidelines
R&D
Modules
R&D
Modules
Other
research
Themes 2+3:
P, S&I
Themes 2+3:
P, S&I
Activities (A), Locations (L), Scales (S).
Interactions (‘A’ x ‘L’ x ‘S’)
Management objectives
(e.g. FEPA, MSFD etc)
Develop or interpret Pressure, State
and Impact indicators
Establish monitoring programmes to
follow trends in state/impact and
human induced pressures
MANAGEMENT CONTEXT PROJECT CONTEXT
10
Organisation to plan the delivery of the most efficient and robust indicators for monitoring and reporting purposes.
2.4 What are the results from the project and how will they be used?
In light of the recently adopted Marine and Coastal Access Act there is a current emphasis on the need to identify appropriate indicators that are operationally useful in meeting both activity specific regulatory needs along
with assessing performance against higher level GES descriptors set out under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The outcome of this work will facilitate the UK government‟s capacity to effectively assess the UK seas
in line with these national and international drivers. It will do this by providing guidelines and indicator-based tools that are consistent with reporting requirements for national and international processes, and produce guidance
for the development and interpretation of socio-economic indicators
This report includes detailed guidance document for the development and comprehension of marine environmental indicators.
11
3 Legal Aspects Risk Assessment Framework. Theme 1 aims to provide risk assessment guidelines for the operational use of indicators. Any process of risk
management is concerned with identifying the nature, scope and scale of uncertainty on any project. In the present context this pertains to the scope for challenge to the development and adoption of indicators within a
management framework for the regulation of marine activities. At the time of writing there have been few direct legal challenges to indicators. However, given the exigencies and ad hoc nature of litigation, it is not possible to rule
out potential legal challenges entirely through risk management. Therefore, the focus is on ensuring that indicators can withstand critical scrutiny should they become subject to legal challenge. The prospects of this are likely to
increase as indicators receive a more prominent and central role in decision-making systems.
The project does not provide a detailed review of and commentary upon accepted risk management processes, although it outlines the key aspects of this process below. These are adequately addressed elsewhere, for example
by ISO 31000. Instead, the approach is to provide a simple and transparent process that can be used to ensure that the scope of uncertainty is reduced through adequate checks and consultations, and that the design of indicators
meets certain generally accepted quality standards. This meets the general requirements of risk management and will, in turn, will reduce the prospects of indicators being subject to adverse critical scrutiny.
Recommendation
As the precise risk of legal challenge is difficult to quantify, and subject to future variation, the preferred approach should to adopt a streamlined and
generic mechanism for reducing risks of challenge. This will be cost-effective, easy to implement, rather than add a complex and potentially burdensome
risk management process.
3.1 General
Indicators are primarily descriptive and comprise data which provides evidence. This suggests they possess a neutral or impartial status. However, because indicators may be based upon certain normative assumptions and
their design is shaped by socio-economic factors, their evidential weight may be challenged. If indicators are to withstand critical scrutiny, then their design must adhere to certain quality procedures and standards.
A review of both existing policy documents and academic literature on environmental indicators reveals certain generally accepted indicator qualities.
Future development of indicators should take these criteria into account.
12
Indicators should have the following features: (1) policy relevance – they correspond to a management framework with operational objectives; (2) legal
relevance – they may be influenced by legal obligations, which are mandatory; (3) communication – there should be an effective line of
communication of indicators to both policy-makers and stakeholders, which may involve expert interpretation; (4) responsiveness – indicators should be designed to meet management needs; (5) scientific rigour – they should be accurate and of good quality; (6) quality control review – they should be
subjected to independent and objective quality control; (7) process standards
– indicators should be designed according to a process that ensures the indicator can withstand critical scrutiny. Indicators do not always need to fulfil
these criteria at all times. The need for and importance attaching to the above criteria will depend upon the context within which the indicators are used.
Indicators are used in management frameworks as a means of managing information about the state of the environment. The DPSIR (Driving force, Pressure, State, Impact and Response) framework provides a good example.
The DPSIR framework assumes cause-effect relationships between interacting components of social economic and environmental systems. Driving forces are the needs of society which often lead to environmental
pressures. Pressure indicators are the environmental effects of human activities. State indicators measure the environment as it exists and hence show the resulting condition of the environment. Impact indicators show the
cumulative effects on the environment by measuring how the effects have changed. Finally, response indicators identify the steps taken by society to prevent and/or rectify damage to the environment. Indicators should be
responsive to the needs of such management frameworks. This requires compatible indicators to be designed and adopted within discreet areas of a holistic management framework.
In the following sections, the key findings and recommendations are presented. This will outline some of the key variables affecting the use of
indicators, and therefore the uncertainty as to the function and use of indicators within management frameworks for the regulation of marine activities. The structure is to consider first policy influences on indicator
design, and then general legal requirements. As indicators should be responsive to policy and legal drivers it is desirable that scientists appreciate the normative framework within which indicators are used. This will assist
them in designing suitably robust indicators. Thereafter specific regulatory requirements and rules pertaining to the use of evidence are considered.
Recommendation Scientists developing and implementing new indicators should be familiarised
on a regular basis with the normative framework within which indicators are used, including requirements and rules pertaining to the use of evidence.
13
3.2 International
International policy is shaped by the structure of the international legal order.
International policy is the product of the mutual accommodation of diffuse State interests. This may give rise to conflicting policy agendas as States seek to advance their own political agendas. The development of marine
indicators at the international level has been advanced by the OECD, the UNCSD, the UNEP and the OSPAR. International policy cuts across sectoral issues and often requires States to adopt integrated management systems.
International policy attracts attention and it has a high degree of legitimacy because of the number and range of participants. However international policy is often framed in very general terms in order to gain acceptance. In most
cases regional and national steps must be taken to translate international policy into actual practice. International policy may influence indicator design at a general level, and provide a toolkit of approaches to indicator design and
usage. However, it does not mandate specific approaches. International law is primarily concerned with the legal relationships between
States. International law is the product of consent by States. Treaties are written agreements and bind only the parties, whereas customary international law arises from the practice of States. Domestic law is often
directly affected by international legal obligations. International law is characterised may generate general rules and procedures that shape the management of the environment. However, it is unusual to find specific rules
that mandate the use of particular indicators or indicator qualities. The latter is usually subject to constraints to use the best available knowledge or techniques, and so indicator. International law seldom refers to indicators,
although they may be used within management frameworks established by treaties, such as the Law of the Sea Convention or OSPAR. More specific recommendations are usually the drafted in the form of non-binding
guidelines, although these may have considerable informal influence on actual practices. At the international level States tend to resolve disputes by themselves. In general litigation is resorted to in the last resort, and little
guidance can be sought about how indicators are to be designed to withstand critical scrutiny at the international level. In international law there is no uniform standard of proof; each tribunal decides its own evidentiary
standards. The absence of specific directives on indicators at this level results in
uncertainty as to whether particular indicators are consistent with broad policy goals.
Recommendation There is little risk of individual indicators being challenged at the international
level. However, scientists developing and implementing new indicators should be made aware of how international developments, particularly through OSPAR, influence management regimes at the European and
domestic level.
14
3.3 National
UK policy incorporates the use of indicators as a means of achieving its goals.
These goals broadly include: sustainable development, integrated management, conservation of biological diversity, the use of robust science, the precautionary principle and stakeholder involvement. The goal of
regulatory efficiency is also important, and will require some cost/benefit analysis of proposed regulatory regimes. Domestic environmental policy is closely associated with international indicator frameworks. Indicators in the
UK are continuing to develop to meet changing policy needs, and respond to scientific developments. Often policy goals are broadly framed and are not prescriptive; therefore implementation is potentially hindered and it can often
be difficult to measure the effectiveness of an indicator against these general criteria.
Acts of Parliament have the highest legal authority under domestic law, followed by secondary legislation and then tertiary rules. In a common law system, such as the UK, case law regulates areas which are not covered by
legislation. The courts also interpret legislation. Although in theory the courts are bound to follow domestic legislation, in practice they tend to interpret legislation in accordance with EU and international law. Most domestic
legislation is silent on the particular form of indicators. Domestic law tends to utilise indicators indirectly, rather than specifically mandate particular standards and norms of measurement. Specific adoption and use of
indicators is left to managerial discretion within certain general limits. There are certain exceptions to this in the context of EC law that must be transposed into domestic law. This is considered under the next section.
Indicators may become the subject of domestic legal challenge. This might occur directly by way of a civil action in the ordinary courts, or indirectly by the
High Court in judicial review proceedings. Domestic courts regularly deal with scientific evidence and have developed rules pertaining to its use. Indicators may comprise evidence adduced before a court. Here procedural rules are
used to determine the influence/weight afforded to particular pieces of evidence, such as indicators. At the domestic level indicators are only reviewable in civil proceedings where the relevant standard of evidential proof
is „on the balance of probabilities‟. Evidence to support a legal argument is often adduced through the use of experts. This has the potential to cause problems, because judges and other lay people are not necessarily
competent to decide between the conflicting claims of scientific experts. Also, the adversarial nature of the system may result in bias, because parties only adduce the evidence which they perceive will help them win. Often the court
will rely on a common sense approach to fill in the gaps in scientific evidence; this may involve drawing an inference from the „surrounding‟ facts. Whilst domestic courts are becoming more receptive to evidence of environmental
harm, greater clarity is needed as to how the common sense approach will be
15
given effect to by individual courts, and, indeed, whether the approach is applicable in cases involving environmental regulation.
Recommendation
The following specific recommendations are drawn from domestic case law concerning the provision of expert evidence, and should be respected, where
appropriate, during the design and operational use of indicators:
Expert evidence should be independent of the exigencies of the litigation;
Expert evidence should be independent and unbiased;
Experts should not assume the role of an advocate;
Experts should be clear and honest about what lies within their expertise;
Experts should be explicit about assumptions underpinning their views, and not omit any material acts;
Experts must indicate whether their opinion is supported by research, or is merely provisional;
Experts must inform the Court is their opinion changes during the legal process;
Any material evidence, such as photographs or data must be made
available to the opposite party.
In addition, evidence should not be too complex and be communicable to a lay audience. Expert witnesses should be selected to avoid any conflict of
interest
3.4 Regional
The European Community has been central to the development of environmental policy since it expanded its remit to environmental matters. The
scope and nature of such policy is limited by the Treaty of Rome (and other EC treaties). Harmonised environmental policy is central to ensuring the operation of the European trading zone, as divergence in environmental
standards can result in economic distortions. Further, environmental policy is recognised as facilitative of overall economic development. In this context, economic harmonisation, rather than environmental protection may take
priority. The EC has been active in developing fisheries policy and marine environmental policies. Although such policies are not binding, they are highly influential, and frequently result in future binding commitments. In that
respect the UK must take account of EC policy when considering domestic use of indicators.
The EU principle of supremacy establishes that EU law takes priority of domestic law in areas of EU competence, which ensures the consistent application of EU law. This is important vis-à-vis indicators to ensure
compliance with EU standards. EC law tends to be more direct in its use of
16
indicators, either explicitly in legislation, or tacitly as an obvious tool for implementation.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) establishes a framework within which member States shall take action to achieve or maintain good
environmental status for the marine environment by 2020. Good environmental status is achieved where waters „provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within
their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations‟. This is achieved through the implementation
of a marine strategy for the relevant waters. More specifically it requires an initial assessment of the status of waters, the setting of GES targets for waters and the designation of targets and indicators to measure progress
towards GES. The MSFD is more specific in its designation of indicators than most other
instruments. Given the overarching scope of the Directive, its impact on indicator use could be more widespread. This view is reinforced by the coordinating role, and requirements for compatibility that are advanced by the
Directive. The present report recommends that full consideration be given to the MSFD requirements for state, pressure and impact indicators during the design and operational use of indicators.
The initial assessment is three fold. First it requires an analysis of the characteristics set out in Annex III, Table 1 (Figure 1) of the MSFD document.
Second, it requires an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, which are largely anthropocentric, as set out in Annex III, Table 2 (Figure 2). Finally it requires an economic and social assessment of the use of those
waters and of the cost of the degradation of the marine environment. This assessment shall take into account assessments carried out under the WFD and other relevant EC legislation. It is important to note that the specific
factors listed in Annex III are non-essential elements of the Directive. They are merely indicative, thereby permitting member States to develop alternative lists of characteristics, pressure and impacts. However, such assessments
must capable of facilitating cooperation between member States. More specifically, this means that assessment methodologies must be consistent across marine regions and sub-regions, and take into account transboundary
impacts and features. This provides for a degree of flexibility to adapt assessment models to specific regions or sub-regions, but considerably limits individual Member States capacity to manage marine spaces independently.
With reference to the initial assessment, Member States shall determine a set of characteristics that define the good environmental status of the relevant
waters. In general, the same considerations apply to the determination of good environmental status targets using the indicative lists in Annex III. However, the methodology for constructing these characteristics must be
based upon the mandatory qualitative descriptors set out in Annex I (Figure 3). Not all of these will be relevant, but non-selection must be justified to the EU Commission. This serves to reinforce the use of compatible criteria and
17
methodology across the EU. This means that there may be less scope for developing independent indicators of state. Apart from reinforcing common
standards this seems to be important for monitoring purposes as it means that meaningful comparisons can be drawn between different regions. These criteria are not fixed, and the Commission may adapt them subject to certain
procedural requirements, including consultation with all interested parties. The next step is for Member States to establish a comprehensive set of
environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters so as to guide progress towards achieving or sustaining good environmental status. These targets and indicators shall be developed taking into account existing
targets laid down in national, EC and international instruments. This would include measures under instruments such as the Water Framework Directives and Habitats Directives. The targets and associated indicators should take
into account the non-essential lists of pressures and impacts in Annex II and the characteristics in Annex IV(see below). The targets adopted must be notified to the Commission within 3 months of their adoption. Again these
targets must be mutually compatible and take into account transboundary impacts and features as far as possible.
Member States shall then establish coordinated monitoring programmes. These shall take into account the non-essential lists in Annex II. They must also be based upon the list set out in Annex V. These latter factors are
mandatory. However, as broadly stated qualitative requirements, they are subject to a degree of interpretation and adaption. These monitoring programmes must be compatible within marine regions or sub-regions, and
compatible with assessment and monitoring programmes laid down in other EC legislation or under international agreements.
The types of indicator required by the MSFD are set out in the indicative (non-mandatory) lists in Annex III. More important to the question of indicator design and construction of indicators is the indicative list of characteristics
found in Annex IV. Although these pertain to targets they will influence the indicators used to measure and monitor progress towards these targets. Annex IV lists 12 characteristics (Figure 4).
Under domestic law, a court seeking authoritative guidance on EC law may refer a case by way of a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice
(ECJ). Alternatively there may be a direct action whereby a Member State has failed to comply with its obligations under EC law. The European Commission first issues an opinion on the matter and if the Member State fails to comply
with that opinion the matter may be brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The ECJ has taken a strict approach to ensuring compliance with environmental standards. Under EC law there is no single standard of
proof. Whilst evidence must be adduced in support of a plea, and must be expressly and accurately indicated, there are no clear rules about the treatment of science. It is difficult to provide guidance here because
infringement disputes are often dealt with by the Commission without the need for litigation, and such proceedings are not public
18
Recommendation
The MSFD will be a key driver of, and measure for, the legitimacy of indicators. New indicators should be developed according to the characteristics for indicators set out in Annexes of the MSFD.
3.5 Recommendations on the Design of Indicators
Although there is no general legal obligation to use standards of best scientific advice, this obligations does arise in specific contexts, such as OSPAR, and it may be regarded as an important policy consideration. To the extent that
indicators are designed according to the general standard, it will make them more robust against withstand legal scrutiny. The following criteria are factors that should be considered when facilitating best available science:
A clear statement of objectives;
A conceptual model, which is a framework for characterizing systems, stating assumptions, making predictions, and testing hypotheses;
A good experimental design and a standardized method for collecting data;
Statistical rigor and sound logic for analysis and interpretation;
Clear documentation of methods, results, and conclusions; and
Peer review.
Drawing upon rules concerning the treatment of scientific evidence and academic writing, the following recommendations are proposed concerning
the development and utilisation of indicators. These are advanced in more detail in the attached Risk Assessment Guidelines, and Template (Communication Protocol). The Risk Assessment Guidelines are tested and
evaluated in a case study, also attached to the Project Report. The first stage in any design process is to ensure that a satisfactory risk
assessment is effected, by which developers of indicators should:
indentify the problem;
identify the consequences;
estimate the magnitude of the consequences;
estimate the probability of the consequences;
evaluate the significance of the risk.
19
This will help establish the weight that will be attached to the indicators and extent to which they may be subject to scrutiny. Indicators must fulfil the
following criteria in order to stand up to scrutiny:
(1) Legal relevance – Indicators should always comply with the relevant
legal requirements. If a particular indicator is specified by law, that
indicator should be used; this eliminates the possibility of challenge,
unless it is misapplied. If a particular process is specified by law,
that process should be followed; where discretion arises, it should
be exercised within legal parameters.
(2) Policy relevance – Policy requirements must be met.
(3) Scientifically and methodologically sound – indicators must be
developed in accordance with the best available science
(4) Responsive – The role which an indicator plays within a decision
support system should be taken into account.
(5) Representative – A small number of ecological quality objectives
should be adopted for developing indicators.
(6) Communicable – Indicators must be capable of being
communicated to a lay audience.
(7) Sub-criteria – Indicators should be cost effective and routinely
updated.
Recommendation Indicators should possess the 7 characteristics listed above.
Indicators must also „manage risk‟ and in that respect must be supported by adequate evidence should they be subjected to judicial scrutiny in the courts.
This requires a risk management plan with the following components. Firstly training is needed, not only in respect of the exercise of risk analysis, but also the carrying out of risk analysis. This training will include knowledge of the
legal, policy and scientific frameworks for use of indicators. In particular scientists need to be aware of how the courts treat science. They should properly understand the burden of proof and should base their indicators on
the best available science. Scientists must also be able to communicate technical knowledge to a lay judicial audience. This will involve the use of non-technical language and an appreciation of how scientific evidence has
been used by courts in the past. Scientists must be able to attribute the appropriate weight to scientific evidence and their evidence should be independent, impartial, unbiased, clear, and precise about its limits and
caveated where necessary. It may sometimes be appropriate to support it with documentary evidence. Training is ongoing and apart from contributing to the
20
development of more robust indicators it forms part of a quality assurance process.
Secondly information gathering will provide the basis for the development of indicators. This can be done by adhering to a simple quality control process.
This process should serve to ascertain: (a) a legal context, in order to ascertain any specific legal requirements with which indicators must comply; (b) a policy context for the achievement of management objectives; (c) a
scientific context for the design of the indicator; (d) a cost/benefit analysis. The process will facilitate risk analysis, and must contain a statement of the relevant legal drivers, a statement of the relevant policy drivers and a
statement of the science/research plan. The quality control process should be followed by persons designing new indicators.
Recommendation
A quality control process for the development of indicators should be implemented. A „checklist‟ is presented in chapter 9.1 and provides a set of reference points that must be considered in the design process and should be
followed in practice.
21
4 Pressure Indicators
4.1 General
Human activity exerts a variety of pressures on the marine environment which, in turn may lead to state changes or impacts on the physical, chemical and biological components of the ecosystem. There is now a growing interest
in the development of indicators to represent each component of the DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) approach. Furthermore, there is a need to establish links between indicators of pressure and indicators of state
and impact and a need to integrate pressure indicators to give an overall indication of the cumulative pressure, from various activities, on the marine environment. Historically, a large number of state and impact indicators have
been developed and tested and many are now incorporated into monitoring programmes. However, less attention has been paid to indicators of pressure.
Attempts to characterise pressure on the marine environment have included mapping the spatial extent of activities (e.g. aggregate extraction, wind farm construction etc) and documenting the pressures assumed to be associated
with these activities (e.g. Eastwood et al., 2007; Halpern et al., 2008; Stelzenmüller et al., 2010). These studies give an indirect measure of pressure but do not provide a robust indicator. Foden et al. (2009) further
developed this approach by determining the spatial area of aggregate dredging at different intensities. Piet et al. (2007) derived a number of pressure indicators for the fishing industry and attempted to derive indicators
that were precise descriptors of pressure rather than simple descriptions of anthropogenic activity. Indicators such as fishing effort, intensity, frequency and fish mortality were used and this approach was successful in developing
indicators directly related to impacts but highlighted the need for increasing amounts of data in order to quantify pressure.
This study aims to develop indicators of pressure, directly relating to the sea bed, for the marine aggregates industry, dredged material disposal activities and chemical discharge and uses the outer Thames region as a case study
area for marine aggregate extraction and sea disposal of dredged material and the Humber as a case study for chemical discharges. The potential use of these indicators at varying spatial (e.g. local, regional, national) and temporal
scales will be assessed. In the past, there have been inconsistencies in the definition of activity,
pressure and impact and the distinction between these components of the DPSIR framework needs to be clear. The definitions used in this study are consistent with those adopted by OSPAR and the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD). As such, PRESSURE is defined as “the mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any part of the ecosystem” and may be physical, chemical or biological. IMPACT is defined as “the consequence
22
of a pressure, where a change occurs that is different to the natural trajectory of what would be likely to occur”.
A set of pressure categories and pressure types, together with the associated activities, has recently been defined under OSPAR, for use within the QSR
2010 (and has resonance with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)) and is currently in use by UKMMAS (UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy). Those relating to aggregate extraction, dredge
disposal and chemical discharge are summarised in Table 1. In the majority of cases information on trends in pressures is sparse or non-
existent. Therefore, utilising the direct associations between pressures and activities allows the available trend data on activities to be used as a simple proxy for trends in pressures (e.g. Eastwood et al., 2007; Halpern et al., 2008;
Stelzenmüller et al., 2010).
Table 1. OSPAR pressures associated with aggregate extraction, chemical discharge and dredge disposal. ACTIVITIES
Pressure theme
Pressure Aggregate extraction
Dredged material disposal
Chemical discharge
Hydrological change (inshore/local)
Water flow (tidal current changes – local
Habitat damage
Siltation rate change
Habitat structure change (abrasion and other physical damage)
*
Habitat structure change (removal of the substratum)
Habitat loss Habitat change (to another type)
Pollution and other chemical change
Non-synthetic compound contamination (including heavy metals, hydrocarbons, produced water)
Synthetic compound contamination (including pesticides, antifoulants, pharmaceuticals)
Organic enrichment
Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment
* *
*Association between activity and pressure which is not identified by OSPAR but considered relevant
This study considers parameters such as volumes of dredge disposal, volume of material removed from aggregate extraction sites, chemical composition and toxicity of chemical discharge, frequency, duration and spatial scale of the
activity to be indicative of the pressures identified in Table 1. These parameters need to be linked to the OSPAR pressure categories in use by
23
UKMMAS (e.g. those associated with physical disturbance, chemical contamination etc).
Pressure indicators can be easily integrated within each category (e.g. pressures relating to physical disturbance can easily be integrated between activities) but care needs to be taken when adding pressures from other
categories (e.g. chemical contamination). For example, the pressure associated with a large volume discharge with a low concentration of contaminants may not be as significant as that associated with physical
disturbance of the sea bed. Pressure needs to be linked to impact (addressed in theme 4) where
impact has been determined objectively from monitoring data (high impact
should not be assumed because of high pressure). Therefore the indicators of pressure developed make no assumptions about the degree of impact which may or may not be present at the sites concerned.
4.2 Approach
A number of data sets were provided by Cefas and the Crown Estate and
represent the type of data collected in relation to dredge disposal and aggregate extraction activities at a national level (Table 2). These data were provided for individual licence areas and predominantly include volumes of
material removed / disposed of in relation to defined spatial areas. As such, it will be possible to scale the indicators up or down to represent pressure at a specific licence area or, for example, the whole of the Thames region or the
whole of the North Sea. Detailed discharge data (beyond basic physico-chemical parameters such as BOD, ammonia, pH, suspended solids etc) are not held by the Environment Agency and belong to individual industries.
Hence, usable data could not be sourced for the Thames region. An example study from the Humber region has been used together with sediment quality data provided by UKOOA. Indicator development and testing was carried out
as follows:
1. Identify and collate available data sets (Table 2) and assessment of
data types that exist or could realistically be collected for different regions.
2. Identify the pressures associated with aggregate extraction, dredge
disposal and chemical discharge (Table 1). 3. Identify existing and potential new indicators - i.e. what can be
achieved with the available data and what will provide a useful tool for
managers. 4. Test the performance of indicators in terms of their usefulness and
potential for application at different spatial scales.
5. Test the indicators against the criteria outlined in section 3.1. These include:
(1) Legal relevance – Indicators should always comply with the relevant
legal requirements. If a particular indicator is specified by law, that
indicator should be used; this eliminates the possibility of challenge,
unless it is misapplied. If a particular process is specified by law,
24
that process should be followed; where discretion arises, it should
be exercised within legal parameters.
(2) Policy relevance – Policy requirements must be met.
(3) Scientifically and methodologically sound – indicators must be
developed in accordance with the best available science
(4) Responsive – The role which an indicator plays within a decision
support system should be taken into account.
(5) Representative – A small number of ecological quality objectives
should be adopted for developing indicators.
(6) Communicable – Indicators must be capable of being
communicated to a lay audience.
(7) Sub-criteria – Indicators should be cost effective and routinely
updated.
6. Optimise indicator presentation to allow identification of areas
subjected to multiple pressures at varying levels and to indicate geographical location and spatial extent.
7. Present a list of pressure indicators which have been tested against the
criteria outlined in section 3.1. 8. Develop a useful tool for managers.
Table 2. Available data sets. Aggregate extraction Dredge disposal Chemical discharge
Tonnes extracted / year (1995-2005) for all regions of England.
Spatial area and perimeter of licence area.
Spatial area and perimeter of extraction area.
Total area dredged / year.
Dredging intensity (categories of 0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes and >75 minutes) for dredged areas.
Total area dredged at each intensity.
Data associated with aggregate extraction are confidential and cannot be presented in their raw form.
Total tonnes disposal / year.
Total tonnes of each component of the dredged material (individual contaminants, solids).
Concentrations of individual contaminants in dredged material.
UKOOA data
2 detailed data sets from the Humber estuary.
Humber estuary sediment and water quality data.
Humber estuary discharge data are confidential and details of the source and location cannot be disclosed.
AGGREGATE EXTRACTION
Pressures relating to aggregate extraction include habitat damage in the form of abrasion and removal of the substratum and, where screening (the process of sorting aggregate whilst dredging, to retain the desired material and return
the unwanted material to sea) has occurred, habitat loss (i.e. a permanent
25
change from one habitat type to another) may result due to a significant change in sediment particle size distribution. Hydrological and siltation rate
changes are also possible. The available data directly relate to removal of the substratum, which is considered to be the main pressure associated with aggregate extraction, with fewer data relating to other pressure types.
Indicator development was based on data which were readily available and those which would be easily obtainable in the future. Therefore, data available
at present which were not routinely collected (e.g. those relating to a site specific study) and would therefore not be widely collected in the future were disregarded to ensure that the indicators would be a widely applicable as
possible. 1. Log scale scores
Indicator development centred upon the use of tonnes extracted as an indicator of habitat structure change in terms of substratum removal. An initial assessment was made to determine differences in the degree (as tonnes) of
extraction between different regions of England in order to indicate the range of pressure occurring at a national scale. Due to the large values, data were presented on a log scale as both tonnes/year/ licence area (Figure 1) and
mean tonnes/year/region.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
TH (
A)
TH (
B)
TH (
C)
TH (
D)
TH (
E)
TH (
F)
TH (
G)
TH (
H)
TH (
I)
TH (
J)
TH (
K)
TH (
L)
TH (
M)
TH (
N)
TH (
O)
TH (
P)
TH (
Q)
TH (
R)
TH (
S)
TH (
T)
TH (
U)
TH (
V)
Me
an v
olu
me
ext
ract
ed
(to
nn
es,
log
x+1
)
Thames licence area (ranked)
Figure 1. Mean annual extraction (log x+1) in each Thames licence area
(labelled A - V). However, whilst there were some obvious high and low values, most fell into a
„mid‟ range which does not provide the resolution of information necessary to make informed management decisions. Furthermore this does not account for changes in the frequency or intensity of the pressure over time and therefore
cannot reliably indicate areas of potential concern. Therefore, the proportion of time that dredging was carried out over the 11 year period (time span of the data set) was calculated and multiplied by the mean value for each area to give a weighted mean pressure score (Figure 2 and Tables 3-5). This gave a
26
set of values which demonstrated a much larger degree of variation in pressure and could be added or averaged to give a pressure score for a
single licence area or a whole region.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
TH (
A)
TH (
G)
TH (
K)
TH (
M)
TH (
B)
TH (
Q)
TH (
O)
TH (
F)
TH (
C)
TH (
V)
TH (
L)
TH (
U)
TH (
T)
TH (
H)
TH (
D)
TH (
E)
TH (
N)
TH (
I)
TH (
J)
TH (
R)
TH (
P)
TH (
S)
We
igh
ted
me
an e
xtra
ctio
n (
ton
ne
s, lo
g x+
1)
Thames licence area (ranked)
Figure 2. Mean annual extraction (log x+1), weighted according to extraction
frequency, in each Thames licence area (labelled A – V). Mean pressure scores for the licenced areas within the Thames region range
from 3 to 5, with a mean value of 4 and a total value of 97 (Table 3). However, it is clear that whilst aggregate extraction occurs continually throughout the 11 year period at some licence areas, this is not the case for all areas. For
example, extraction has only taken place in 2 years (over the 11 year period) in areas B, O and Q and in one year in areas M, A and G. Clearly, the pressure in these areas is considerably less than that in, for example, area R
where extraction has occurred in all years. Simply calculating the mean score is therefore an overestimate of the pressure. The weighted mean pressure score, which accounts for the intensity of activity, ranged from 0.27 in area A
to 5 in areas R, P and S, with a mean value of 2 and a total of 45 for the region as a whole. Total maximum and minimum scores were 102 and 67, with mean values of 5 and 3
Comparison with the Humber and North West regions indicates that the Thames region is under the highest level of pressure from aggregate
extraction. Pressure scores range from 60 to 78, with a mean of 75 and a weighted mean of 40 for the Humber region (Table 4). In the North West region, scores range from 42 to 48 with a mean of 45 and a weighted mean of
26 (Table 5), indicating that this region is subjected to a lower level of pressure than the Thames of Humber regions.
27
Table 3. Thames mean and weighted mean pressure scores (licence areas are labelled A-V). Area Extraction
period proportion of time period (1995-2005)
when actively dredging
log mean
log mean (weighted)
log max
log min
TH (A) 1998 0.09 3 0.27 3 3
TH (B) 1995-1996 0.18 4 0.73 4 3
TH (C) 1997-1999 0.27 4 1.09 4 3
TH (D) 1999-2005 0.64 4 2.55 5 3
TH (E) 1999-2005 0.64 4 2.55 4 3
TH (F) 1999-2001 0.27 4 1.09 4 4
TH (G) 2001 0.09 4 0.36 4 4
TH (H) 1999, 2001-2002 0.55 4 2.18 5 0
TH (I) 1995-1997, 2000-2005 0.82 4 3.27 5 0
TH (J) 1995-1999 / 2001-2005 0.91 4 3.64 5 0
TH (K) 1996 0.09 4 0.36 4 4
TH (L) 1995-1998 0.36 4 1.45 5 4
TH (M) 1999 0.09 5 0.45 5 5
TH (N) 1999-2005 0.64 5 3.18 5 4
TH (O) 1997 and 2004 0.18 5 0.91 5 4
TH (P) 1995-2005 1.00 5 5.00 5 4
TH (Q) 1995-1996 0.18 5 0.91 5 3
TH (R) 1995-2005 1.00 5 5.00 5 4
TH (S) 1995-2005 1.00 5 5.00 5 3
TH (T) 1995-1998 0.36 5 1.82 5 5
TH (U) 1995-1998 0.36 5 1.82 5 4
TH (V) 1999, 2001-2002 0.27 5 1.36 5 0
Total 97 45 102 67
Mean 4 2 5 3
28
Table 4. Humber Mean and weighted mean pressure scores Area Dredging period proportion of
time period (1995-2005) when active dredging
log mean
log mean (weighted)
log max
log min
HUM (A) 1995-2005 1 5 5 5 4
HUM (B) 1999 0.09 5 0.45 5 5
HUM (C) 1995-2005 1.00 5 5.00 5 5
HUM (D) 1995-2005 1.00 6 6.00 6 5
HUM (E) 1995-2005 1.00 4 4.00 4 4
HUM (F) 1997-2000, 2005 0.45 5 2.27 6 5
HUM (G) 1997 0.09 6 0.55 6 6
HUM (H) 1995-2005 1.00 5 5.00 6 5
HUM (I) 1999-2000, 2003-2005 0.45 4 1.82 4 0
HUM (J) 1999 0.09 3 0.27 3 3
HUM (K) 19,961,998 0.18 3 0.55 3 0
HUM (L) 1996-2005 0.91 5 4.55 5 5
HUM (M) 2000 0.09 5 0.45 5 5
HUM (N) 1999-2000 0.18 5 0.91 5 3
HUM (O) 2000-2003, 2005 0.45 4 1.82 5 0
HUM (P) 2001, 2003-2005 0.36 5 1.82 5 5
Total 75 40.45 78 60
Mean 4.69 2.53 4.88 3.75
Table 5. Northwest mean and weighted mean pressure scores
Area Dredging period proportion of time period (1995-2005) when active dredging
log mean
log mean (weighted)
log max
log min
NW (A) 1998-2004 0.64 4 2.55 5 3 NW (B) 2001-2003, 2005 0.36 4 1.45 5 4 NW (C) 1998-2005 1.00 5 5.00 5 4 NW (D) 1998-2005 1.00 5 5.00 5 5 NW (E) 2000 0.09 3 0.27 3 3 NW (F)
1995-1999, 2001-2005 0.91 4 3.64 4 3
NW (G) 2000 0.09 4 0.36 4 4 NW (H)
1995-1999, 2001-2005 0.91 4 3.64 4 4
NW (I) 2000 0.09 4 0.36 4 4
NW (J) 1995-1999, 2001-2005 0.91 4 3.64 5 4
NW (K) 2001 0.09 4 0.36 4 4
Total 45 26.27 48 42
Mean 4.09 2.39 4.36 3.82
29
This system of scoring could provide an indication of pressure that can be
applied at a local, regional or national level. However, this approach did not account for intensity, was not considered appropriate for use with confidential data and also raised some concerns on interpretation and presentation.
Recommendation
Scoring systems such as this can be misleading because they become separated from the underlying data so that attention becomes focussed on the score not the various parameters that provide the reason for the score. It was
also felt that in the first instance the objective for pressure data was to identify differences not that one pressure or activity was any better or worse than any other (this step being more closely associated with state and impact). As
such, there were no further developments using this approach.
2. Summary tables A series of summary tables for each activity (aggregate extraction and dredge disposal) were populated with the available data to indicate current status and
temporal trends in the relevant pressures (e.g. Table 6, dredge disposal data are presented since the aggregate extraction data are commercially sensitive and cannot be displayed in a publicly available document). These tables
clarified the features that an effective indicator would require and highlighted parameters (potentially useful for indicator development) where data were not available but did not provide a usable indicator in their own right. Furthermore,
this approach led to the generation of large amounts of information which would be difficult to interpret if presented for a number of licence areas simultaneously. Finally, this approach included a large number of redundant
pressures for which limited or no data were available and involved presenting confidential data in their raw format which would limit its use and confound interpretation.
Recommendation
In order to be effective, an indicator must be easily communicable and readily interpretable. Indicator development should aim to produce a concise
measure which can be directly linked to the activity and impacts it may cause.
30
Table 6. Pressure summary Tables: Thames dredge disposal site TH052
Pressure Category Pressure Type
Pressures (Theme 2) Impacts (Theme 3)
Pressure associated
with activity?
a
Historic
trend b
Future
trend c
Pressures synchronous
in time and space?
Intensity Volume
(Tonnes) Toxicity Bioaccumulation Recoverability
e
Socio-
economics
Physical Disturbance
Habitat damage (reversible
changes)
? Y
N/A N/A If disposal
activity stops
Particle size distribution change, biological
community change
Habitat loss (permanent
changes)
N/A N/A
Siltation rate changes
No data ? Y No data No data N/A N/A If disposal
activity stops
Particle size distribution change, biological
community change
Underwater noise
disturbance No data ? Y No data No data N/A N/A Yes
Visual disturbance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hydrological changes - local
No data ? N No data No data N/A N/A Yes
Particle size distribution
change, biological community change
Contamination
by Hazardous Substances
Heavy metals ? Y
No
Bioaccumulation and toxic
effects. Biological community change if
severe.
31
Pressure Category Pressure Type
Pressures (Theme 2) Impacts (Theme 3)
Pressure associated
with activity?
a
Historic
trend b
Future
trend c
Pressures synchronous
in time and space?
Intensity Volume
(Tonnes) Toxicity Bioaccumulation Recoverability
e
Socio-
economics
Hydrocarbons No data ? Y Slow Biological community
change
Persistent organics
No data ? No Bioaccumulation and toxic
effects.
Nutrient / Organic Enrichment
Organic enrichment
No data ?
Organic input
not known (not
measured or not present?)
No data No data Yes Biological community
change
Nutrient inputs (including input of
nitrogen & phosphorus)
No data ?
Nutrient input not known
(not
measured or not present?)
No data No data Yes
Biological
Disturbance
Removal of non-
target species No data No data Y No data No data Yes
Biological community
change
Removal of target species
No data No data No data No data Yes Biological community
change
Barrier to species movement
No data No data No data No data Yes
32
Pressure Category Pressure Type
Pressures (Theme 2) Impacts (Theme 3)
Pressure associated
with activity?
a
Historic
trend b
Future
trend c
Pressures synchronous
in time and space?
Intensity Volume
(Tonnes) Toxicity Bioaccumulation Recoverability
e
Socio-
economics
Litter
No data No data No data No data Yes
Entanglement / ingestion / mortality – species
abundance and population effects
Column
a: is pressure associated with activity: - yes, blank – no
Column b: historic trend: ↑ increasing; ↓ decreasing; ↔ stable/static
Column c: future trend: ↑ increasing; ↓ decreasing; ↔ stable/static
Column d: for activities in given area, where different activities occur together (i.e. where more than 1 per row) are pressures synchronous in time and space: Y- yes, N – no
Column e: recoverability
33
3. Living Planet Index (LPI) The Living Planet Index (LPI) was developed as a means of assessing temporal
trends in the population status of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates (Loh et al., 2005; Collen et al., 2009). It is based on time series data and calculates average rates of change in population status. The index is based on the logarithm of the ratio of one
year to that of the previous year (dt) – a procedure termed „the chain method‟:
dt = log10(Nt/Nt−1)
where Nt is the population measure at a specific time. The index value (I) for time t is calculated as with the It for year 1 of the data set being set to 1 and all other index
values being calculated relative to this year:
It = It−110dt ,
This formula was applied to the aggregate extraction data (tonnes extracted / year) to determine temporal trends in extraction as an indicator of removal of the
substratum (Figure 3). Extraction (and therefore pressure) at area 257 has been variable over time with no obvious or consistent trend of increase or decrease over the eleven year time series. In contrast, pressure in area 364 (1-3) appears to
decrease over time. Additionally, this approach could be applied at various spatial scales (e.g. local, regional, national). Figure 4 shows a marked and consistent increase in pressure within the East Coast region since 1970 with pressure in all
other regions remaining relatively stable.
Figure 3. Temporal trends in removal of the substratum (using tonnes of material extracted/year) for licence area 257 and 364(1-3) using the Living Planet Index.
34
Figure 4. Temporal trends in aggregate extraction for different regions using the Living planet Index.
Whilst the LPI is useful in demonstrating temporal trends in pressure and, potentially impact, caution must be applied when making spatial comparisons. The LPI is
derived from the ratio of tonnes extracted in one year to that of the previous year. Therefore, whilst LPI values and the raw data are directly proportional within a data set, they may not be directly proportional between data sets. Comparison of areas
257 and 364 (1-3) shows maximum LPI values of 1.6 and 3.7, respectively yet the difference between the raw values used to generate the index values for these years is less than 100,000 tonnes. However, an index value of 1.8 for area 364 (1-3)
corresponds to a raw tonnage value of 100,000 tonnes less than that corresponding to the index value of 1.6 for area 257. Furthermore, the LPI allows interpolation between data points to account for missing values. This is not appropriate for
aggregate extraction data (or that relating to other human activities) since a missing value could represent zero extraction and this year may be followed by a high level of extraction. This is acceptable when estimating general temporal trends but may
lead to over generalisation if used as a direct indicator of pressure in a management context.
Finally, if the data were available, the LPI could be applied to account for intensity and spatial scale of pressure. This is demonstrated by Loh et al. (2005) and Collen et al. (2009) where the LPI was applied over entire ecoregions defined by WWF.
Recommendation
35
The LPI is suitable for assessing temporal trends in pressure where aggregate extraction takes place in all years in the data set. Broad spatial comparisons can be
made but care should be taken since this index is calculated based on the ratio of extraction between 1 year and the previous year. The LPI is a useful tool for communicating temporal trends in pressure (or impact) to the public but may only be
indirectly useful as a pressure indicator in a management sense.
4. Integrating intensity, spatial extent and frequency Electronic Monitoring System (EMS) data were made available by the Crown Estate. The intensity data from EMS are used within the Marine and Fisheries Agency
(MFA), soon to be the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), as part of their regulatory enforcement role to monitor compliance with dredging zones and identify any out of area dredging. To undertake this monitoring, an Electronic Monitoring
System (EMS) computer is located on the bridge of each dredging vessel operating on the seabed. The computer receives electrical signals from various sensors throughout the ship. These sensors monitor the status of equipment such as the
draghead and associated machinery which need to be utilised for dredging to occur. The EMS is set up in such a way so as to trigger electrical signals when the sensors indicate that the vessel is dredging aggregate. When the vessel begins loading, the
EMS records the position using a GPS signal, along with the date and time. In this way a detailed log of all dredging activity is built up on the EMS computer. Once a week, this dredging data is submitted to the Managing Agent of the Marine Crown
Estate via wireless email. Every month approximately 500,000 data points (10,000 km) of dredge tracks from
an average of 27 vessels are analysed by the Managing Agent. EMS Irregularity Notices are issued to licencees for any time gaps in the data or indications of out of area dredging. In response to these Notices, dredging companies must supply
evidence of ship activities during any periods in question, such as track plots, vessel deck logs and a legally binding Master‟s statement. In the case of any proven infringements, the Department for Communities and Local Government and Defra
are informed and further measures may be taken.
As well as being used to monitor compliance with dredging licence conditions, EMS
data is also used to give a detailed picture of the intensity of dredging in different licences and regions of the UK. These data are widely used both by the dredging industry and in scientific studies and the Crown Estate has allowed the use of these
data for the ME4118 project. The EMS data were used to (a) show spatial and temporal patterns in dredging
activity in GIS format and (b) to derive a numerical indicator of pressure (a) Spatial and temporal representation of dredging intensity.
The location and spatial area of dredging at each intensity were presented in GIS format, together with areas of repeated dredging (i.e. number of years dredged over
the eleven year span of the data set) (Figures 5 and 6).
36
Figure 5. Location and area of dredging occurring at each intensity (1995). 1 = 0-15
minutes; 2 = 15-75 minutes; 3 = >75 minutes.
Figure 6. Location and spatial extent of areas of repeated dredging
37
(b) Numerical indicators of pressure
The EMS dredging intensity categories were 0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes and > 75 minutes and the total area and perimeter were given for each area dredged at a given intensity. Additionally, the frequency of dredging at each intensity / year was
given. Median intensity values (7.5, 45 and 75 minutes, respectively) were used to estimate the tonnes extracted under each dredging intensity category and the proportion of the material removed under each category. These figures were then
used to indicate tonnes/hectare removed using the following calculations:
a. Express dredging effort as minutes / m2 for each intensity as Area x median
intensity in minutes. b. Calculate the total dredging for a licence area as Σ minutes/m2 for intensity
categories 1, 2 and 3.
c. Calculate tonnes of material extracted under each dredging intensity category as (total tonnes for the licence area / Σ minutes m-2) x mins/m2 for intensity category 1, 2 and 3
These data and calculations gave the following indicators:
Total area of extraction/year (m2 or ha).
Total area of extraction/year (m2 or ha) under each intensity (0-15 minutes,
15-75 minutes, >75 minutes).
% area of extraction/year (m2 or ha) under each intensity (0-15 minutes, 15-75
minutes, >75 minutes).
Frequency of dredging at each intensity / year (0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes,
>75 minutes).
Total tonnes removed under each intensity (0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes, >75 minutes).
% of material removed under each intensity (0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes, >75 minutes).
OVERALL INTENSITY – TONNES / Ha extracted under each intensity category (0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes, >75 minutes).
Example using a hypothetical data set:
Total tonnes = 86459 Total Area intensity 1 = 2610000 m2
Total area intensity 2 = 430000 m2
Total area intensity 3 = 6053 m2
a. Total mins/ m2:
Intensity 1 = 2610000 m2 x 7.5 mins = 19575000 mins m2;
Intensity 2 = 430000 m2 x 45 mins = 19350000 mins m2;
Intensity 3 = 6053 m2 x 75 mins = 453975 mins m2
b. Σ Total mins m2 for intensity 1, 2 and 3 = 39378975 mins m2
38
c. Total tonnes / total mins m2 (86459 tonnes / 39378975 mins m2) = 0.002196 mins m2
d. Tonnes extracted at each intensity: cat 1. = 0.002196 x 19575000 = 42978
tonnes (i.e. 42978 tonnes removed from an area of 19575000 m2 at a median
dredging time of 7.5 mins).
e. OVERALL INTENSITY - Tonnes / ha at dredge intensity category 1:
42978 / 261 ha = 164.7 tonnes / ha.
Recommendation
Approaches (a) and (b) are complementary. The main benefits of approach (a) are spatial visualisation of pressure and the ability to identify areas of pressure overlap and pressure and impact overlap (assuming these data are also imported into GIS).
Approach (b) provides a numerical value will enable the objective determinat ion of the relationship between pressure and impact, again assuming the impact data are available. This approach also enables identification of temporal trends (e.g. plotted
as raw figures for management purposes or as LPI values for public demonstration) . Each indicator is expressed as the real data and as a percentage. These are
effectively duplicates but the later representation overcomes any issues associated with commercial sensitivity if the data are to be presented beyond those directly involved in dredging activities and/or their management. The scientific robustness
and, therefore, effectiveness of these indicators in terms of their links to measured impacts requires further testing but is currently limited by data availability for the
impacts.
DREDGE DISPOSAL The primary pressures associated with the disposal of dredged material are
considered to be siltation rate changes (leading to smothering of the seabed, changes in substratum type and changes in bathymetry) and pollution / chemical change by synthetic and non-synthetic contaminants, organic and nutrient
enrichment. Data for these pressures are readily available in relation to the characteristics of the dredged material itself but less so for the receiving environment. It is important to recognise that such pressures may be present in the
environment as a result of historic activity or proximity to other current activities (e.g. chemical discharge). Additionally, there is potential for dredge disposal to result in habitat loss (change from one seabed type to another) or habitat damage (habitat
structure change through changes in sediment type and particle size distribution). a. Assessment of the volume of material
Data were available regarding the total disposal, total solids and total disposal of each individual contaminant (tonnes). The chemical data were classified as List 1 and 2 metals, organometals, and where available, synthetic organics, Total
Hydrocarbons (THC) and PAH and the pressure of the contaminants in each class
39
was assumed to be similar. At the most simple level, these data can be presented graphically to demonstrate temporal trend in pressure and to allow spatial and
temporal comparison (e.g. Figures 7 and 8). These data also provide a numerical indicator which could be directly linked to impacts data if such data were available.
Comparison between areas TH052 and TH062 indicates a general trend of increased disposal at both sites over time but that the pressure is significantly higher at area TH052 in terms of siltation rate change (Figure 7) and chemical
contamination by List 1 metals (Figure 8).
Figure 7. Siltation rate change (indicated by total disposal) for areas TH052 and TH062
Figure 8. Pollution / chemical change (indicated by total List 1 metals) for areas TH052 and TH062
Whilst this approach enables simple spatial and temporal comparison of the pressure associated with dredge disposal, there is no indication of intensity or
frequency. That is, the data do not demonstrate where disposal had taken place within each licence area (e.g. concentrated in the same area on each disposal occasion or dispersal of the material around the site). Bathymetric data may provide
a useful indicator for this, clearly showing spatial patterns in siltation / smothering of the seabed as was demonstrated in the Tees region. See Figure 9 below.
40
Figure 9. Multibeam survey of the Inner Tees dredge disposal site depicting shoaling of sediments in the southwest corner of the licenced area.
Furthermore, this approach does not account for the movement of material following
disposal. In order to assess this, a hydrodynamic mobility index was developed. This assigns a numerical values based on the potential for tide and wave activity to move sediment at the site. It requires information on tidal currents and wave activity
to be available, either from observations, or more likely, as output from regional hydrodynamic and wave models. Also required is information on sediment type and grain size of the material of interest. The interpretation of the numerical value in an
absolute sense is rather subtle and complex. Therefore the recommendation is that this indicator is best used only as a relative measure of sediment mobility between sites.
Recommendation
Whilst this approach enables simple spatial and temporal comparison of the pressure associated with dredge disposal, the indicators need to be tested with impacts data to ensure that the link between pressure and impact can be made
using such indicators. Additionally, data were not available to demonstrate where disposal had taken place within each licence area (e.g. concentrated in the same
41
area on each disposal occasion or dispersal of the material around the site). These data are available for other parts of the UK (e.g. the Tyne) and bathymetric data
could be used to indicate changes in siltation rate within a licence area.
b. Assessment of chemical contamination
Whilst measuring the amount of contamination being added to a system is a useful indicator of pollution, it provides little indication of the likelihood of a biological effect. Therefore, data regarding the chemical composition and concentration of
contaminants in the dredged material were sought. Comparisons were made between concentration data and UK Action Levels 1 and 2, the Canadian Interim Sediment quality Guidelines (ISQG) and Probable Effects Levels (PEL). The latter
two have no statutory significance in the UK but using the three indicators provides a scale of pressure. For example, the concentration of a particular determinand may be below UK Action Level 1 but may be above the PEL which indicates a degree of
pressure but that level of pressure would be lower than a determinand which exceeded UK Action Level 1. Furthermore, the UK Action Levels were derived on the basis that a certain level of pressure would be acceptable. This weight of evidence
approach considers balancing multiple lines of evidence concerning ecological assessment as an aid to decision making. However, concentrations lower than the Action Levels do not indicate „no pressure‟.
CHEMICAL DISCHARGE a. Assessment of chemical discharge characteristics
Data were not available for the Thames region so Humber data held by IECS (provided by the Environment Agency) were used for a separate case study area. These data represent the outputs of the H1 (Horizontal Guidance Note IPPC H1)
assessment carried out for two discharges on the Humber estuary (specific details cannot be disclosed). This assessment is carried out using an electronic tool (produced by the Environment Agency, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
and the Northern Ireland Environmental Heritage Service (EHS)) and screens out those contaminants which can be classed as insignificant and those which require further investigation. This assessment follows the methods set out by the
Environment Agency (2003) and assesses each component of a chemical discharge according to the concentration present, the expected level of dilution and dispersion and existing contamination in the receiving water body. Data are input to reflect the
long (normal conditions, with 50% dilution in the receiving water) and short term (occasional elevated concentrations with no dilution or 100% effluent in the receiving water) for average and maximum concentration and flow rate. At maximum
concentration and flow rate, this gives higher concentrations than would typically be observed (i.e. gives the worst case scenario).
The first stage is to compare the effluent concentration (termed the Process Contribution (PC) with an Environmental Assessment Level (EAL). PC values of less than 1 % of the EAL are considered to be insignificant and are removed from
the assessment process. All other effluent components are investigated further. Stage 2 involves the calculation of the Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC), based on the quality of the receiving away from the discharge (background
water quality). Where long term PEC values exceed 70% of the EAL and short term PEC values exceed 20% of the EAL, the Environment Agency (2003) states that dispersion modelling would be required.
42
Recommendation
The final result is either an indication that, following dilution and dispersion, the discharge does not contain any contaminants at concentrations of concern
(representing a low pressure) or one or more contaminants is present at a concentration which will be more than 1% of the EAL after dilution in the receiving water, thus representing a higher pressure.
This information can be used in combination with background environmental quality data (see the following section „b‟) as a measure of pressure. Additionally, toxicity
data relevant to locally occurring species can be used as an assessment of the
potential for biological effects at concentrations lower than the EAL.
b. Assessment of environmental data
In association with the above technique, Humber data held by IECS (provided by the Environment Agency) were used for a separate case study area. The parameters and therefore the indicators are measurable anywhere and can therefore be applied
at any spatial scale. Water quality data were compared to EQS values (Table 7) and the proportion of the EQS was calculated in each case to determine the level of exceedance (if any). This indicates that copper and zinc represent the highest
pressure with values of 1.3-2.3 and 1.3-1.6 times greater than the EQS, respectively. Table 7. Water quality for the middle estuary south bank (sites A and B*) area
showing the reduction in contamination between 1995 and 1999 and mean values for 2000 – 2005. Comparison of mean concentration data with EQS values is expressed as a proportion of the EQS. Red values = > 1; blue values = > 0.5.
South Bank A Low slack
South Bank A High slack
South Bank B slack
South Bank B slack
Metals
Lead (μg l-1
) EQS 1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
25 79.2 – 23.9 19.5* 0.78
25 72.5 – 27.6 7.9* 0.32
25 No data 18.2 0.74
25 No data 15.9 0.6
Copper (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
5
46 – 8.14 8.81* 1.7
5
13.8 – 10.3 6.68* 1.3
5
No data 11.4 2.3
5
No data 8.4 1.7
Zinc (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
40
69 – 40.9 59.3* 1.5
40
70 – 58.8 62.3* 1.56
40
No data 51.3 1.3
40
No data 35.7 0.9
Nickel (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
30
8.34 – 6.56 7.15 0.24
30
6.84 – 7.29 5.4* 0.18
30
No data 9.1 0.3
30
No data 6.4 0.2
Cadmium (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
5
0.25 – 0.25 0.21* 0.04
5
0.25 – 0.25 0.2* 0.04
5
No data 0.2 0.04
5
No data 0.2 0.04
Mercury (μg l-1
)
43
EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
0.5
0.17 – 0.04 0.04* 0.08
0.5
0.065 – 0.08 0.04* 0.08
0.5
No data 0.16 0.3
0.5
No data 0.05 0.01
South Bank A Low slack
South Bank A High slack
South Bank B slack
South Bank B slack
Chromium (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
15
5.39 – 7.99 13.1* 0.87
15
6.7 – 3.17 6.65* 0.4
15
No data 4.2 0.28
15
No data 5 0.3
Arsenic (μg l-1
) EQS 1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
25 37 – 9 8.75* 0.35
25 30 – 11 7.7* 0.3
25 No data 9.6 0.4
25 No data 7.6 0.3
Iron (mg l-1
) EQS 1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
1 No data
1 2.4 – 3.2 0.746* 0.74
1 No data 0.5 0.5
1 No data 1.9 1.9
Vanadium (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
100
21 – 10 11.6* 0.1
100
20 – 16 10.27* 0.1
100
No data 12.5 0.13
100
No data 11.4 0.1
Organic compounds
1,2-dichloroethane (μg l
-1)
EQS (FW)
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
10
No data
10
1.5 – 1 0.55* 0.05
10
No data 1 0.1
10
No data 1 0.1
111-trichoroethane (μg l
-1)
EQS 1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
100 No data
100 0.5 – 0.1 0.55* 0.005
100 No data 0.1 0.001
100 No data 0.1 0.001
Chloroform (μg l-1
) EQS
1995-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of EQS
12
No data
12
0.5 – 0.1 0.1* 0.008
12
No data 0.1 0.008
12
No data 0.1 0.008
*Sites A and B represent two locations on the south bank, middle region of the estuary, the details of which cannot be
presented. * *2000-2005 mean calculated using 2000 and 2001 data only. More recent data were not available.
The number of times greater or less than the EQS values was calculated based on the mean concentration for the period 2000 – 2005 (the most recent data).
This analysis was repeated using sediment quality data (provided by the
Environment Agency) (Table 8) and indicated that copper, zinc, mercury, lead and arsenic exceeded the ISQG at most sites. In particular, arsenic which was recorded at a mean concentration of 5 times the ISQG and presents a greater pressure than
the other contaminants listed. None of the contaminants exceeded the PEL indicating that biological effects were unlikely. However, chemical speciation, bioavailability and toxicity are dependent upon a number of environmental variables
and a single derived PEL may not be applicable in all cases. Therefore, contaminants present at concentrations of 0.5-1 times the PEL have also been identified as a potential pressure, albeit low.
44
Table 8. Sediment quality in the South bank middle region of the Humber estuary showing the reduction in contamination between 1995 and 1999 and mean values
for 2000 – 2005. Comparison of mean concentration data with Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) is expressed as a proportion of the ISQG and of the Probable Effects Level (PEL). Values of >0.5 are considered a notable pressure.
Red values = > 1; blue values = > 0.5 East Halton South
Killingholme Stallingborough flat
Stallingborough
Grimsby Middle
Grimsby Roads
Copper (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
18.7 108 45.9 - 27 27 1.4 0.25
18.7 108 39.3 - 33.7 31* 1.7 0.3
18.7 108 29.1 – 22.7 25 1.3 0.2
18.7 108 73.6 – 33.5 29 1.5 0.3
18.7 108 58.1 – 36.9 6 0.3 0.06
18.7 108 53 – 37.5 51.4 2.7 0.5
Zinc (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
124 271 269 - 145 157
1.26 0.6
124 271 220-179 173*
1.4 0.6
124 271 120 – 124 131
1.1 0.5
124 271 430 – 169 189
1.52 0.7
124 271 345 – 200 71
0.6 0.3
124 271 303 – 203 218.1
1.8 0.8
Cadmium (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
0.7 4.2 1.06 - 0.9 0.29 0.4 0.07
0.7 4.2 0.93 - 1 0.3* 0.4 0.07
0.7 4.2 0.9 – 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.07
0.7 4.2 1.23 – 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.07
0.7 4.2 1 – 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.05
0.7 4.2 0.4 – 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.1
Mercury (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
0.13 0.7 0.24 - 0.14 0.19
1.5 0.27
0.13 0.7 0.22 - 0.21 0.2*
1.5 0.3
0.13 0.7 0.09 – 0.08 0.13
EQUAL 0.18
0.13 0.7 0.45 – 0.21 0.25
1.9 0.35
0.13 0.7 0.42 – 0.27 0.1
0.76 0.14
0.13 0.7 0.4 – 0.26 0.27
2.1 0.4
Lead (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
30.2 112 101 - 43 55
1.8 0.5
30.2 112 776 - 57 63*
2.1 0.6
30.2 112 27.5 – 29 36
1.2 0.3
30.2 112 146 – 54 77
2.5 0.7
30.2 112 159 – 72 23 0.76 0.2
30.2 112 112 – 90 107.7
3.6 0.96
Arsenic (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
7.24 41.6 58.5 - 16.6 36.4 5 0.9
7.24 41.6 47.3 – 22.5 25.6* 3.5 0.6
7.24 41.6 21.1 – 23.3 24.9 3.4 0.6
7.24 41.6 88.1 – 19.2 18.7 2.6 0.4
7.24 41.6 94.9 – 24.8 18.2 2.5 0.4
7.24 41.6 79 – 23.9 29.3 4 0.7
Chromium (mg kg-1
) ISQG PEL 1990-1999 2000-2005 mean Proportion of ISQG Proportion of PEL
52.3 160 118 - 50 49
0.9 0.3
52.3 160 93.9 – 63 51*
0.97 0.3
52.3 160 80.3 – 51 49
0.9 0.3
52.3 160 186 -58 51
0.97 0.3
52.3 160 164 – 66 12 0.2 0.08
52.3 160 160 – 69 113.1 2.2
0.7 *The number of times greater or less than the ISQG / PEL values was calculated based on the mean concentration for the
period 2000 – 2005 (the most recent data). No ISQG/PEL data for iron and nickel.
45
4.3 Scaling and aggregation
Indicators of pressure have been developed using data from the Thames & Humber regions with a view to applying them at various spatial scales, making the indicators
nationally (or where data are available), internationally applicable. In developing the pressure indicators it was considered important to be able to
overlay multiple activities, pressures, degree of pressure and their impacts and also to be able to readily extract the data underlying pressures and impacts to create a transparent and auditable system. Figure 10 demonstrates the initial visualisations
of how this could be achieved.
Figure 10. Geographical location and spatial extent of activities (a), pressures (b) and temporal trend in pressure (c).
A common problem when pressure data become tabulated, presented in graphical form or ranked is that the drivers, interactions and relative importance of the
component parts become hidden or lost. This makes the application of pressure
46
indicators difficult because it is not clear what or where action needs to be taken. It can also lead to misinterpretations of what the data are actually telling us. In an
attempt to redress this imbalance different options were considered. The most promising of these was to apply descriptors (in additions to the LPI) that explain to what extent temporal or spatial pressures, or a suite of such pressures are
applicable to a certain set of circumstances (natural or anthropogenic), an example is provided in Figure 10 (b).
The web-based EMECO datatools provide an easy to use interactive platform that works with geo-referenced data providing bespoke „assessment‟ maps and can be linked to other platforms such as Google Earth which makes it a good platform for
technical assessments and to present outputs to stakeholders and the public. Although designed in the first instance to meet Defra requirements for improving the evidence base for assessing eutrophication it became clear that the EMECO
datatool would fulfil all the aspirations that we had within Themes 2, 3 and 4 for the presentation and user interface for the indicator outputs for the ME4118 project.
Consequently, in order to facilitate this examination of pressures at different spatial (and temporal) scales, indicator data have been imported into EMECO (see also Themes 3 and 4). At present only data for the Thames region has been input to
EMECO but there is potential to add data from other regions (local, OSPAR, CP2 etc) and for multiple other activities and pressures.
4.4 Indicator performance
Using the most appropriate (i.e. readily available, continued data collection in the future, no expensive or time consuming analysis) data sets available, a set of
indicators have been derived. Some of these are presented in Table 9 below. These are tested against the indicator selection criteria outlined in section 4.2 and summarised in Table 10.
47
Table 9. Summary of pressure indicators Pressure theme
Pressures Indicator categories Indicator Activity
Pollution and other chemical changes
Non-synthetic compound contamination (inc. heavy metals, hydrocarbons, produced water)
Total List 1 metals Total List 2 metals Total hydrocarbons Total PAH Intensity values for these contaminant classes Temporal trend for each of the above contaminant classes
Total tonnes / contaminant class; Concentration (individual contaminants) compared to Cefas Action levels 1 & 2, ISQG and PEL Tonnes of disposal/unit area LPI
Dredge disposal
Synthetic compound contamination (inc. pesticides, antifoulants, pharmaceuticals)
Total organometals Total CB Total halogenated organics Intensity values for these contaminant classes Temporal trend for each of the above contaminant classes
Total tonnes / contaminant class; Concentration (individual contaminants) compared to Cefas Action levels 1 & 2, ISQG and PEL Tonnes of disposal/unit area LPI
Dredge disposal
Physical damage
Siltation rate changes
Total disposal Total disposal / unit area (intensity) Temporal trend in total disposal No data/indicator at present
Tonnes of disposal/unit area. Total solids / unit area Bathymetric change (no data for Thames) LPI
Dredge disposal Aggregate extraction
Physical removal (extraction of
Total extraction
Total extraction / licence area AND / area
Aggregate extraction
48
Pressure theme
Pressures Indicator categories Indicator Activity
substratum) Temporal trend
dredged. Time spent dredging Frequency of dredging Spatial extent of dredging Overall dredging intensity LPI
Physical loss Physical change (to another seabed type)
Sedimentological, hydrological, bathymetric change Temporal trend
Sedimentological change
Dredge disposal & Aggregate extraction
Table 10. Indicator performance summary. Indicator Pressure
Le
ga
l
rele
va
nce
Po
lic
y
rele
va
nce
Sc
ien
tifi
ca
lly
so
un
d
Re
sp
on
siv
e
Re
pre
se
nta
tive
Co
mm
un
ica
ble
Co
st
eff
ec
tive
Total tonnes extracted Removal of the substratum
Total tonnes extracted expressed as LPI
Removal of the substratum
Spatial extent of dredging Removal of the substratum
Area of repeated extraction Removal of the substratum
Dredging frequency Removal of the substratum ?
Dredging intensity Removal of the substratum ?
Dredging intensity expressed as LPI
Removal of the substratum ?
Total disposal of solids (tonnes)
Siltation rate change
Bathymetric change Siltation rate change
Total tonnes / contaminant class
Pollution / other chemical changes
Concentration of individual contaminants
Pollution / other chemical changes
Comparison of contaminant concentration with effects thresholds
Pollution / other chemical changes
a. Assessment of Indicators of physical removal of the substratum Indicators of substratum removal include measures of the amount of material removed, which can be expressed as raw tonnes or as LPI values, the spatial extent
and frequency of dredging and dredging intensity expressed as tonnes/ha within a
49
particular dredging intensity category based on time spent dredging. This indicator can be presented as estimated numerical values, percentage of the total tonnage
within each intensity category or as LPI values. Criteria 1. Legal relevance
Activities that remove marine substratum are licenced under national and international environmental legislative controls (see section 8.2, 1) . Under these
controls it is essential for the location, quantity and timing for the removal operations to be known and in the UK the licensing process requires predictions to be included in the application which are tested by extraction returns and monitoring conditional to
any licence. It is an offence for extraction activities to be undertaken without the licenced area and period or in excess of the licenced quantity.
Criteria 2. Policy relevance
It is UK Government policy to encourage the supply of marine-dredged sand and gravel from environmentally acceptable sources within the principles of sustainable development. The UK Government‟s objectives and policies for mineral extraction
are set out in the Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1). In addition to marine sources this includes encouragement for the use of alternative aggregates in preference to primary aggregate and to make provision for the remainder of supply to be met from
land-won sand and gravel and crushed rock. The policy context for management systems (including indicators) is provided by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, the Defra strategy Safeguarding our Seas and various EC Policy instruments (see
section 8.2, 2). Criteria 3. Scientifically and methodologically sound.
In order to assess scientific robustness, sufficient impacts data are required to ensure that the link between pressure and impact (cause – effect). At present, these
data are not available. However, there is evidence that dredging (and hence removal of the substratum) causes significant impacts on the biological communities (see chapter 5) and the indicators are therefore assumed to be robust.
Data collection is based on routine techniques used by the aggregate extraction companies and is assumed to be methodologically sound.
Criteria 4. Responsive
As described above and in section 8.2, 4 basing the indicators on readily accessible datasets of extracted quantities, spatial and temporal extent and intensity provides a sound foundation. This foundation provides the basis for a correlative association
with certain state and impact indicators. This trend-based approach allows for relationships with other datasets to be investigated (e.g. socio-economic, management, sensitivity).
Criteria 5. Representative.
50
Again the use of readily available datasets makes these indicators representative and easily incorporated into management activities.
Criteria 6. Communicable
In their raw format, these indicators are not easily communicable due to commercial sensitivity. They can, however, be presented in way which do not show the raw data
(e.g. in percentage format or as LPI values). With the exception of the LPI, these indicators are easily understood by specialist and non-specialists. The LPI can be effectively communicated as a tool to show a temporal trend without any
understanding of its calculation. Criteria 7. Cost effectiveness.
The data used to derive the above indicators are collected routinely and collated by the Crown Estate. Therefore, they are readily available to regulatory bodies but
cannot be released to the wider public. Minimal costs (a few days of staff time) are associated with processing the EMS data and calculating dredging intensity.
b. Assessment of Indicators of siltation rate change Siltation rate change was assessed according to the amount of material placed on the seabed (tonnes) and its potential for dispersal using a hydrodynamic model
developed specifically for the Thames region. Criteria 1. Legal relevance
Activities that remove marine substratum are licenced under national and international environmental legislative controls (see section 8.2, 1) and this context
relate to navigation dredging activities. If such dredged material is to be disposed at sea a licence under the Food & Environment Protection Act (FEPA) 1985 (this will ultimately be replaced by the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009) is required.
Dredged material can only be taken to predefined locations and it is an offence for disposals at these areas or for material quantities or types not described within the licences. The EC EIA Directive is applied to FEPA via the Marine Works (EIA)
Regulations 2007 and aspects of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) are addressed under FEPA and the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009. The London Convention & Protocol and OSPAR Convention also provide an international
framework for management of sea disposal activities.
Criteria 2. Policy relevance
UK Government policy is that no waste be disposed of at sea if there is a safe and practicable land-based alternative. Since the end of 1998 most forms of disposal at sea have been prohibited - the only significant exception being material dredged
from ports and harbours (navigation dredging). The sea disposal of navigation dredged material is strictly controlled (see above) and only allowed where the material cannot be used beneficially, for example to replenish beaches.
51
Criteria 3. Scientifically and methodologically sound.
In order to assess scientific robustness, sufficient impacts data are required to
ensure that the link between pressure and impact (cause – effect). At present, these data are not available. However, there is evidence that dredging (and hence removal of the substratum) causes significant impacts on the biological communities
(see chapter 4) and the indicators are therefore assumed to be robust. Every licence application for the disposal of dredged material requires the collection,
submission and testing of sediment samples from the dredge area. Also, the use of defined disposal sites, many of which have undergone environmental characterisation, means the sediment typology at the receiving site is known. Clear
instructions are provided on how samples should be collected, stored and transported. Areas can be resampled by Cefas staff as part of inspections visits. All sample analyses are undertaken by Cefas so methods are sound
Criteria 4. Responsive
Basing the indicators on readily accessible datasets provides a sound foundation. This foundation provides the basis for a correlative association with certain state and impact indicators. This trend-based approach allows for relationships with other
datasets to be investigated (e.g. socio-economic, management, sensitivity). Criteria 5. Representative.
Again the use of readily available datasets makes these indicators representative and easily incorporated into management activities.
Criteria 6. Communicable
The data are presented in their raw format and are therefore readily understandable by specialists and non-specialists. Criteria 7. Cost effectiveness.
Because the data are collected as part of the licence application process and the
analyses is covered by the licence fees, the use of this indicator requires no additional cost to the regulator or the industry. Once the data are collated, a minimal (days) amount of staff time is required for processing. These indicators are therefore
considered to be cost effective. c. Assessment of Indicators of pollution and other chemical changes
Criteria 1. Legal relevance
The Environment Agency control polluting discharges to estuaries and inland coastal areas (out to three nautical miles) and look after the quality of bathing waters. Discharges of sewage or trade effluent directly into surface water, such as rivers,
52
streams, canals, groundwater or the sea require a discharge consent or 'consent to discharge' from the Environment Agency under the Environmental Permitting
Regulations 2010. Relevant UK legislation includes: the Environment Act 1995, the Merchant Shipping Act and Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Food
and Environment Protection Act 1985, There are also several EU Directives applicable to water quality, including the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that sets new ecological objectives for inland waters, estuaries and coastal waters (to one
nautical mile) and EA monitor and report on the quality of our estuaries and coastal waters. Criteria 2. Policy relevance
The Environment Agency have regulatory duties span land and sea including
controlling pollution. Defra is responsible for setting legislation, policy, regulations and guidance for a number of marine environment issues. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive fits well with the UK Government‟s vision for „clean, healthy,
safe, productive and biologically diverse seas‟. Concentration of contaminants is one of the GES descriptors. Criteria 3. Scientifically and methodologically sound.
Chemical data are derived using standard collection and analysis techniques which
are well documented (e.g. CSEMP, 2007). A significant amount or research has been carried out to assess the lethal and sublethal toxic effects of a large number of contaminants and a series of agreed, scientifically robust standards have been
generated (based on toxicity data from a number of trophic levels). Hence, there is a degree of understanding of the link between pollutants and their potential impacts. It should however be noted that the biological effects of pollutants are spatially variable
according to environmental conditions. Therefore the link between pressure and impact may be weak in many cases. Criteria 4. Responsive
Basing the indicators on readily accessible datasets provides a sound foundation.
This foundation provides the basis for a correlative association with certain state and impact indicators. This trend-based approach allows for relationships with other datasets to be investigated (e.g. socio-economic, management, sensitivity).
Criteria 5. Representative.
Again the use of readily available datasets makes these indicators representative and easily incorporated into management activities. Criteria 6. Communicable
Chemical concentration data are widely understood.
Criteria 7. Cost effectiveness.
53
Chemical analysis is costly although it forms part of many routine monitoring programmes and may, in some cases, be carried out by industry. Many of these data
are publically available making their use cost effective.
Recommendation For management purposes, it is recommended that the raw data (or intensity data as tonnes /ha) are used since these provide the most accurate representation of
pressure. However, for wider communication, presentation as LPI, percentages or
other derived values will adequately show spatial and temporal variation in pressure.
54
5 State and Impact Indicators
5.1 General
In light of the recently adopted Marine and Coastal Access Bill there is a current emphasis on the need to identify appropriate indicators that are operationally useful
in meeting both activity specific regulatory needs along with assessing performance against higher level GES descriptors set out under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). This report details how the performance of a range of benthic
indicators has been assessed, over a range of spatial and temporal scales, according to a set of pre-determined criteria. In selecting a given indicator the first consideration must be whether the indicator is scientifically relevant to the regulatory
or policy objective in question. Once this has been established the indicator can then be assessed in terms of its sensitivity and utility in detecting a given impact or for assessing environmental status in relation to the relevant descriptor.
Performance in relation to certain additional „secondary‟ criteria can then be assessed.
Infaunal data has been compiled from existing datasets that were collected for monitoring purposes relating to a number of anthropogenic activities and also from surveys that were designed to examine natural temporal and spatial variability in
areas that are representative of the wider, un-impacted environment. These data have been utilised for the assessment of indicator performance in meeting regulatory needs, in relation to single/multiple activities, across a range of spatial and temporal
scales. The data has also been employed to assess indicator performance in measuring environmental status according to the relevant GES descriptors set out under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).
5.2 Indicator selection and application to meet UK regulatory and policy specific needs
Considerations governing the development and utility of indicators for the purpose of measuring performance against local or regional regulatory and management objectives are perhaps different to those governing the development of indicators for assessing performance against higher level national or international policy targets for
which the underlying objectives are likely to be different. For example, in the regulatory realm the objective of a given licence condition may be that the impact of an activity on the seabed is confined to an acceptable level within an acceptable
area, as predicted in the supporting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and that any impact detected beyond this may be considered unacceptable. Conversely, objectives associated with wider reaching national or international policy targets are
often less activity specific and are instead more concerned with assessing quality over greater spatial scales in relation to a variety of ecosystem components (e.g., Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
55
Indicator selection and utility in meeting UK regulatory objectives
The recent adoption of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill has led to a need for the development of numerous associated initiatives required to meet its objectives. In essence the implementation of the Marine Bill will mark a new era in marine spatial
planning and management. Whilst traditionally the various sectors (e.g., ports and shipping, harbour developments and marine constructions, renewable energy installations, marine aggregate extraction and dredgings disposal) were managed
separately, future management and licensing will be the responsibility of a single regulator, the new Marine Management Organisation (MMO). This will be achieved through the consolidation of the two existing Acts which set the framework for the
current system-the Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) and the Coast Protection Act (CPA) thus increasing consistency in regulation across the associated sectors. It is intended that strategic planning of marine resources and a unified
licensing process will enable managers to better consider long-term and cumulative effects and thus reduce the risk of significant impacts on the marine ecosystem. However, it is not intended that the new planning system will replace the requirement
for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Appropriate assessments (AAs) to accompany new development proposals where relevant. With this in mind, there is increasing emphasis on the need for the development appropriate and effective
environmental indicators to support impact assessments and future regulation under the new framework.
In selecting appropriate indicators or metrics for investigations into their utility in assessing performance against specific regulatory or policy objectives it is becoming increasingly recognised that a number of criteria must be considered (ICES, 2001,
Defra, 2004, Magni et al., 2004, EEA, 2005) (Table 11). Table 11. Criteria reported for indicator selection and utility and their source. Criteria Source
Policy/Regulatory/Legal Relevance Policy relevant Scientifically valid Sensitive to changes it is meant to indicate Sensitive to a manageable human activity Responsive primarily to a human activity, with low responsiveness to other causes of change High predicative ability (indicative of stress where stress should be occurring) Conveys information that is meaningful and useful in decision making
EEA, 2005 Defra, 2004 Defra, 2004 ICES, 2001 ICES, 2001 ICES, 2001 Magni et al., 2004
Criteria Source
Communicability Understandable and simple Simple and easy to interpret Relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and those who will decide on their use
EEA, 2005 Defra, 2004 ICES, 2001
56
Spatial Behaviour Primarily be national in scale Measurable over a large proportion of the area to which the indicator is to apply Applicable over broad regions and environmental conditions
EEA. 2005 ICES, 2001 Magni et al., 2004
Temporal Behaviour Sufficient time trends Show trends over time Give early warning about irreversible trends where possible Relatively tightly linked in time to a given activity
EEA, 2005 Defra, 2004 Defra, 2004 ICES, 2001
Data Availability and Quality Based on readily available and routinely collected data Based on data that can be produced in reasonable and „useful‟ time Based on readily available data or data that is available at reasonable cost Based on data adequately documented and of known quality Easily and accurately measured with low error rate Amenable to measurement and preferably easy to measure
EEA, 2005 Defra, 2004 Defra, 2004 Defra, 2004 ICES, 2001 Magni et al., 2004
Associated Targets Monitor progress towards quantified targets Has a target level or guideline against which to compare it Based on existing body or time-series of data to allow realistic setting of objectives Linked to a conceptual stressor-response framework with corresponding thresholds signalling the onset of conditions that may result in significant ecosystem degradation
EEA, 2005 Defra, 2004 ICES, 2001 Magni et al., 2004
Recommendation
The more detailed criteria for indicator selection, derived by a number of organisations, shown in Table 11 can largely be integrated and summarised by the following six overarching requirements which are comparable to the
criteria checklist in section 3.1: 1. Legally robust and relevant to the regulatory or policy objectives in
question 2. Responsive: sensitive and tightly linked in time to a manageable human
activity 3. Communicable: Relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and those
57
who will decide on their use
4. Measurable and representative over the spatial scale to which the
indicator is to be applied
5. Based on readily available, routinely collected and cost-effective data of
known quality
6. Based on existing time-series data and known stressor-response
relationship, with corresponding target levels or thresholds which signal
the onset of conditions that may result in significant ecosystem degradation.
The criteria identified from the literature for assessing performance of indicators of „state‟ and „impact‟ (Table 11) essentially reflect and summarise those identified for
assessing generic indicator suitability under section 3.1. Indicator selection and performance in relation to the six criteria.
Case Study: Marine Aggregate Extraction Criteria 1. Legally robust and relevant to the regulatory or policy objectives in question
The Marine Minerals Guidance Note 2: The control of marine minerals dredging from the British seabed (MMG2) details the statutory procedures for the control of given dredging activities in relation to the introduction of the Environmental Impact
Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Marine Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007. Overall policy for marine minerals dredging in English waters is set out in the Marine Minerals
Guidance Note 1: Guidance on the extraction by dredging of sand, gravel and other minerals from the English seabed (MMG1). The two documents in conjunction provide detail and guidance on how marine mineral extraction should be undertaken
so that it is consistent with the principles and objectives of sustainable development. It is intended that the policy objectives associated with marine mineral extraction are
achieved by the implementation of a number of associated aims or measures applied as part of the regulatory process. Such measures include 1) Minimising the total area licenced/permitted for dredging, 2) careful location of new dredging areas, 3)
consideration of new applications in relation to the findings of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where such an assessment is required, 4) adopting dredging practices that minimise the impact of dredging, 5) requiring operators to
monitor, as appropriate, the environmental impacts of their activities during, and on completion of, dredging and 6) controls on dredging operations through the use of conditions attached to the dredging licence or dredging permission. Additional
guidance and detail relating to the requirements of an EIA and subsequent monitoring of ecological impacts, specific to marine aggregate extraction, is given in Annex A of MMG1. Some key indicators are presented in Table 12.
58
Table 12: Description of the biological status of the proposed area providing records
Indicator Type Reference
UNIVARIATE
Descriptors
Abundance Number of Species Biomass
Indices of Diversity
Shannon Index Hurlbert Index Taxonomic Diversity Taxonomic Distinctness Benthic Pollution Index (BPI) Margalef‟s Index Simposon‟s Index Pielou‟s Eveness Brillouin Index Hill‟s Diversity Hill‟s Eveness
Shannon and Weaver, 1949 Hurlbert, 1971 Warwick and Clarke, 1995 Warwick and Clarke, 1995 Leppäkoski, 1975 Margalef, 1968 Simpson, 1949 Pielou, 1966 Brillouin, 1956 Hill, 1973 Hill, 1973
Graphical Methods
K-Dominance Curves ABC Curves Rank Frequency Distribution (RFD)
Lambshead et al., 1983 Warwick and Clarke, 1994 Frontier, 1985
Ecological Groups
Annelid Index of Pollution Benthic Opportunistic Polychaetes and Amphipod Index AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) Bentix Coastal Endofaunic Evalutaion Index Biotic Index (BI) Indicator Species Index
Bellan, 1980 Gomez Gesteira and Dauvin, 2000 Borja et al., 2000, 2003, 2004 Simboura and Zenetos, 2002 Grall and Glémarec, 2003 Majeed, 1987, Grall and Glémarec, 1997, Hily et al., 1986 Rygg, 2002
FUNCTIONAL
Ecological Evaluation Index (EEI) Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI)
Orfanidis et al., 2001 Word, 1979, 1980, Maurer et al., 1999
Multimetric Indices
Pollution Coefficient Biological Quality Index (BQI) Infauna Ratio-to-Reference of Sediment Quality Triad Benthic Index of Estuarine Condition Benthic Condition Index (BCI) Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) Ecofunctional Quality Index (EQI) Benthic Quality Index (BQI) Danske Kvalitet Indeks (DKI) Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) Norwegian Quality Index (NQI) Marine Biotic Index Tool (MarBIT) Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI) Brackish Water Benthic Index (BBI) Benthic Habitat Quality (BHQ) DAPHNE
Satsmadjis, 1982, 1985 Jeffrey et al., 1985, Wilson and Jeffrey, 1987, 1994 Chapman et al., 1987 Weisberg et al., 1993, Scimmel et al., 1994, Strobel et al., 1995 Engel et al., 1994, Engel and Summers, 1999, Paul et al., 2001 Ranasinghe et al., 1994, Van Dolah et al., 1999, Llanso et al., 2002a,b Fano et al., 2003 Rosenberg et al., 2004 Borja et al., 2007 Prior et al., 2004, Borja et al., 2007, Miles et al. (In Prep). Rygg, 2002, 2006, Borja et al., 2007 Meyer et al., 2006 Van Hoey et al., 2007 Perus et al., 2007 Nilsson and Rosenberg, 2000 Forni and Occhipinti Ambrogi, 2007
Multivariate and Modelling Approaches
PRIMER Canoco Benthic Response Index Principal Response Curves (PRC) M-AMBI
Clarke and Gorley, 2004 ter Braak and Šmilauer, 2002 Smith et al., 2001 Pardal et al., 2004 Borja et al., 2004, Muxika et al., 2007
59
of all species identified and their abundance, a description of benthic communities within and adjacent to the application area (covering diversity, abundance, extent,
species richness, representativeness, naturalness, rarity and fragility). Assessment of biological effects of dredging incorporating an assessment of
variability of benthic species and communities over time and space and provide an indication of the likely rate of recovery following cessation of dredging.
Provision for future monitoring of environmental effects to validate predications made in the EIA and to establishing whether the dredging conditions are adequately preventing unacceptable effects.
A comprehensive list of currently utilised benthic indicators was recently compiled for the Report of the Workshop on Benthos Related Environmental Metrics (WKBEMET)
held in 2008. Whilst the list is by no means exhaustive it does include a number of metrics that are relevant to the regulatory and policy objectives detailed above. It is not possible, in the current study, to examine the sensitivity of all metrics listed to
effects of aggregate extraction. Criteria 2. Responsive: sensitive and tightly linked in time to a manageable human
activity
Univariate Metrics
Data collected in support of a number of Defra funded research projects were identified and complied to facilitate analyses of indicator sensitivity to impacts arising
from aggregate extraction activities. The geographical regions from which the data were collected were delineated spatially by Charting Progress 2 (CP2) sea areas and incorporated three survey areas in the Southern North Sea (Area 408, Cross
Sands and Area 222) and three survey areas in the Eastern Channel (Hastings Area X, Hastings Area Y and Shoreham). The data were incorporated into the EMECO datatools (Figure 11).
60
Figure 11. Spatial coverage of data points displayed by in a Google Earth map.
Datatool users can select to ouput integrated data in a Google Earth format (KML) enabling its import into Google Earth. Data across the regions incorporates a time-series spanning 1998-2007.
The completed data set comprised macrofaunal species abundance data, collected using a 0.1m2 Hamon grab, from areas where aggregate extraction had occurred
(dredged) and un-dredged areas of comparable substrate type. Dredged and Reference stations had previously been identified for the purposes of the original research programmes under which the data were collected using Electronic
Monitoring System (EMS) information. A consistent trend of lower values of number of species (S) was observed in the
dredged areas, relative to reference areas for all sites (Figure 12). Statistically significant differences were observed for this metric over time and between dredged and reference areas at all sites (Table 13). However, at certain sites (Hastings X
and Shoreham), the interaction term, between years and dredged/reference areas, was significant indicating that significantly lower values were not present within dredged areas during all years (Table 13).
61
Figure 12. Number of Species (S) at dredged and reference stations.
Trends in number of individuals (N), between dredged and reference areas, were less consistent with significant differences only apparent for Hastings X, Area 222 and Area 408 during certain years (Table 13). Temporal variability of this indicator
was high thus confounding the identification of significant differences between the dredged and reference areas.
Consistent trends of lower values of Hill‟s diversity (N1) and Shannon Diversity (H') were observed in the dredged areas at all sites excluding Shoreham (Figures 13 and 14). No significant interaction between the factors was present for Hill‟s Diversity
(N1) at Hastings X, Hastings Y, Area 222 and Cross Sands indicating that lower values of diversity persisted in the dredged area over the entire time period (Table 13). Similarly, the interaction term for Shannon Diversity (H') was not significant at
Hastings X, Area 222 or Cross Sands indicating that lower Shannon Diversity persisted in the dredged areas of these sites over the whole time period
62
Figure 13. Shannon Diversity (H') at dredged and reference stations.
Figure 14. Hill‟s Diversity (N1) at dredged and reference stations.
63
A trend of significantly lower values of species richness (d) in the dredged areas,
relative to reference areas, was observed at all sites excluding Shoreham (Table 13). No significant interaction between the factors was observed at Hastings Y, Area 222, Area 408 and Cross Sands indicating that the observed lower values of species
richness persisted within the dredged area throughout the entire time period (Table 13).
A trend of significantly lower values of Taxonomic Distinctness (TD) in dredged areas was not apparent at any of the sites (Table 13).
Table 13. Results of ANOVA, testing for significant temporal differences and significant differences between dredged and reference stations. Grey text indicates
no significant difference.
Functional Metrics
Values of the ITI calculated for the Eastern Channel sites all indicated that both dredged and reference areas were „normal‟ (Figure 13). Values of the ITI calculated for Areas 408 and 222, located in the Southern North Sea, indicated that dredged areas tended towards a „changed‟ community whilst reference areas remained
„normal‟ throughout the time series. At Cross Sands, however, values of the ITI indicated a „changed‟ community within both dredged and reference areas during all years (Figure 15).
Little difference was observed in values of AMBI between dredged and reference areas at all of the sites (Figure 16). At all sites the values calculated for AMBI largely
indicated a slightly „unbalanced‟ community was present in both dredged and reference areas.
Eastern Channel Southern North Sea
Indicator Factor Hastings X Hastings Y Shoreham Area 222 Area 408 Cross Sands
F p F p F p F p F p F p
S Year Dr/Ref
Year*Dr/Ref
5.37 48.2
20.1
0.001 <0.001
<0.001
5.78 40.4
0.28
0.001 <0.001
0.890
9.50 0.16
3.06
<0.001 0.619
0.021
6.17 170
1.43
<0.001 <0.001
0.228
0.72 102
1.57
0.654 <0.001
0.144
1.88 51.1
1.27
0.073 <0.001
0.266
N Year Dr/Ref
Year*Dr/Ref
6.75 20.8
15.9
<0.001 <0.001
<0.001
2.07 0.91
0.63
0.096 0.343
0.641
4.31 2.25
0.74
0.003 0.137
0.571
1.03 67.8
0.77
0.397 <0.001
0.547
2.60 33.3
2.77
0.014 <0.001
0.009
0.83 11.6
0.73
0.563 0.001
0.650
H' Year
Dr/Ref Year*Dr/Ref
13.4
21.4 2.60
<0.001
<0.001 0.045
9.11
97.1 3.94
<0.001
<0.001 0.007
4.22
2.55 4.12
0.004
0.114 0.004
4.81
39.0 0.77
0.001
<0.001 0.547
2.73
29.3 7.68
0.010
<0.001 <0.001
2.86
42.9 0.52
0.007
<0.001 0.821
N1 Year
Dr/Ref Year*Dr/Ref
13.1
21.4 2.60
<0.001
<0.001 0.045
11.2
147 2.47
<0.001
<0.001 0.054
4.43
1.16 2.90
0.003
0.285 0.027
4.95
37.0 0.14
0.001
<0.001 0.968
2.25
39.3 6.66
0.031
<0.001 <0.001
2.49
46.9 0.44
0.017
<0.001 0.878
d Year
Dr/Ref Year*Dr/Ref
5.98
56.6 19.4
<0.001
<0.001 <0.001
9.42
97.00.92
<0.001
<0.001 0.459
7.28
0.50 3.85
<0.001
0.481 0.007
3.09
121 0.55
0.019
<0.001 0.701
0.42
87.5 1.77
0.892
<0.001 0.094
2.14
53.2 0.54
0.040
<0.001 0.803
TD Year
Dr/Ref Year*Dr/Ref
11.8
1.06 0.96
<0.001
0.307 0.435
7.46
0.03 3.98
<0.001
0.862 0.006
2.10
0.01 5.84
0.089
0.919 <0.001
12.1
7.62 6.52
<0.001
0.007 <0.001
3.24
9.81 3.09
0.003
0.002 0.004
0.78
2.09 1.12
0.601
0.150 0.351
64
Figure15. Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) at dredged and reference stations.
Figure 16. Azti Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) at dredged and reference stations.
65
Multivariate Approach
Spatial and temporal patterns in macrofaunal communities were investigated using the multivariate analysis package PRIMER 6 (Clarke and Warwick, 2001). The data were initially fourth root transformed and Non-parametric Multidimensional Scaling
Ordinations (MDS), based on Bray-Curtis similarity, produced. Temporal differences and differences between dredged and reference areas within sites were further investigated using two-way Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM).
Significant temporal differences in macrofaunal communities were observed at all sites and significant differences between dredged and reference areas were present
at all sites excluding Shoreham (Figure 17, Table 14). Table 14. Temporal differences
Site Year Dredged vs Reference
Hastings X
R = 0.457**
R = 0.369**
Hastings Y R = 0.385** R = 0.374**
Shoreham R = 0.159* R = 0.008
Area 222 R = 0.420** R = 0.656**
Cross Sands R = 0.222** R = 0.177**
Area 408 R = 0.320** R = 0.817**
Figure 17. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot of Bray-Curtis similarities from fourth root transformed species abundance data. Black symbols denote sites
located in the Eastern Channel and grey symbols denote sites located in the Southern North Sea.
For the purposes of this case study, the focus has been on the sensitivity of regulatory or policy relevant metrics in relation to aggregate extraction activities.
66
However, during the course of this project benthic indicators have also been examined in terms of their potential sensitivity in detecting the effects of impacts
arising from a wide variety of anthropogenic activities. These include biological indicators of disturbance related to maintenance and capital dredging disposal activities (Whomersley et al., 2008, Schratzberger et al., 2009, Ware et al., 2009,
Ware et al., 2010), sewage sludge disposal (Whomersley et al., 2007), bottom trawling (Schratzberger et al., 2009) and eutrophication (Sapp, 2009). Additionally, Whomersley et al. (2009) reports on the response of intertidal macrofauna to multiple
disturbance types and intensities using an experimental approach.
Recommendation Whilst a given set (or „toolbox‟) of indicators may be relevant to the regulatory
objectives across a range of sectors (particularly through unification of the regulatory process), the sensitivity of the given metrics in detecting the wide range of impacts (e.g., physical disturbance, organic enrichment etc.)
associated with different activities (e.g., aggregate extraction, dredging disposal, bottom trawling, fish farming) is variable.
Criteria 3. Communicable: Relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and
those who will decide on their use
The ability of a given indicator to convey information to scientists, those who decide
on their use (e.g., regulators, policy makers) and ultimately the wider public is recognised as being an important consideration in the selection and utilisation of environmental indicators. One function that an effective indicator performs is to
summarise a large amount of complex information into a smaller number of easily interpreted and unambiguous values. Where the information in question is something as complex as, for example, the ecological status of the greater North
Sea, provision of a comprehensive narrative to a non-technical audience would prove to be extremely long-winded and potentially not adequately understood by the receiving audience. Therefore, in addressing such complex questions the underlying
information is frequently delineated into a number of parameters (or indicators), values of which, reflect the status of the various ecosystem components of interest (e.g., diversity, function, community composition etc.). Whilst „descriptive‟ indicators,
such as abundance or biomass, are more likely to be understood and easily interpreted by the non-specialists, the meaning of a given value of a derived indicator, such as a diversity measure, is much less intuitive. Where such derived
indicators are utilised in describing environmental status, they are more useful if the value is reported in the context of a target value along with an associated „status descriptor‟ for that value or range of values (e.g. poor, moderate, good).
Recommendation
Indicators should be effective in summarising a large amount of potentially complex information into a smaller number of easily interpreted and
unambiguous values. Where such derived indicators are utilised in describing environmental status, they are more operationally useful if the value is reported in the context of a target value along with an associated „status
67
descriptor‟ for that value or range of values (e.g. poor, moderate, good).
Criteria 4. Measurable and representative over the spatial scale to which the
indicator is to be applied
The benthic indicators examined for the purposes of this study are essentially
measurable for all sediment types where infaunal samples can be obtained in that they are all derived from a species abundance matrix. However, whilst the indicators are appropriate and measurable within sediments comprising the spatial area in
question, in this case study the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel, density of sampling necessary to detect the required level of change in a given indicator is less well known but is known to increase with increasing spatial and temporal variability
of the metric in question. Rogers et al. (2008) examined a variety of survey designs and sampling densities to assess their power to detect significant trends or changes in assemblage structure (meiofauna, macrofauna and megafauna) in a number of
offshore mud and sand habitats. Findings indicated that the relatively high variability in many of the community attributes would require intensive survey effort (with high sampling density and replication) to improve the power of detection. Resource
analyses further suggested that such intensive surveys may be extremely costly, when available survey time and associated costs are considered. Therefore, it is suggested that in designing and implementing a given monitoring program, realistic
„targets‟ or „thresholds of change‟ should be considered to allow the design of „cost effective‟ surveys with sufficient power to detect the desired level of change in the parameter of interest. Outputs of a current study commissioned by the ALSF
(C3689-Seabed Restoration: do the benefits justify the costs) will help inform such survey designs through investigations, employing power analyses, to determine the probability of detecting dredging related impacts in different areas (of differing
variability) across a range of sampling intensities.
Recommendation
In designing and implementing a given monitoring program, realistic „targets‟ or „thresholds of change‟ should be considered to allow the design of „cost effective‟ surveys with sufficient power to detect the desired level of change in
the parameter of interest. Optimum survey design, and associated replication of sampling, (to detect the desirable level of change) will differ according to the variability exhibited by the parameter (or indicator) of interest.
Criteria 5. Based on readily available, routinely collected and cost-effective data of known quality
Time series data pertaining to coarse sediments does exist but is spatially focused on aggregate extraction areas. Such data sources largely comprise data collected in support of aggregate extraction related R&D (Figure 18) and industry owned data
collected during EIAs and operational monitoring in support of individual licence applications.
68
Figure 18 Time series aggregate data Additionally, there has been some recent effort to characterise regions where
aggregate extraction activity is concentrated (e.g., Humber, East Coast, Thames and South Coast) by way of Aggregate Levy Sustainability Funded (ALSF) Regional Environmental Characterisations (RECs) and industry led Regional Environemtal
Assessments (REAs). However, whilst such initiatives provide a useful spatial characterisation of the regions (in the context of informing regional spatial planning) the surveys are confined to a single sampling period and, therefore, do not provide
information on patterns in temporal variability. Consequently, spatial and temporal variability of macrofaunal assemblages inhabiting coarse, sub-tidal sediments in UK waters is relatively poorly understood in comparison to those inhabiting soft sub-tidal
sediments. This may largely be explained by historical long-term UK marine monitoring programmes, such as Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme (CSEMP), formerly known as the National Marine Monitoring Programme (NMMP),
largely focusing on the soft sediment strata. This focus on soft sediments has primarily been driven by ease and standardisation of sampling techniques along with the requirements of the UK national marine monitoring programmes to measure and
assess spatial and temporal concentrations of certain contaminants in accordance with a range of international and European policy drivers, namely Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPAR) and the Nitrates Directive. As the contaminants of interest
are typically associated with soft sediments of high silt content this has resulted in
69
relevant national benthic marine monitoring effort being largely confined to the soft sediment strata in UK coastal and offshore waters (CSEMP Green Book, 2007).
Recommendation
In meeting the requirements of novel (and evolving) regulatory or policy objectives it is likely that associated monitoring will be most cost-effective
where it can be incorporated into relevant existing national monitoring programmes. However, in order to effectively meet the requirements of a variety of (often diverse) monitoring requirements it is likely that existing
monitoring programmes will have to be tailored (and often expanded) to incorporate the measurement of additional parameters (or indicators) across the full spectrum of relevant strata (e.g., geographical regions, sediment types
etc.).
Criteria 6. Based on existing time-series data and known stressor-response relationship, with corresponding target levels or thresholds which signal the onset of conditions that may result in significant ecosystem degradation.
Whilst stressor-benthic community response relationships are relatively well understood for pressures associated with organic enrichment or eutrophication
(Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978, Rosenberg et al., 2004, Painting et al., 2006, Tett et al., 2007), the response of benthic communities to effects associated with other stressors (e.g., physical disturbance) are less well understood. However, similar
modelling principles to those developed by Tett et al. (2007), to explore stressor-response relationships associated with eutrophication (Figure 19), are equally relevant in terms of examining the relationships between given physical disturbance
measures (or pressure indicators) and the response of given community attributes.
Figure 19. Response of ecosystem structure to pressure (Tett et al., 2007).
Only when such relationships are better understood can we begin to set „target levels‟ which are meaningful in terms of signalling or providing an early warning of
the onset of conditions that are likely to result in significant ecosystem change or degradation. Similarly, a better understanding of the resilience of a range of
70
communities to natural gradients in physical disturbance (e.g., bed shear stress, turbidity etc.) will allow predictions to be made regarding whether physical
disturbance associated with certain anthropogenic activities are at levels that exceed those present naturally and are thus likely to exceed the natural resilience of the communities present. Such investigations are currently being undertaken in support
of a number of closely related and complimentary studies commissioned under the ALSF (namely C3327: „Using historic monitoring data to assess the significance of multiple pressures on a regional marine ecosystem and to evaluate the results in
relation to the future needs of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management (EAF) and the Marine Strategy Directive (MSD)‟ and C3688: „Natural variability of REA regions, their ecological significance & sensitivity‟).
Recommendations
A sound understanding of stressor-response relationships is required to begin to set „target levels‟ which are meaningful in terms of signalling or providing an
early warning of the onset of conditions that are likely to result in significant ecosystem change or degradation. In order to achieve this spatial and temporally compatible measures of indicators of pressure (across the full
gradient), along with measures of associated benthic status, are required. This allows a better, and more comprehensive, understanding of what level of a given pressure can be sustained by the benthic communities across the
range of strata (or environmental setting) in which they occur.
5.3 Indicator selection and utility in meeting national and international policy objectives
Anthropogenic activities are responsible for a variety of large scale environmental
changes which include a decrease in biological diversity in the marine environment. This growing awareness and concern over the decline in the state of European marine and coastal environments has led to the development and implementation of
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). This directive aims to conserve, protect and restore existing marine habitats by setting and maintaining levels of Good Environmental Status (GES) for all European water bodies (Mee and Bloxham
2002, Mee et al. 2008). The principal aim of the GES is to establish acceptable levels / thresholds of defined parameters which when monitored and assessed can inform management and policy decisions. Within the MSFD clear targets of GES are
underpinned by 11 qualitative descriptors must be developed by 2012 and targets of GES for our regional seas achieved by 2020 (Directive 2008/56/EC, Mee 2008).
Indicator selection and utility in meeting national and international policy objectives under the MSFD The first of the 11 qualitative descriptors,‘Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions’ has now
been provisionally interpreted by a specialist task group which maintained the same definition of biodiversity as the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) ‘the
71
variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, [terrestrial,] marine [and other aquatic ecosystems] and the ecological complexes of which they
are apart; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’
(CBD 1992) and also developed a framework of assessment with the aim of „undertaking assessments and monitoring across a sufficient range of species (and
their discrete populations where appropriate), habitats, geographic areas and pressures, to enable a robust and systematic assessment against the objectives of the descriptor.’ (TG1 draft report 2009).
Criteria 1: Legally robust and relevant to the regulatory or policy objectives in question
Recommendations
To ensure that consistent and policy relevant assessments are carried out across international sea areas, and prior to any assessment of the status of
our marine systems being conducted, methods of measuring biodiversity and at what level (species, habitat, ecosystem or geographic region) must first be defined, only then can appropriate baseline levels and natural variability of
these values be assigned. The above definitions, in conjunction with assessment criteria, provide guidance to persons responsible for carrying out these assessments.
The techniques presented here demonstrate a potential method by which spatially and temporally relevant measures of environmental status (in relation
to benthic macrofaunal biodiversity) can be assessed across different spatial scales (or assessment units) in accordance with the requirements of a number of national and international policies or directives (WFD, Charting
Progress, MSFD). This approach (e.g., the use of existing or routinely collected time-series data interrogated and displayed using the EMECO datatool) is shown to be capable of allowing evidence based, realistic and
achievable levels of GEnS to be set and ultimately achieved.
Criteria 2: Responsive: sensitive and tightly linked in time to a manageable human activity
Under the MSFD member states are required to adopt a framework within which the necessary measures can be implemented to achieve or maintain good
environmental status in the marine environment by 2020. In doing this, the necessary strategies will be developed and implemented in order to „protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent deterioration or, where practicable,
restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected‟. The directive further states that „marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem based approach to the management of human activities, ensuring that the collective
pressure of such activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of good environmental status‟. In order to comply with the directive a comprehensive understanding of the behaviour and sensitivity of „state and impact‟ indicators
developed and ultimately adopted under the MSFD, in relation to both natural and anthropogenic pressures across the relevant sectors, is required.
72
Criteria 3: Communicable: Relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and those
who will decide on their use
The European Marine Ecosystem Observatory is a consortium of organisations with
responsibility for both monitoring and assessment of status and also for improving understanding through research in European shelf-seas. The consortium was formed in response to the challenges posed by the new Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD) and the need to provide the improved evidence in support of the ecosystem approach. The purpose of the datatools is to deliver policy-relevant information products in a transparent and auditable manner that increases
confidence in the outcome of formal environmental assessments at a regional scale. As part of the European Marine Ecosystem Observatory initiative a suite of web-based tools that enable rapid integration and visualisation of multi-platform, multi-
parameter, and multi-national data were developed and are now available for application.
This piece of work demonstrates a simple methodology of utilizing existing data-sets produced from national monitoring programmes undertaken at the Centre for the Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) (Table 15) to set realistic,
achievable and sustainable targets of defined parameters relating to benthic community diversity which when monitored, assessed and integrated with other assessments from within marine systems could inform management and policy
decisions relating to the MSD. Table 15. Details of monitoring surveys carried out by Cefas and included in this
study.
Data Source Temporal Spatial Associated
Activity
Location
Surveillance Monitoring
Clean Seas Environmental Monitoring Programme (CSEMP)
Clean Seas Environmental Monitoring
Programme (CSEMP) – Redesign
North Sea Benthos Channel benthos Irish Sea Benthos
Environmental Assessment Reference
Stations (EARS)
Yes (1999-
Present)
No
No No
No
Yes (1998-
2005)
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A Aggregate
Extraction
North Sea,
English Channel, Celtic and Irish Sea
North Sea, English
Channel, Celtic and Irish Sea
North Sea English Channel
Irish Sea North Sea and
English Channel
73
Compliance Monitoring Food and Environmental
Protection Act (FEPA)
Food and Environmental Monitoring Programme (FEPA) and Clean Seas
Environmental Monitoring Programme (CSEMP)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dredged Material
Disposal
Sewage Sludge Disposal
North Sea,
English Channel, Celtic and Irish Sea
North Sea and Irish Sea
Investigative Monitoring
Research and Development
Yes
Yes
Aggregate Extraction,
Dredged Material Disposal, Sewage Sludge Disposal
North Sea, English
Channel and Irish Sea
Recommendations EMECO offers a suite of web-based tools are available that enable rapid
integration and visualisation of multi-platform, multi-parameter and multi-national data. As such they provide a unique platform for the delivery of policy-relevant information products in a transparent and auditable manner
that increases confidence in the outcome of formal environmental assessments at a regional scale.
Criteria 4 and 5. ‘Measurable and representative over the spatial scale to which the indicator is to be applied’ and ‘Based on readily available, routinely collected and cost-effective data of known quality’
Monitoring of the marine environment to fulfil the UK's commitment to national and international directives has been ongoing for many years. These commitments include mandatory monitoring requirements under the Oslo and Paris Convention
(OSPAR) Joint Assessment Monitoring Programme (JAMP), Water Framework Directive (WFD), Birds and Habitats Directive and at a more national level commitments set out under the United Kingdom Marine Monitoring and Assessment
Strategy (UKMMAS) by the Marine Monitoring Coordination Group (MMCG):
Birds and Habitat Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora); to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by taking measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and
wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance.
74
OSPAR-JAMP-CEMP; the application of main principles of international
environmental policy to prevent and eliminate marine pollution and to achieve sustainable management of the maritime area. The OSPAR Commission promotes the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the North-East
Atlantic within the framework of the Convention on Biological Biodiversity which focusses on four elements in particular, Promoting understanding and acceptance by all stakeholders of the ecosystem approach to the
management of human activities, monitoring the ecosystems of the marine environment in order to understand and assess the interactions between and among the different species and populations of biota, the non-living
environment and humans; setting objectives for environmental quality, underpinned by monitoring, in support both of the formulation of policy and of assessments and assessing the impact of human activities upon biota and
humans, both directly and indirectly through impacts on the non-living environment, together with the effects on the non-living environment itself (http://www.ospar.org/content ).
WFD; Prepare River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and Programmes of Measures (PMs), designed to prevent deterioration of aquatic ecosystems
and to achieve at least good ecological and chemical status for all surface waters within the basin by 2010 (http://www.euwfd.com/html/quick_guide_to_drbmps_consulta.html)
HELCOM; Monitoring and assessment of eutrophication, hazardous
substances, maritime safety, and the ongoing loss of habitats and biodiversity (http://www.bsap.pl/eu/bsap_eu.html)
UKMMAS – MMCG – Clean and Safe Seas Environmental Monitoring
Programme (CSEMP); detect long-term spatial and temporal trends in physical, biological and chemical variables at selected estuarine and coastal
sites, support consistent standards in national and international monitoring programmes for marine environmental quality, establish appropriate protective regulatory measures, coordinate and optimise marine monitoring in the UK
and provide a high quality chemical and biological data set from the UK‟s marine environment (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3362).
The approach presented here highlights the importance of existing data-sets and the continuation and modification of existing monitoring programmes to ensure that biodiversity levels are assessed effectively and efficiently in the future. It also
highlights the need for collaborations with national and international partners to ensure that consistent methods of assessment are employed and all existing datasets are utilized to allow a holistic assessment of our regional seas to be carried
out.
Recommendations
Monitoring strategies that support the existing nationally and internationally
75
relevant directives have very similar high level aims, ecological objectives and
strategies as described within the 11 qualitative descriptors of the MSFD and will therefore provide a potential means of fulfilling future associated monitoring requirements.
Outputs arising from the current monitoring programmes have already yielded valuable temporal and spatial datasets, which if utilized in line with the
recommended framework for indicator selection and assessment, could ensure that evidence based; realistic and achievable status targets of GEns are set.
Criteria 6. Based on existing time-series data and known stressor-response relationship, with corresponding target levels or thresholds which signal the onset of conditions that may result in significant ecosystem degradation.
Data were explored, using EMECO datatools, to investigate spatial and temporal variability of given MSFD policy relevant metrics (namely measures of infaunal
species richness and diversity as required under GEnS Descriptor 1) in order to demonstrate how time-series data might be used to set realistic targets. UK sea areas were split into three regional areas based on management units proposed
under OSPAR and Charting Progress 2 (CP2). These consisted of the Greater North Sea as defined under OSPAR (North Sea and English Channel), the North Sea (CP2 Northern and Southern North Sea) and the CP2 Eastern English Channel,
to investigate if the geographic scale of the sea area used during the assessment of UK regional waters under the auspices of the MSFD affected recorded biodiversity.
A data matrix comprising of biological data derived from benthic grabs samples collected from a range of benthic habitat types was extracted from the UNICORN database. The matrix comprised of abundance data from 2500 samples taken during
1991 – 2007. Four commonly applied univariate metrics (Number of individuals (N), Species number (S), species richness (d) and species diversity (H‟) were then calculated. These values were then uploaded into the EMECO datatool via the
bespoke interface that converts the data into XML using the EMECO XML Schema. The EMECO datatool application was used to store, integrate according to user
requirements, export and visualise (in a variety of forms) all data used within this study (except the scatter plots, this function is still under development). The data tool is built within the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) framework which is an open
source technology. Flash, Flex, and JavaScript were used for the user interface and the assessment maps and chart presentation. The datatool is capable of uploading live data streams e.g. derived from remote sensing via satellite, SmatBuoy and
WaveNet and also other data sources e.g. biologically derived metrics via a bespoke interface that converts the data into a XML format using the EMECO XML Schema. Once converted into XML data can be easily integrated to create new information
products and exported in other data formats for use in external applications or visualised as bespoke „assessment maps‟, time-series charts and Google Earth maps.
76
Spatial coverage of data points used in a data query was displayed on a Google Earth map generated using the EMECO KML-Google Earth tool (Figure 19). CSV
files containing all integrated data were exported and scatter plots created within Microsoft Excel (Figure 20). Finally to visualize the regional variability and status of benthic communities in terms of species diversity (H‟) a regional KML assessment
map was created within EMECO. Assessment maps were generated using using mean values from all samples within a defined region (in this case Charting Progress 2 regions). Standard deviation values and confidence levels were calculated by the
EMECO application displayed on the assessment map. Expert judgment was used in the scaling all metric values to ensure that meaningful assessments maps were created.
The spatial distribution of benthic samples from surveys carried out under the auspices of a wide range of monitoring programmes were plotted using the
datatools. Each CP2 and aggregation of CP2 regions was found to adequately represented to allow the assessment of the region/s in terms of the benthic communities present over time and space (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Spatial coverage of data points displayed in a Google Earth map produced by selecting data to be output in KML format and then visualised in Google
Earth.
77
Scatter plots (Figure 21) demonstrated the level of variability in species diversity found at the three geographic scales. Values of species diversity found at impact
(dredged areas and disposal sites) and reference stations remained similar over time in the Greater North Sea and North Sea but were found to be more variable in the Eastern English Channel. Values of species diversity from coarse and soft sediments
also displayed very similar variability within the three regions.
Figure 21. Scatter plots showing range of values of diversity and mean diversity.
Assessment maps produced within the EMECO application using aggregated macrofaunal abundance data from all years, sediment types and impact/reference data (Figure 22) demonstrated that species diversity was consistently between 2 and
3 when the assessed at the large regional scale e.g. CP2 regions. However when assessed at a smaller scale e.g. 1 degree grid cells variability within regions and areas where no data was available could be observed. Biodiversity was found to be
most variable in the North Sea with values ranging from 1.45 – 3.27. The lowest values of biodiversity were observed in the southern North Sea with a mean regional value of 2.
78
Regional assessment map Coarse 1 degree grid
Figure 22. EMECO assessment maps (regional assessment and coarse 1 degree grid) based on Shannon Wiener Species Diversity (H‟)
Assessment maps based on percentage gravel also demonstrated high variability within regions when large scale assessments (CP2 regions) were compared with smaller scale assessments (coarse 100 km grid cells) (Figure 23)
Figure 23. Assessment maps (regional assessment and coarse 100km grid) from EMECO based on % Gravel
Figures 22 and 23 demonstrate a simple methodology which could be applied efficiently using the current wealth of monitoring data that is held by many marine
institutes and research bodies. Here, the commonly used univariate metric of species diversity and percentage gravel, from associated Particle Size Analysis (PSA), was used to demonstrate this methodology. The utility and performance of
more complex integrated metrics, such as those employed within the WFD, could also be applied to encourage synergy between the WFD and MSFD.
Regional assessment map Coarse 1 degree grid
79
The use of extensive time-series and spatial data which was collected from a range of benthic habitat types provides a true valuation of the regions which were
assessed. Within this study distinctions were made between different habitat types which exist within the regions of study e.g. soft mud, sand and gravel and also between known impacted and non-impacted areas.
Recommendation
Spatial and temporal variability in patterns of biodiversity, between the three regions, were observed indicating potential issues with integrating measures
of biodiversity across different spatial scales. Differences in habitat type, within given assessment units or regions, (e.g., ranging from coarse dispersive sediments to soft depositional habitats) may result in
corresponding high spatial variability exhibited by the indicator (in this case measures of biodiversity) across given regions. Where such variability exists, „values‟ of ecological status integrated across a given assessment unit or
region may not adequately reflect the full range of values „expected‟ for that area.
It is, therefore, recommended that assessment units or regions consist of comparable habitat types or ecological units. This will ensure that realistic values or target levels, which accommodate spatial variability, are set for
given descriptors across the full range of strata present.
5.4 Novel Indicators
5.4.1 Functional Indicators: Application and Utility Application and utility of functional indicators (trophic guilds) in assessments of ecological status
An alternative and emergent approach to the traditional indices used in assessing ecosystem/community health, is the use of species functional traits (e.g. feeding
guilds). Benthic invertebrate activities influence the transport of particles at the sediment-water interface and hence have an impact on biogeochemical processes such as the cycling of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur and the transport, burial and metabolism of pollutants (Snelgrove, 1998). In a healthy ecosystem, many different
species perform the same functional role so that changes in species diversity does not affect ecosystem functioning. However, stress on the system via anthropogenic activities may result in major changes in ecosystem structure and function (regime
shifts), ultimately affecting the flow of energy, and cycling of nutrients and carbon (Covich et al, 2004; Byrnes et al, 2007). Regime shifts are usually attributed to disturbance and depend on the resilience of the community/ecosystem. Resilience
can be measured by „the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behaviour‟ (Gunderson and Holling 2002:4). The removal of a whole trophic level or
functional group through human activities can reduce the resilience of the ecosystem resulting in a shift from a desired to less desired state in the systems capacity to
80
generate ecosystem services (Folke et al, 2004). Assessment of community function may therefore reveal changes or shifts that are unnoticeable when comparing
univariate measures alone. This method also allows comparison of communities from different regions that contain different species but the same functional groups. However, to make certain that changes are attributable to the activity in question, an
understanding of the „natural‟ changes or variability that takes place must be established.
A subset of the data used in the previous studies within the State/Impact chapter 5, representing reference conditions only (spatial and temporal), has been analysed using feeding guilds or trophic groups as an indicator of the state or health of the
UK‟s regional seas with the following aims : 1. To test the utility of feeding guilds as an indicator for ecosystem health.
2. To determine if this indicator is comparable between different regions 3. How can this information be used in the management of anthropogenic activities?
Methods Spatial data from the North Sea was collected between 2000 and 2002 for Defra funded project A1143, English Channel data was gathered in 2005 and the Irish Sea
data was collected in 2006/7 both for Defra funded project ME3112. The temporal stations were chosen to represent the different sea areas (CP2 regions) and habitats over time and had been collected under the auspices of the Clean Seas Environment
Monitoring Program (CSEMP) (formerly National Marine Monitoring Program (NMMP)) (soft sediment reference sites) and Defra funded aggregate extraction research project A0916 (coarse sediment reference sites). Species were assigned
to one of 6 broad trophic groups using the NSBP 2000 database (Rees et al, 2007), with modifications to include photoautotrophs: I Suspension-/filter-feeder
II Interface feeder, surface deposit feeder, facultative suspension feeder
III Subsurface deposit feeder, grazer
IV Predator, omnivore, scavenger
V Parasite
VI Photoautotroph (e.g. macroalgae)
The groups were fairly broad in order to accommodate species able to switch feeding mode in response to certain environmental conditions. Gaps were filled using the Biological Traits Information Catalogue (BIOTIC)
(http://www.marlin.ac.uk/biotic/) and internet searches. Where no information was available at species level then the feeding guild of the next taxonomic level or closest family were adopted.
Data analyses were conducted using PRIMER 6 (Clarke and Warwick, 2001). To determine the composition of feeding types (abundances and numbers of species) at
each station the feeding type information was added as an indicator in PRIMER. The replicate abundance data were averaged per station then summed for each feeding type. Numbers of species exhibiting each feeding type were determined by
presence/absence transforming the averaged abundance data. Then, as before, the data was summed for each feeding type. The data for numbers of individuals (a) and species (b) are displayed as pie charts using MapInfo. Parasites and
81
photoautotrophs were low in both abundance and species and are therefore not considered further.
Figures 24 indicate the relative feeding types using, a). Numbers of individuals, and b). Numbers of species.
82
A B
Figure 24. A) Relative abundance of individuals belonging to given feeding guilds. B) Relative abundance of species belonging to given feeding guilds
83
Particle size data from the spatial stations (up to 3 replicates) was used to categorise the samples into different groups according to the Folk classification system (Folk,
1954). For the current analyses this classification system was favoured over other techniques used in grouping large matrices of particle size data (e.g. EntropyMax (Stewart et al 2009) and K-means clustering (R Development Core Team, 2007,
Primer (Clarke and Warwick, 2001)), as it is non-subjective (although groupings are rigid) and widely used. The temporal data could also easily be classified without having to reanalyse the data. The data fell into 11 of the 15 classes ((g)M, (g)sM, gM
and mG were not represented by the samples used). Only samples (replicates) with corresponding fauna and sediment data were used in the analysis. Using numbers of species per feeding type, an average was calculated for each Folk class (Figure 25).
Patterns in feeding guilds were then compared between regions for the same sediment classes. Temporal data (replicates) were also assigned to Folk class to determine the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the sites. Relative abundance
and species number per feeding guild were calculated for each year and site to reveal temporal and regional variations.
RESULTS SPATIAL
Patterns in feeding guilds for the different sediments types showed that suspension/filter feeding species tended to dominate where gravel was present. As the content of mud increased the dominant feeding guild switched to surface deposit
feeders and then to subsurface deposit feeders in very muddy sites. Predators/scavengers were second dominant across all sediment types. Regional comparisons of the predominant sediment types (gravelly sand, sandy gravel, sand
and muddy sand) showed that all regions followed the same patterns (although numbers of species differed) except for muddy sands. This may be due to the limited numbers of samples in all but the Western Channel and Celtic Sea regions.
(See Figure 26).
Figure 25 .Patterns in feeding guilds for different sediment Folk classes
84
85
Figure 26. Regional patterns in feeding guilds for the major sediment types around the English coast
86
TEMPORAL Cross Sands in the Southern North Sea exhibited the most variable sediments
between replicates and over time. The site was represented by seven sediment classes, muddy sand gravel and sandy gravel being the most common. This high variability was mirrored in the variability and interaction in
feeding guilds. NMMP 605 (Western Channel & Celtic Sea) and IOW G55 (Eastern Channel) comprised the most consistent sediment types (muddy sand and sandy gravel respectively). See figures below for illustrations. Both
sites were consistent over time and showed feeding guild patterns that resembled the spatial analyses for the particular sediment types. NMMP 345 (Southern North Sea) and NMMP 805 (Irish Sea) varied between sands and
muddy sands. NMMP 345 contained a high proportion of predatory/scavenging species between 1996 and 2001, although abundance was dominated by the suspension feeding brittlestar, Amphiura filiformis.
Eastern English Channel HG4 (Eastern Channel) consisted mostly of sandy gravels, and although the station only consisted of 3 years data feeding guild hierarchy followed the same patterns seen in the spatial data and remained
consistent over time. NMMP 536 (Eastern Channel) samples were mainly sand although some contained small amounts of gravel and mud. Over time the site was largely dominated by surface deposit feeders with some
interactions with predators/scavengers. NMMP245 (Northern North Sea) varied between sandy mud and muddy sand and exhibited variations in species dominance between surface deposit feeders and
predators/scavengers
87
88
89
Discussion and Conclusions Patterns in feeding guilds were comparable between regions for given
sediment classes, despite differences in the numbers of species. Where temporal stations exhibited consistency in sediment type, feeding guild hierarchy resembled those seen in the spatial data. Stations showing high
variability in sediment types both within and between years exhibited changes in the dominance of the different feeding guilds for both species number and abundance. All stations contained dominant species with high natural cycles in densities (e.g. the subsurface deposit feeding polychaete worms Lagis koreni and Scalibregma inflatum at NMMP 536, the reef-forming filter- feeder, Sabellaria spinulosa at IOW G55, the surface deposit feeding bivalve Abra sp.
at NMMP 605 and NMMP 805 and NMMP 536, and the suspension feeding brittlestar Amphiura filiformis ).From a management perspective it is important
to recognise how anthropogenic activities have the potential to disrupt the
natural variations in population densities and species interactions. For example, in estuarine environments suspension feeding bivalves facilitate the growth of valuable seagrass beds by creating nutrient enriched sediments and
regulating phytoplankton densities resulting in increased light penetration. Several studies have shown that the removal of the dominant bivalve species through e.g. overharvesting, resulted in increased eutrophication and harmful
algal blooms and the coincidental loss of seagrass beds (Wall et al, 2008). A persistent „regime shift‟ was also identified in the North Sea at the Frisian Front in the mid 1990‟s. The brittlestar Amphiura filiformis community was
once stable and dominant in the area; however the population sharply dropped after 1992 which corresponded with the establishment of a burrowing
90
mud shrimp Callianassa subterranea dominated community. There was no
evidence of changes in external control factors such as food resources or
NAO, and it was suggested that the shift may have been initiated by extensive trawling pressure at the low point in the natural cycle of A. filiformis. (van Nes
et al, 2007). Several of the temporal stations in this study show fluctuations in
the dominant feeding guilds, however this appears to be cyclical and none of the stations show any evidence of shifts to an alternate state. Other stations appear stable over time. Population dynamics are generally driven by food
availability, intra and/or interspecies competition and external environmental forces, therefore environmental information should be incorporated into state and impact studies. Functional studies provide important information on the
resilience of ecosystems and may help identify areas vulnerable to different anthropogenic activities.
Recommendations
In a healthy ecosystem, many different species perform the same functional role so that changes in species diversity does not necessarily affect ecosystem functioning. Stress on the system via anthropogenic activities may
result in major changes in ecosystem structure and function. The removal of a whole functional group, through human activities, may reduce the resilience of the community and result in a reduction in function or level of services it
provides (e.g., production, carbon cycling etc.). Assessment of community function may therefore reveal changes that would not otherwise be detected when comparing structural parameters alone.
Assessments of trophic structure across spatial scales are most meaningful when restricted to comparable environmental units (in this case based on
similar sediment types).
5.4.2 Indicators incorporating different ecological components: Meiofauna
The performance of meiofaunal indicators across man-made activities leading to the physical disturbance of the seabed (Schratzberger et al., 2009). Full
text of this section is available on request.
Summary
Physical disturbance is a key factor in controlling the spatial and temporal composition of shallow-water benthic communities. Like shallow waters, deeper waters are increasingly subject to a range of anthropogenic
disturbances which can lead to significant alterations in sedimentation patterns. These alterations often exceed naturally occurring changes.
A combined analysis of six independent data sets arising from large-scale field surveys and small-scale laboratory experiments was utilised to investigate the behaviour and sensitivity of state and impact indicators with
91
known activity-specific utility across a range of man-made impacts, operating on various spatial scales. An integral part of the analysis was to evaluate the
susceptibility of these measures to confounding influences. The performance of five selected indicators was documented as a function of
disturbance origin (natural, man-made), type (coastal development, dredged material disposal, bottom trawling, glacial fjord) and intensity (low, medium, high). Natural and man-induced seabed disturbance exerted differential
effects on exposed populations, generating changes in the taxonomic (genus) and functional (feeding type) indicators. The genus composition of nematode assemblages from geographically separate seas converged with increased
level of various types of man-made disturbance. Assemblages present along a gradient of natural disturbance in a glacial fjord followed an opposite response vector, suggesting that community changes induced by
anthropogenic activities inherently differ from disturbance of natural origin. Changes in functional indicators were primarily driven by factors confounded with physical disturbance such as metal contamination.
Results from the combined analysis led to key recommendations concerning improved operational utility of environmental indicators across man-made
activities. Generalisations about the impact of man-made activities on environmental status and quality are most likely to emerge from the combined analysis of independent, but comparable, data sets, an approach that is
readily amenable to updating in the light of existing and new data.
Recommendations The demonstrated high potential of taxonomic-based indicators for informing
statements on environmental status should be tested more widely, involving other ecosystem components (e.g. macro- and epifauna, fish) and disturbance categories. These could include organic enrichment as a result of
natural (e.g. annual production cycle) and man-made origin (e.g. fish farm activities) as well as biological perturbation caused by naturally occurring bioturbators or invasive species introduced by man.
Measures of taxonomic distinctness, as well as functional diversity and structure of communities appear to be more responsive to the origin (and
hence frequency) of disturbance and confounding factors. These indicators should therefore be treated with caution before being recommended as universal diagnostic indicators of physical disturbance in benthic biota.
Differential response of meio- and macrofauna to in situ burial (Whomersley et
al., 2009). Summary
Benthic nematode and macrofaunal communities are regularly utilized in impact studies. However, very few studies are carried out utilizing both communities. A literature search using the search engine Scopus
(www.Scopus.com) covering the last twenty years, using the keywords „Macrofauna‟ and „Disturbance‟ then „Meiofauna‟ and „Disturbance‟ and finally
92
„Macrofauna and Meiofauna‟ and „Disturbance‟, gave 210, 115 and 36 hits respectively. To assess the differential response of meio- and macrofauna to
in situ burial a replicated random block designed field experiment was carried out over a 9-month period on an intertidal mud flat. In situ burial was achieved by spreading 4 cm of anoxic mud on top of each treatment plot at two different
intensities. Differences in the response of the two faunal communities over time were assessed using both univariate indicators (Number of Individuals, Number of Species, Shannon Diversity and Species Richness) and
multivariate techniques. Clear differences in community behaviour over time and in response to the different intensities of disturbance were observed. Overall macrofauna were found to be more sensitive to physical disturbance
than meiofaunal nematodes, although, attributes of meiofaunal nematode communities were more sensitive to the initial impacts of disturbance.
Recommendations
The observed community-specific responses and sensitivities of meiofauna and macrofauna to the physical disturbance associated with in situ burial highlights the importance of using both faunal types in the assessment of the
effects of seabed disturbance in the marine environment.
5.4.3 Indicators incorporating different ecological components: Microorganisms
The potential of microorganisms serving as environmental indicators in marine
habitats (Sapp et al., 2009) (Full text is available on request).
Summary
Microorganisms are the dominant organisms globally, considering both biomass and diversity, and their functional and genetic potential may exceed that of higher organisms. Many important processes which are poorly
understood but which have clear global implications are mediated by microbial activity. Although microorganisms only may have spheres of influence with distance scales of centimetres or less, their combined effect is truly global.
Despite their key role in the holistic understanding of marine ecosystems, microorganisms are currently excluded from routine marine assessments. The ecological importance of microorganisms coupled with recent methodological
advances in their identification are compelling reasons to study their potential of serving as environmental indicators in marine habitats. As a first step, a position paper was prepared, reviewing innovative formulations based on
microbial communities and evaluating the availability and performance of novel state and impact indicators across spatial scales, temporal scales and man-made activities.
The review led to key recommendations concerning the future use and further development of such indicators:
Recommendations
93
Initial assessments of performance across spatial scales should be based
on higher taxonomic levels (e.g. phylum and groups) and include habitats with comparable environmental characteristics.
Assessments of performance across temporal scales are most meaningful when undertaken either regularly throughout the year or inter-annually in specific seasons.
The capacity of microbial indicators to exhibit a generalized impact response should be initially addressed by studying the response of
phylogenetic groups sharing a specific function or physiological capacity and/or investigating microbial response at higher taxonomic levels (e.g., Phylum).
94
6 R+D modules This section highlights the research carried out under the State and Impacts Chapter (5) to consider the development of novel indicators. A template was
developed to incorporate key findings in relation to the objectives of the project aims. There specific mention of relevance to major policy frameworks and what he research tells us is summarised for each.
6.1 R&D MODULE i. Development of indicators for the assessment of the significance of PAH concentrations in
marine sediments.
Team Members: Robin Law, Heather Rumney, Tom Fisher, Mark Kirby.
Context: What is the need for the research? (policy areas, drivers
national/international) The research carried out under R&D module 1 will contribute to current
requirements to identify appropriate indicators that are operationally useful in meeting both activity specific regulatory needs, and may contribute to assessing performance against higher level GES descriptors set out under the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Activities:
What did we do and what did we find out? The aim within this to module is to construct a system of toxic equivalency
factors for acute PAH toxicity based upon phenanthrene equivalents, analogous to that already in place for their carcinogenic activity (Law et al., 2002). At an earlier stage of this project, we undertook a literature search in
order to compile available aquatic toxicity data for specific PAHs. Fewer data were available from this source than we had hoped and it was clear that we would need to generate additional data in-house. This was envisaged as a possible scenario when the module was constructed originally.
Within this reporting period we have created a target list of PAH for which we need data, and completed the planned toxicity testing programme using Corophium volutator as a test organism relevant to the assessment of PAH
pollution in sediments.
Using that information on acute toxicity we have developed an algorithm which can be used to sum the acute toxicity potential of a range of 2- and 3-ring PAH in order to yield a phenanthrene toxic equivalent concentration.
Example maps have been developed which use the two TEQ values as indicators of acute and chronic toxicity in sediments, from the CSEMP and
95
disposal site monitoring studies. A paper for submission to a peer-reviewed journal is in preparation.
Existing data sets were sought to allow the descriptor (toxic equivalents for acute toxicity of low-MW PAH) to be developed. A literature review was
conducted which showed that data were sparse or non-existent. Toxicity testing was conducted for a number (ca. 10) individual compounds and these data were used to develop toxic equivalency factors. These will be applied to
existing datasets and the findings reported in a peer-reviewed paper to be submitted to MPB.
Lessons learned: What are the key issues in relation to this or similar indicators that would
be useful to communicate to a policy advisor/maker? These should be key points that would help illustrate lessons learned in the development of new indicators, or comprehension of existing indicators.
Considerations when selecting an indicator:
- The indicator is relevant to the regulatory or policy objectives in
question.
- Where an activity specific impact is to be identified temporal behaviour
of the indicator, in both impacted and non-impacted reference areas, should be understood. This allows natural temporal dynamics of the
indicator to be delineated from a genuine response to the given impact.
- Where assessments of GES are to be made an understanding of the
spatial and temporal behaviour of the relevant indicator is required. Similarly, this will allow the significance of any deviations from the expected range of values to be understood and, where necessary,
acted upon. Indicators:
What indicators have been generated and what can they tell us? The indicator allows the assessment of acute PAH toxicity in sediments to be
expressed in term of the equivalent toxicity of a single compound (phenanthrene), and compliments a similar system which expresses carcinogenic potential as equivalents of benzo[a]pyrene.
Assessment under the following criteria
1. Ease of interpretation by non-scientists and those who will decide on
their use. PAH burdens in sediments can be characterised in terms of two equivalent concentrations, one relating to acute and one to chronic (carcinogenicity)
toxicity, rather than individual concentrations for more than 20 or 30 individual PAH compounds and groups. 2. Sensitive to a manageable human activity?
96
PAH emissions from various sources are monitored and changes in inputs tracked over time, although they arise from multiple activities.
3. Relatively tightly linked in time to that activity? This depends on the historic burden present at different locations, and the mobility and oxygen content of sediments.
4. Easily and accurately measured, with a low error rate? Determined under full analytical quality control procedures, so reliable. 5. Responsive primarily to a human activity, with low responsiveness to
other causes of change? PAH are produced naturally, but the biogenic burden is small compared to the anthropogenic one.
6. Measurable over a large proportion of the area to which the indicator is to apply? / Scalability?
Measurable anywhere there are sandy or silty sediments. Concentrations
will be very low in gravels and clean sands, and zero in rock. 7. Based on an existing body or time series of data to allow a realistic
setting of objectives?
There are a number of years of CSEMP data for PAH in sediments and also FEPA data for candidate dredged materials from ports and estuaries.
Which MSFD GES descriptors do they relate to (See Annex 1), and/or what other monitoring process do they inform?
MSFD descriptor 8 “contaminants are not at levels causing pollution effects”. The two TEQ concentrations can also be used to simply map toxic potential of PAH in sediments across the CSEMP area.
Approximate cost to roll out to a national monitoring (yearly) programme:
Nil, where comprehensive PAH data are being gathered already, as in the CSEMP.
97
6.2 R&D MODULE ii. Development of an integrated indicator of biogeochemical and ecological status in marine
sediments.
S Birchenough (Biologist) and Ruth Parker (Biogeochemist).
Context:
What is the need for the research? MSFD – potentially relevant to the sea floor integrity GES descriptor. In recent years a significant effort has been made to develop indicators of the
state of the ecosystem (or known as ecosystem „health‟), which are tools in support of development of ecosystem quality objectives (EcoQOs). These provide a framework for applying the ecosystem approach to the management
of human activities that may have a harmful impact on the marine environment. More recently at a European level, the implementation of the Marine Strategy Directive - EMSD (2007) is commited to the maintenance of
ecosystem biodiversity, including goods and services by focusing on structure & function when assessing and managing impacts in the marine environment. In the case of sediment environment, the development of indicators,
considering the sediment state and the role in which organisms play in maintaining the function of the ecosystems when areas are modified by human activity provides a challenging scenario. Collectively, this is
assessment is described as „seabed integrity‟ under the MSFD. One of the key functions considered under this remit is the carbon and nutrient cycling. The assessment of combining observations of biogeochemical rates can often
be at a localised scale, but it is important to understand the mechanisms behind these changes, which are mainly driven by the benthic fauna inhabiting these sediments.
Activities: What did we do and what did we find out?
Analyses of linking infaunal data and biogeochemistry metrics in the North Sea were conducted. This exercise allowed the team to linke faunal and biogeochemical metrics using the 1986 North Sea Benthos (NSBS) dataset,
which looked at describing benthic invertebrate assemblages in terms of an ecosystem function. The bioturbation ability of organisms and their subsequently impact on sediment chemistry (e.g. redox depth or BMD
(Biological Mixing Depth) was assessed by images collected using a Sediment Profile Imagery camera, SPI). Additionally, the rate of carbon and nutrient cycling was also considered for this investigation. These measures
were useful proxies for overall sediment state and function. Modelling the effect of removing species (by sensitivity to a human impact such as dredge disposal or trawling) or the effect of generic features (i.e. rarity, body size) has
allowed the impact of changes in biodiversity to be addressed and keystone species that maintain ecosystem functioning (i.e. C cycling) to be identified.
98
Analysis of the spatial NSBS dataset into bioturbation potentials and associated biogeochemical metrics (here total organic C (%) or sediment
chla) has allowed a spatial overview of bioturbation potential at North Sea sites to be derived and also the effect of species removal on sediment carbon. Results from these assessments shows changes in the biogeochemical metric
with species loss, which indicates site differences in resilience and redundancy. This is clear at station 10, which presents a gradual change in function with more functional redundancy in the species present. Station 14
has a step change in function which coincides with the lost of a key species. Key species and the number of species that maintain function can also be identified per each site site.
A refinement of this work has also examined the nature and variability of the Bioturbation Potential with other biogeochemical metrics (Biological Mixing
Depth, sediment rates etc) where data exists and in relation to human activities. Preliminary work has illustrated a strong positive relationship (r2 = 0.72) between BPc and carbon % being remineralised via sulphate reduction
in other data sets collected at Outer Silver Pit. This finding illustrates future work to be done on the nature of a BPc and calibration of such metrics when combined to biogeochemical measures.
Additionally, analysis of temporal data (2006-2008) has also been used for this investigation. The monitoring data sets from Souter Point in the north East
Coast, where a trial-capping (i.e. approximately 60,000 m3 of contaminated dredged material-CDM) was conducted. SPI data, acoustic information and grab samples for sediment and biological analysis were collected and the
bioturbation potential (BP) over a transect of stations through time reflects clear changes in species composition for the area. During the first year of the BP calculations reflected a small number species that were capable of
bioturbate the sediments, at the active areas of disposal activity. During the second year the functional groups of species across sites showed signs of natural succession and a clear increase of functional groups.
The areas where the capping trial has taken place showed an admixture of sediments produced by a constant disposal activity. Furthermore, when the
disposal areas were compared with control sites, it was clear that the latter stations showed deeper oxygenated sediments which were result of the bioturbation activity of the infauna.
Lessons learned:
SPI images can provide clear insight into the relationship between benthic communities and the sediment. It is a useful technique using high quality images to study in situ seafloor organism placement, behaviour and
processes that cannot be directly observed via other equipment (i.e. cores or grabs).
It is also an excellent means of communicating sediment oxygenation and ecological data in a simple format to non-specialists. Increasing policy demands for studying and monitoring sediment habitats, benthic communities
99
and linked process studies which combine sediment biogeochemistry and organism interactions have encouraged the development of the SPI
technology. The SPI is a very useful tool in preliminary identification of sediment types
during surveys, especially when combined with live-feed video. This allows viewing and imaging of sediments in-situ with minimal disturbance prior to full sampling effort. This allows increased efficiency in targeting particular habitats
or substrates. This technique is also invaluable in aiding interpretation of acoustic maps where surface sediments may vary from those underneath.
Indicators: What indicators have been generated and what can they tell us?
SPI Images
Metrics from images: The quality of SPI images makes it possible to determine several biological and physical parameters from images. These are mainly;
1) sediment type (measured from the upper 5 cm sediment layer) 2) prism penetration depth (gives an indication of relative sediment
compaction 3) sediment boundary roughness (indicates the degree of physical disturbance or biotic activity at the sediment water boundary);
4) sediment Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity Depth (aRPD) (is the change in reflectance between paler oxidized surficial sediments and darker reduced sediment at depth)
5) in-faunal successional status (qualifies the type of animals living in the bottom)
These image-derived parameters can be combined into indices Organism Sediment Index - OSI (Rhoads & Germano, 1982; 1986) and also the Benthic Habitat Quality index-BHQ (Nilsson and Rosenberg, 1997), which integrates
the information gained from the other parameters into a single index indicative of health status. Using the qualitative Pearson and Rosenberg model (1978) the SPI images can then be placed on a continuum of sediment and biological
structure in relation to potential impacts. Figure 27 illustrates and updates this conceptual model. The left hand panel represents the highest successional stage – reference type conditions. Moving to the right side of the diagram,
driven by disturbance illustrates the combined changes between the sediment community and redox (oxygenation) state. Associated with this change is impact on sediment functions such as bioturbation, carbon cycling or benthic-
pelagic coupling.
100
Figure 27 Conceptual model ofa continuum of sediment and biological
structure in relation to potential impacts.
Assessment under the following criteria
1. Ease of interpretation by non-scientists and those who will decide on their use.
2. Sensitive to a manageable human activity?
3. Relatively tightly linked in time to that activity? 4. Easily and accurately measured, with a low error rate? 5. Responsive primarily to a human activity, with low responsiveness to
other causes of change? 6. Measurable over a large proportion of the area to which the indicator is
to apply? / Scalability?
7. Based on an existing body or time series of data to allow a realistic setting of objectives?
101
6.3 R&D MODULE iii. Potential of Acoustic Techniques for Deriving Summary Indicators of Seabed Environmental
Status
Team Members: Koen Vanstaen
Context: High resolution acoustic seabed mapping techniques are now being used
as part of many environmental assessment and monitoring surveys. Whereas at present expert input is required for the interpretation of the survey results, this R&D Module investigated the opportunities to develop robust indicators
using the numerical data from seabed surveys. This work has significant potential for improving the interpretation and
communication of findings from seabed surveys, employing summary
measures both as stand-alone values, and as tools to facilitate integration with other variables generated from field assessments at sea.
Activities: The main area of work focussed on quantifying and distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic changes to the seabed morphology at dredged
material disposal sites. The complexity of the seabed morphology allowed distinguishing between areas of high, medium and low densities of disposal events. The results broadly matched the results from expert interpretation at
sites where the disposal resulted in a lasting morphological changes to the seabed. The methodology was less successful at dispersive sites where no lasting
morphological changes could be observed. At these sites water depth surface differences from temporal surveys also failed to identify high disposal intensity areas. It was found that in these areas temporal changes in seabed
backscatter were more successful in identifying where disposal activities had taken place, which could not be observed by expert interpretation. In absence of detailed information on the spatial distribution of the disposal
activity, these technique support identifying those areas that have been subject to the highest disposal pressures (Theme 2).
Lessons learned: Indicators were successfully derived from the acoustic techniques; The indicators provided a measure of the intensity of human pressures;
Although the indicators were successfully developed at selected sites, they cannot be applied at all sites and may require temporal surveys.
Table 16: Acoustic Indicators.
Indicator Seabed complexity Temporal seabed backscatter
Description Measure of change in
seabed morphology as a result of the human activity
Measure of change in seabed
type as a result of the human activity
102
What does it
tell us
Intensity of dredged material
disposal
Intensity of dredged material
disposal
Ease of
interpretation
Easy: Classified as High,
Medium and Low
Average: Colour gradient High
to Low
Sensitive to
human activity
High: where change in
seabed morphology and no existing complex seabed morphology
Low: where no change in seabed morphology or existing complex seabed
morphology
Medium-High
Measured accurately
Average: acoustic data quality dependant
Average: acoustic data quality dependant
Scalability Can be applied to small and large areas
Can be applied to small and large areas
GES descriptors
Sea floor integrity is at a level that the functions of the ecosystems are
safeguarded
Sea floor integrity is at a level that the functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded
103
6.4 R&D Module iv: The role of simulated data sets in evaluating the management utility of environmental
indicators
Team Members: Jon Barry
Context: What is the need for the research? (policy areas, drivers
national/international) The need to be able to properly evaluate the impacts of activities such as
dredging, organic enrichment events on abundance and, particularly, the number of species present.
Activities: What did we do and what did we find out?
The work in this module can be divided into four main areas: 1 Simulating benthic populations after organic enrichment
2 Estimating the number of species after gravel extraction 3 The Visual Fast Count Estimator 4 An improved Shannon-Wiener index for detecting changes in biodiversity
Lessons learned: What are the key issues in relation to this or similar indicators that would
be useful to communicate to a policy advisor/maker? Creating simulated data sets from which other indicators can be evaluated is
a valuable tool in deciding amongst competing indicators. The number of species found in a sample will nearly always be less than the
number present in the population being sampled from. This discrepancy between what the sample says and the true value in the population will also extend to many other indicators that are a function of the number of species.
The degree of the discrepancy between sample and population is heavily dependent on spatial pattern (clustered species are harder to find) and on
species density. Estimators such as the Visual Fast Count need proper statistical evaluation
before they can be safely used in practice. Estimators that appear to be sensible don‟t always turn out to be so!
The standard Shannon index can be improved by basing overall abundances on reference years. This allows the new indicator to be sensitive to changes in overall abundance of a system (but where the proportions of each species are
104
the same). We submit that the new indicator is a better measure of changes in biodiversity.
6.5 Module Name: R&D MODULE V. Developing new tools for identifying indicators of anthropogenic changes: age determination in a widely-distributed marine benthic
polychaete.
Team members: S Birchenough (Biologist) and K Bateman (Electron
Microscopist). It is widely recognise that the marine environment is a complex dynamic
system, supporting a large range of biodiversity and a variety of habitats. Currently, a benthic assessment relies on abundance and biomass parameters to understand community changes. The study of growth rings to
explain the distribution of the marine species is widely used in ecology (gastropods-growth lines & statoliths, fish-otholiths, cephalopods). This information has the potential to help furthering our understanding of feeding patterns, reproduction and seasonal variations in benthic systems.
Furthermore, this information can also help us to better understand the distribution of species in specific areas in relation to human activities or climatic effects (Beukema et al., 2000).
Polychaete worms inhabits marine sediment and are one of the most common species in the North Sea. Metals are present in small weight percent and are
often concentrated at the tip of polychaete‟s jaw, where the mechanical impact is expected to be the highest. Research has proven that in some cases polychaetes such as the venomous and carnivorous polychaete worm
Glycera contains predominantly Cu, furthermore its scavenger cousin, Nereis, contains Zn as the major inorganic constituent (Lichtenegger, et al., 2003). The aims of this study were: i) to analyse growth rings present on the teeth of
the marine polychaete Nephtys for age determination and ii) assess the accumulation of metals present in the teeth.
To date marine management is focused in facilitating the multiple uses of the marine environment in a sustainable manner. Although, it is clear that multiple pressures resulting from a combination of anthropogenic activities are
modifying the marine environment. One of the clear goals of the Marine Strategy Directive is to develop science-based evidence in response of multiple threats to biodiversity, damage of habitats and pollution. The work
develop under this present module can contribute with information on age of a marine polychaete, which will help when assessing the state of biodiversity, by considering age and population structure.
This module is progressing according to the proposed milestones. Collection of samples from existing disposal sites (i.e. sewage sludge, dredged material)
were used as testing material to conduct dissection and extraction of jaws. A
105
total of 307 jaws were extracted from dredged material disposal sites (77), aggregate extraction (20) sites and sewage sludge sites (210). A wide range
of age groups have been identified , these are: group 0 (1-2 years), group I (2 to 3), group II (3 to older) (Figure28 a-b).
Jaws were further prepared and analysed with the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), for the production of X ray profiles. These profiles were used to identify the elements present and the position of these elements
within the sample. Results reported that some of the samples clearly showed a large iron peak and smaller copper peak (Figure 29 a). The overall analysis reflected a low presence of these metals. Results obtained from the Electron
Microscope (EM) show the presence of distinct growth rings in the species analysed. Figure 1 a-b shows the presence of two three years old polychates. These samples were obtained from a station located in the centre of a former
sewage sludge disposal site. The final stage of this work is to conduct the final age determination, quality checks and final metal determination of samples between control and impacted sites.
Dissemination of this research:
A poster presentation at the ICES Environmental Indicators: Utility in
Meeting Regulatory Needs, 20 - 23 November 2007, London-U.K. A production of a draft manuscript with the results of this work is currently planned for preparation during the final year of the programme (journal to be
decided).
Figure 28: a-b) images of the polychaete Nepthys, showing jaws with growth rings.
Figure 29: Results showing the tooth tip (colours are: green= carbon, red=copper and blue= iron).
a) b)
106
7 Socio-economic indicators
This section is a summary of a report produced by the School of Development Studies / Overseas Development Group, University of East Anglia.
7.1 UK marine monitoring and socio-economic monitoring.
There iare only limited socio-economic indicators currently being used in the marine monitoring framework has been acknowledged in Charting Progress I
(Defra 2005) and is being addressed through the Productive Seas Evidence Group.
One risk regarding the UK Strategy for Marine Monitoring and Assessment is that the strategy seems to subsume socio-economic monitoring under the „productive seas‟ management objective (with the Productive Seas Evidence
Group). Whilst this is appropriate for the „productive‟ aspects of the socio-economic sphere, (of interest for instance for tax collection and revenue generation) it privileges commercial „utilitarian‟ interests in the marine
environment and is not likely to encompass many non-traded on „non-productive‟ socio-economic interests in the marine environment, such as health and cultural values relating to the environment. These should certainly
also be systematically captured in indicators.
7.2 Routinely used socio-economic indicators in relation to the UK marine environment.
This section assesses indicators found in key readings recommended by Cefas, as well as additional literature identified by the authors.
The socio-economic indicators there are in common use appear to be primarily economic, rather than social or socio-economic in the wider sense of
the term. This appears to reflect a commercial and utilitarian bias. A much broader range of socio-economic indicators would be desirable in order to reflect the wider policy objectives and social interest in the marine
environment, over and above purely economic activity.
7.3 Benefits, costs and risks relating to the employment of currently available socio-economic indicators
Where economic values are considered in relation to commercial use of the marine environment, traded values are rarely coincident with the full ecosystem service value, particularly because many ecosystem services are
not valued, and therefore costs like pollution can be externalised (e.g. costs associated with the management and impacts of pollution imposed on the wider community – „the polluted pays‟ principle.) Ecosystem service costs
should be „internalised‟ in governance structures so that in cases such as this
107
the polluter pays. As a step in this direction economic valuations of marine use should internalise externalities in the process of assessment.
7.4 Guidance in developing socio-economic indicators.
The criteria for selecting socio-economic indicators from the range of possible
(and indeed indentifying new ones) is likely to be slightly different from that for natural or physical indicators. Firstly there is an important and legitimate subjective aspect to people‟s aspirations and well-being. Additionally socio-
economic priorities for marine use are likely to be more dynamic than natural indicators, as these social priorities adapt, change and evolve over time. Therefore it is important that a more „process‟ approach is taken in developing
socio-economic indicators, in order to take account of dynamic social state and preferences.
The experience of developing countries can inform UK marine monitoring. In developing countries there is a greater emphasis on integration of social and physical aspects of resource management, on the social impacts of resource
use. Inclusive deliberative processes are recommended as an essential way to
develop socio-economic indicators appropriate to citizen‟s concerns and interests over the marine environment. Deliberative processes of discussion and consensus building can play a number of important functions: raising
citizen awareness and understanding of how the marine environment is used, governed and monitored, secondly promoting citizen ownership and engagement in the policy process, and lastly of course to identify better
indicators. In conclusion, socio-economic monitoring should be treated distinctly
differently from monitoring of the bio-physical environment. Therefore a deliberative process is essential to develop an indictor framework, criteria, to choose indicators, and to review the monitoring on a regular basis.
7.5 Novel Indicators Socio-economic indicators
The table below provides a range of suggested indicators. These indicators would ideally be nested within broader socioeconomic objectives or goals (as the ones listed for CIFOR are). However the overall goals should not be
predetermined, but should emerge through a deliberative process. Establishing the objectives is a political process and should be conducted through appropriate participatory governance. See Table 17 for proposed
indicators. Table 17: Socio-economic indicators suggested by the authors of this
study Aspect Indicator Measurement
and units
Social: population &
Population accessing / using marine area for significance part of livelihood (e.g. >10%)
Absolute number /
108
Aspect Indicator Measurement and units
dynamics proportion of total popl.
Social Conditions and cultural traditions
Overall Human development index for inhabitants: Life expectancy at birth, Literacy rate & gross enrolment ratio Standard of living index
Health benefits (Physical, mental) Life expectancy, hospital admissions Subjective assessments of benefits
Recreational use & associated benefit flows – eg aesthetic qualities of resource
(e.g. Subjective ranking…)
Distinct material cultural practices relating to marine use. Sustainability / continuity of resource-related culture, / material cultural practices in relation to sea, and local technical knowledge's (see Gray & Hatchard 2007)
Range of local livelihood uses and contribution to household incomes of each
Recreational uses: Frequency Accessibility, distance travelled Subjective valuation of use benefits
Distributional equity in terms of distribution of ownership and control of resource between different interest groups
Household vulnerability to coastal use shocks
Coping strategies / occupational mobility / buffer ..
Household ownership of marine related assets, and entitlements (e.g. coastal land, fishing equipment, entitlement to fish, …)
Household expenditure on range of marine uses…
Economic conditions / productive activities
Revenue levels of each main productive activity
Mean person-years employment annually provided in each sector
Mean salary pro-rata in each sector – relative to land based activities??
Net profit per fishing vessel £ / year
Net landings per vessel (e.g. mean across all boats – indicate mean size)
Tones / year
Governance and institutional structures
Social inclusion in sea use activities, and in related governance and decision-making processes, including social inclusion and informed consent and in decisions directly affecting local people
Freedom of association
Responsive representative political structures
Transparency / access to information
Ownership, access and use rules fair and just
Property rights & tenure: Eg % of land under common property tenures Distribution of private land tenure across population
Accessibility, access rights, costs (including transaction costs) involved in accessing & using resource
Just enforcement – lack of bias, policing by consent
Market institutions effective, equitable
„Response‟ E.g. funding for policy response measures, environmental tax, …
Legislation for management of marine environment
Environmental Vulnerability of wellbeing from impacts of climate change
109
Aspect Indicator Measurement and units
security (e.g. extreme weather events, sea level rise, coastal erosion and inundation, temperature changes): exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity
Other Work-life balance - # hours worked, #hours leisure, …holidays / year
110
8 Integration and development of findings Theme 4 of the project covers:
(a) the co-ordination of activities and outputs across Themes 1-3
and R&D modules I-V (b) provides a route for the translation of findings into a form which
will maximise the strategic benefits to Defra, and
(c) ensures that products are aligned to Defra‟s current and foreseeable reporting needs (e.g. future Charting Progress reports, UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, contributions
to OSPAR QSRs, Marine Strategy Framework Directive). A clear message from Defra‟s Charting Process (& CP2) is that in order to
carry out ecosystem assessments the development of environmental indicators towards Clean, Safe, Healthy, Productive and Biologically Diverse Seas is required. Any indicator needs data, both for its development and
implementation. Both CP2 and the OSPAR 2010 QSR have identified spatial and temporal insufficiencies in the available data. The indicators developed under Themes 2 and 3 have utilised existing readily available datasets to aid
usability. The intention for the ME4118 project has been to develop and test an approach, therefore, whilst data availability could be seen as a limitation, we have endeavoured to future-proof it, wherever possible. In practice this
means that the approach described in this report is designed to be robust by making the best use of what data we have but is flexible enough to accommodate & utilise „better‟ datasets as they become available.
In addition to data availability it is also important that users can have full confidence in the product. This has been addressed within the ME4118
project by ensuring that the approach for the Theme 2 & 3 indicators is as transparent as possible. To achieve this the techniques utilised in processing the raw data and developing the indicators has made clear distinction
between where expert judgement has been used and where complex analytical techniques have been applied, the intention being that the suitability, robustness and feasibility of the techniques fit the available data
sets. It was also felt that the spatial and temporal elements of the available data should not be disguised or distorted by the approach developed so the approach developed makes clear what is based on measurement, modelling,
extrapolation or expert judgement. GIS tools have allowed simple overlay of datasets to determine spatial &
temporal correlations and associations. However, a series of data analyses and interpretations are needed if management options are to be developed and actions taken. A full knowledge of data provenance, the analytical tools
used and interpretive steps applied increases confidence and we have tried to make sure that the approach allows for an audit trail to be maintained. We believe this is particularly important when we combined pressure, state and
impact indicators.
111
Consistent with the recommendation in Charting Progress and CP2 we have developed indicators in this project:
to supply information about the state of the seas, in order to enable policy makers to develop policy and assess any emerging environmental
problems
that cause pressure on the marine environment
The aim within Chapter 8 (Theme 4) is to use the indicators to describe the key ecosystem features, assess trends (correlated between pressures and impacts), and provide the basis to monitor the state and the efficacy of any
management options. However, as the project progressed the difficulties of separating thinking between pressure, state and impact became clearly apparent and whilst good progress has been made in developing discrete
pressure, state and impact indicators the use of these and the interpretation of the outputs for management purposes requires a more collective thought process and as such most of the aspirations of Theme 4 are in fact embedded
within the main report with the description of the Pressure and State indicators (see Sections 4 and 5). The use of the EMECO application has proven to be an ideal mechanism to keep and present the necessary data associations and
improve the functionality of this approach to developing and testing marine environmental indicators.
8.1 Indicator Requirements/Checklist Template and explanatory notes.
The process to develop indicators as described in Chapter 2 is summarised here. The following chapter could be used to assess indicator formulations.
The headline criteria (BOLD and BOXED) are drawn from the ME4118 report. However, as each of these captures more complex procedures and
requirements, further sub-criteria are provided that may be used to measure the suitability of the specific indicators or suites of indicators. The sub-criteria have been synthesised from a review of the expert literature on indicator
selection. The Headline criteria are:
Legal Relevance
Policy Relevance
Scientific Rigour
Responsiveness
Representative
Communicable
Cost Effective and Practicable
Legal and Policy Relevance
112
The requirements of Legal and Policy Relevance will need to be fleshed out according to the specific context within which the indicator is being used, as
not all legal instruments and policy frameworks will be relevant. The template below is merely illustrative. For an example of how this works in practice see the case study (See Section 8.2 below))
Evidence thresholds. This need not be an immediate concern during the
design and implementation of an indicator or suite of indicators. For the most
part, where attention is given to the scientific rigour of an indicator and to the communication requirements, then this should satisfy the sub-criteria in respect of evidence. What should be borne in mind are the requirements of
independence and non-bias. For example, care should be taken not to allow the intellectual stock that a scientist has in the design of an indicator to distort its use in practice, for example by using it where it is inappropriate, or to
demonstrate research impact by putting an indicator into practice within real world management systems.
Scientific Rigour These are set as objective checks on the quality of the science used to develop the indicator. For further details see Chapters 3.1, 4.4 and 5.2 in
particular. This requirement is closely linked with the requirements for responsive and representative indicators.
Responsiveness and representation. These are meta-qualities, and require not just a synthesis of the individual indicator qualities independently, but require the indicator selection process to
be grounded within conceptual framework and that considers the overall selection of multiple indicators and forms of indicator (compound or aggregated indicators) within this framework.
Responsiveness is particularly important. Niemeijer and Groot (2008) note that often indicators are sometimes selected on an individual basis. This
means that whilst they may meet certain indicator criteria, such as scientific rigour, they may not be defensible in terms of how well they fit within the overall management framework. Thus they may not be compatible with other
indicators, or they may not result in economies of scale from duplication of meaningful outputs. As such it is essential that the system for selecting indicators takes into account the overall management framework, and causal
links within this framework. Consultation
Some aspects of the scientific process may cover this, for example peer review of methods. This would provide evidence of limited stakeholder involvement from the scientific community. However, it may be more
appropriate to consider wider stakeholder input into the process, particularly when there is a strong socio-economic context the management framework for indicator use.
General
113
The checkbox at the end can be either simply checked. However, where the criterion is qualitative, or requires further explanation, then a cross reference
can be inserted. It may be more appropriate to introduce a scaled response in the checklist. For example, the extent to which the indicator meets the various criteria could be noted as (strong, satisfactory, or weak). However,
this would clearly require some form of value judgment, and possibly entail greater critical scrutiny of the judgement.
114
Table 18. Indicator Selection Criteria
Criterion Sub-criteria Description/explanation Check
Legal Relevance
The indicators meet any legal requirements
e.g. MSFD (List the relevant criteria or qualitative
requirements) (Illustrative only)
e.g. WFD (List the relevant
criteria) Illustrative only
Legal advice or input
Advice has been sought on any legal
requirements
Evidence threshold
requirements have been considered
Indicator use can be verified by independent
or unbiased experts. Assumptions upon which indicator is used
are clearly stated. Indicator limitations are clearly stated (see
below). No conflicts of interest with expert. No unnecessary
complication with presentation of evidence.
Policy
Relevance
The indicators meet
the requirements of the policy framework within which they are
embedded
e.g. UK BAP
Biodiversity sensitive
Ecosystem
sensitive
Scientific Rigour The indicators have been developed in
accordance with
Analytical
soundness
The indicator has a
strong scientific and conceptual basis. (This
115
may require further
calibration to include factors such as peer review of
data/methods, testing of indicators prior to use, confirmation of
results) Pedigree The indicator has a
proven track record of
use
Historical record
The indicator is drawn from a body or time
series of data
Measurability The indicator can be measured in
quantitative or qualitative terms
Statistical
properties
The indicator has
sound statistical properties that allow unambiguous
interpretation
Portability The indicator use can be repeated and in
different contexts
Indicator limitations
This ought to be linked to a further qualitative
statement that communicates the risks of using the
indicator(For example, data variables, background readings,
and limits to the data)
Adaptability The indicator can be adjusted at regular
intervals, where appropriate.
Responsiveness The indicators are designed with a mind
on the role they play in the system (e.g. a constellation of
suitable indicators is selected – not merely the best individual
indicators)
Compatibility The indicator is
116
compatible with other
indicators used in the management system (i.e.
pressure/state/impacts indicators)
Socio-economic
linkage
The indicator can be
linked to socio-economic factors.
Management
linkage
The indicator can be
used to set targets in management systems.
Target
responsive
The indicator can
measure progress towards or deviation away from a
management target or objective.
Time sensitive Indicator should be
capable of measuring
Thresholds Indicator can be used to trigger action.
Sensitive to human activities
Indicator is primarily responsive to human activities.
Precautionary capacity
Indicator can give early warning of significant/irreversible
trends
Representative Indicators meet a satisfactory cross section of the indicator
qualities.
Integrated The indicator (where
appropriate) forms part of a suite of indicators that covers key aspects
of the system.
Coverage Indicators provide a good cross section of
other indicator criteria.
Communicable They are comprehensible by the target audience
Expert communicability
The indicator can be understood by an
expert audience
Non-expert The indicator can be
117
communicability understood or translated into a form that can be understood
by non-experts. Consultation Input from stakeholders
formed part of the
design process.
Cost effective and practical
The indicators must be affordable and
capable of being used in practice
Cost effective The benefits of the indicator should
outweigh the costs of using it
Operational effectiveness
The indicator is susceptible to practical
use (i.e. simplicity, requires less data...)
Time demand The indicator use is not
time intensive
Resource demand
The indicator is not resource intensive
Universability The indicator is applicable to multiple areas, scales, and
situations.
Although the indicator selection criteria described above were loosely used in
the development and considerations for the application of the pressure, state and impact indicators in Chapters 4 and 5, a case study has been carried out to examine in detail the use of the criteria (developed in Chapter 2) to
pressure indicator development in the Thames Estuary (developed in Chapter 4).
8.2 Case Study: Development of Pressure Indicators for application to Thames Estuary Dredging activities.
Case Study: Development of Pressure Indicators for application to
Thames Estuary Aggregate Extraction Introduction
In November 2009 a simple review protocol was developed on the basis of the draft risk assessment guidelines for the effective employment of
118
environmental indicators. The checklist is designed to provide a simple and transparent, yet complete, summary of the steps undertaken as part of the
risk analysis that was carried out as part of the indicator design and review process.
This review protocol is now tested and reviewed in respect of the Thames marine aggregate dredging case study.
Case Study Background At present, very few indicators have been developed to provide a measure of pressure on the marine environment which can be directly and objectively
linked to impacts. Pressures relevant to marine aggregate extraction were identified using the OSPAR assessment Matrix (developed for use in the 2010 Quality Status Report) and include Water flow (tidal current changes - local
(under the general pressure theme of inshore or localised hydrological change) and habitat structure change (abrasion and other physical damage) and habitat structure change (removal of the substratum) under the theme of
habitat damage. The indicators developed to address these pressures were dependent upon
data availability, quantity and quality. The following data sets were provided by The Crown Estate and Cefas:
Aggregate extraction data sets
Tonnes extracted / year (1995-2005) for all regions of England.
Spatial area and perimeter of licence area (Outer Thames region).
Spatial area and perimeter of extraction area. (Outer Thames region)
Total area dredged / year (Outer Thames Region).
Electronic Monitoring system (EMS) data on dredging intensity
(categories of 0-15 minutes, 15-75 minutes and >75 minutes) for dredged areas (Outer Thames region).
Total area dredged / year at each intensity (Outer Thames region).
Data associated with aggregate extraction are confidential and cannot be
presented in their raw form. As an initial assessment of the spatial distribution of dredging intensities,
maps were produced for each licence area, together with maps indicating areas of repeated dredging over the 11 year time frame of the data set. This provides a first, visual, assessment of areas of high pressure which may
require further investigation. Secondly, the spatial area and annual frequency of each dredging intensity
were determined for individual licence areas and expressed as hectare (ha) and percentage of the total area dredged. The total amount of material (tonnes) extracted under each dredging intensity category was then estimated
and finally expressed as tonnes/ha and temporal trends plotted in LPI (Living Planet Index) format (see Loh, et al 2005).
119
Application of the Indicator Criteria
1. Legal Relevance. The following instruments are relevant to marine dredging activities. Dredging
activities include dredging for aggregates and dredging for navigational purposes. Some of the instruments are concerned with dredging, some with sea disposal of dredged material and some with both. However, for this
component of the Thames case study we are only concentrating on those instruments relevant to dredging for marine aggregate extraction.
a. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR). Established in 1992 OSPAR is the instrument guiding international cooperation on the protection of the
marine environment of the North-East Atlantic and contains a series of general obligations (Art. 2) to protect the marine environment from the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard
human health and to conserve marine ecosystems. It further requires the application of the precautionary and the polluter pays principles. It further requires best available techniques and best
environmental practice. Many provisions of OSPAR are designed to tackle the introduction of pollution, but its Protection and Diversity of Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystems Strategy covers dredging for
marine aggregate extraction because it has implications for the state of the marine environment. However, there remain the general obligations to protect the marine environment, and in
particular, Annex V dealing with protection of the ecosystems and biological diversity of the maritime area.
Present compliance of the indicators with OSPAR requirements are met to the extent that indicators are considered to be at the latest stage of development and part of an appropriate environmental
control strategy. For the most part these requirements are determined by the extent to which the present quality control mechanism demonstrates that the indicators meet the generally
accepted criteria for indicators. To this end OSPAR (in collaboration with ICES) has developed a series of environmental indicators in the form of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) to
apply the ecosystem approach in the management of human activities in the marine environment.
b. London Convention and Protocol – The London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 and its 1996 Protocol do not apply to dredging for
marine aggregate extraction, so is not relevant for the Thames case study (however, it would be applicable for any disposal operations such as sea disposal of material dredged for navigation purposes).
c. Water Framework Directive – The marine aggregate dredge sites in
the Thames Estuary are located more than 1nm offshore, so mostly
120
excluded from the scope of the WFD. However, chemical status is reserved within the scope of the WFD out to 12nm so aspects of
dredging activity may be subject to the WFD. Dredging is recognised as a pressure that may result in a failure to meet the WFD objectives by 2015, however, given the nature of the material
extracted and the locations of the aggregate sites this is more of an issue for navigation dredging than marine aggregate extraction. Where this pressure applies relates to the generation of suspended
solids and potential leaching of contaminants from the sediment. (Environment Agency, River Basin Management Plan, Thames River Basin District 2 December 2009 Annex G, pp. 11-13.) Such
factors are potentially relevant to the development of impact indicators. Apart from the general obligations pertaining to the achievement of particular status for the waters, specific indicator
requirements pertaining to dredging intensity are not required under the WFD, nor the Thames RBMP.
d. Priority Substances Directive – not applicable to dredging for marine aggregate extraction so not relevant to the Thames case study.
e. Revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) - not applicable
to dredging for marine aggregate extraction so not relevant to the
Thames case study. NB. An exclusion from the Directive is made for “non-hazardous sediments”.
f. Habitats Directive – Pressure indicators are relevant to appropriate assessments under the Habitats Directive, although specific indicator qualities are not required.
g. Birds Directive – as in f. above
h. Bathing Waters Directive – not applicable to the Thames case study.
i. Revised Bathing Waters Directive – not applicable to the Thames case study.
j. Shellfish Waters Directive – not applicable to the Thames case study.
k. Dangerous Substances Directive – not applicable to the Thames case study.
l. Environment Impacts Assessments Directive – see r. below
m. Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive – Although
applicable to dredging activities in general, it does not specifically delimit the use of particular indicators.
121
n. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This Directive specifically delimits the kinds of indicators required as part of the monitoring
and assessment of the marine regions. Qualitative descriptors that are to be used in determining good environmental status include reference to permanent alterations of hydrological conditions. This
would include aggregate extraction. Furthermore physical damage caused by selective extraction is specifically listed (but non-binding) and is something that should be considered as part of an
assessment for each marine region. Utilising dredging intensity indicators could assist in meeting the requirements of the MSFD. A final point to consider is the general requirements in the Directive
for consistent and compatible standards and methodology. This would suggest that indicators used within the current context ought to be compatible with indicators used within the same regions or
sub-regions, and with other international and EC requirements. This has not been verified at this stage.
o. Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 – this is only relevant to construction and sea disposal activities.
p. Coast Protection Act 1949 – Although relevant to dredging for marine aggregate extraction, this act does not specifically delimit indicators.
q. Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007 in essence applies the EU
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to the Food &
Environment Protection Act, see l. and o. above.
r. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats
(Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007. Dredging activities in the case study area are subject to the 2007 Regulations, which licences dredging
activities for the purpose of marine aggregate extraction. Although the 2007 Regulations do not specify precisely what indicators and information is required as part of the licensing and impact
assessment process, it necessarily includes information on the area, scale, duration and magnitude of dredging activities. The intensity indicators would facilitate decisions under the 2007
Regulations.
s. Harbour Empowerment Orders – these are applicable to navigation
dredging but not the present case.
t. Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 – will replace FEPA, CPA,
Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007 and the Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007
so will be of relevance to marine aggregate extraction in the Thames Estuary, however, at present work on its implementation is still in progress so the existing legislation still applies.
122
2. Policy Relevance
There are a large number of relevant instruments that provide the policy context for the management systems within which the indicators are embedded. These include the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and
Safeguarding Our Seas, and a number of EC policy instruments: a. Biodiversity Action plan - Protecting priority habitats and species,
marine ecosystem integrity, habitat connectivity.
b. Safeguarding our Seas – integrated management, stakeholder involvement, ecosystem approach, robust use of science, precautionary approach, regulatory efficiency
c. EC policy – high level of diversity protection, promoting sustainable development (As per Current Sustainable Development Strategy (2006): European Council DOC 10917/06: sustainable and efficient
resource use, integrated approach, use of best available knowledge, access to information and participation in decision-making, restoring degraded ecosystems, promotion of re-use and
recycling). Integrated Marine Policy Action Plan (Com 2007 574 final).
What may be observed is that these are more relevant to the management system, than specific indicators. Key requirements, such as integration or the use of best available knowledge, are also embodied in other indicator
criteria. It is also important to note that requirements such as integration may be contingent upon the extent to which indicators can be used in conjunction with each other as part of a suite of indicators.
In the present case study, it was considered that indicators measuring the intensity of dredging (geographic scale of dredging, volume of dredged
materials and frequency of dredging) were capable of facilitating these above broadly defined policy goals. They are directly relevant to the management systems that are focused on monitoring marine resource
activities. Also, the process presently being undertaken reflects a further
commitment to these policy goals. What may be noted here is that this general policy is aimed at achieving a more complete and holistic understanding of the marine environment. In some respects the issues
related to gaps in the data suggest that this process requires more attention (links to responsiveness – see below)
3. Scientific Rigour a. Analytical Soundness. The three indicators adopted are simple or
univariate indicators drawn from an accurate and reliable data
source. The data are simple, routinely collected and available to regulatory bodies upon request. It was noted that it would be difficult to provide a single summary indicator that measured dredge
intensity due to the different qualitative impacts of frequency, volume and geographic extent of dredging activities.
123
b. Pedigree. The intensity data is used the regulator to monitor compliance with dredging zones and flag up any out of area
dredging. To undertake this monitoring, each dredger is fitted with an Electronic Monitoring System (EMS). Various sensors on the vessel and dredging apparatus send signals to the computer. These
sensors monitor the status of equipment such as the draghead and associated machinery which need to be utilised for dredging to occur. The EMS is set up to trigger electrical signals when the
sensors indicate that the vessel is dredging marine aggregate. When the vessel begins loading, the EMS records the position using a GPS signal, along with the date and time. In this way a
detailed log of all dredging activity is built up on the EMS computer. Once a week, this dredging data is submitted to the Managing Agent of the Marine Crown Estate via wireless email.
Every month approximately 500,000 data points (10,000 km) of dredge tracks from an average of 27 vessels are analysed by the
Managing Agent. EMS Irregularity Notices are issued to licencees for any time gaps in the data or indications of out of area dredging. In response to these Notices, dredging companies must supply
evidence of ship activities during any periods in question, such as track plots, vessel deck logs and a legally binding Master‟s statement. In the case of any proven infringements, the regulators
are informed and further measures may be taken (http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/ems_factsheet.pdf).
As well as being used to monitor compliance with dredging licence conditions, EMS data is also used to give a detailed picture of the intensity of dredging in different licences and regions of the UK.
These data are widely used both by the dredging industry and in scientific studies and the Crown Estate has allowed the use of these data for the ME4118 project.
The aggregate industry provides The Crown Estate with confidential aggregate tonnages for each licenced area. These data have been
provided since 1995 and were used as the basis for the LPI calculations in Chapter 4. Although it should be reiterated that actual tonnages can not be back calculated from the index.
c. Historical Record. The data were drawn from a period going back
up to 11 years for most sites (1995-2005). The same data sources
and method of recording were used over the time period. It was noted however, that complete data on impacts of dredging were not available for most sites, and in any event going back beyond two
years. This is because government monitoring has focussed on the recovery of surrendered licence areas with monitoring of active areas being carried out by the aggregates industry. The industry
data could be sourced for future use of the indicators but because this is collected to meet site specific objectives a thorough collation, review and assessment would be required which is beyond the
124
scope of the ME4118 project Data from NMMP monitoring sites which corresponded to active dredging areas were used. This
limited the extent to which meaningful analysis between pressure and state impacts can be drawn.
d. Measureable. The data pertains to activities that are readily measurable in quantitative terms.
e. Statistical Properties. The indicators are based on simple raw data. As the data pertained to commercially sensitive activities, it was necessary to convert the data into a form that did not reveal
confidential matters such as extracted volume. This was done by scaling the raw data onto a graph with an axis between 0 and 1, using the Living Planet Index (LPI) to indicate temporal trends in
pressure. No loss of data integrity was caused by this. f. Portability. The indicators can be used in any location where
dredging activities occur and could be modified for use with any
other activity which caused similar pressures.
g. Indicator limitations. One key variable lacking from the data, and
which would provide a potentially useful (necessary) qualitative measure of pressure is data on the depth of localised dredging activity. (although this could from data on the geographic scope and
volume of dredging if good bathymetric data are available). Thus a small scale operation with high volume of recovered material implies a high depth of dredging. A further variable that would
affect the utility of the data are variable relating to the physical nature of the state of the sites. Any comparison between the intensity of the dredging activities in different locations assumes a
degree of equivalency between sites, which is not the case in practice (because the volume/unit area has been estimated assuming equal dredging efficiency across a licence area,
therefore, it is our best estimate, not an accurate figure).
h. Adaptability
4. Responsive
a. Compatibility. The indicators were readily compatible with potential indicators of impact. For example, correlations between the dredge intensity and species abundance can be drawn.
b. Socio-economic linkage. There is a direct link between dredging
intensity and socio-economic factors. The dredged marine
aggregates have an identifiable commercial value and utility in a range of industries. Further data on this would be required to make any more detailed observations.
c. Management linkage. This very much depended upon the context
within which the indicators are used. For example at a local level
125
dredge intensity could be used to make decisions on licence applications, to measure compound pressure on local marine
habitats. However, at a regional or international scale much of the significance of the pressure may be lost. For example the sum total of dredging intensity in the OSPAR Region II would be relatively
small.
d. Target responsive. The indicators are target responsive. At a local
level they are used to measure discrete differences (associated with defined activities) that can be used to identify (semi-)quantitatively / qualitatively cause and effect relationships.
e. Time sensitive. The indicators can be used to measure trends
across time. Whilst trend data for pressures is at present limited.
trend data for the associated activities can be used as a simple proxy.
f. Thresholds. The indicators can be used to trigger management
decisions at a local scale. g. Sensitive to human activities. The indicators are directly sensitive
to human activities.
h. Precautionary capacity. Some background variables such as the physical nature of the ocean floor make it difficult to drawn firm conclusions without further investigation. Furthermore, data
regarding the impacts are limited and it is not possible to identify a level of pressure which would lead to an unacceptable level of impact. This is further complicated by spatial differences in the
seabed properties and the benthic communities they would typically support.
5. Representative
a. Integrated. The indicator could easily form part of a suite of indicators that are capable of monitoring a more complex range of activities and impacts. However, it was noted that there were
problems related to the lack of data in respect of impacts. b. Coverage. As is evident from the checklist, it is clear that the
indicators meet most of the criteria set for an indicator. It may be
noted that at this stage there were no other indicators of dredging pressure with which to draw comparisons.
6. Communication
a. Expert Comprehension. The data can be readily understood by experts.
b. Non-expert comprehension. The approach adopted means that the
data can be readily understood by non-experts. c. Consultation. Design of the indicator included input from a range of
stakeholders. This included peers in the scientific community and
the Crown Estates. Wider participation from commercial stakeholders was not possible due to the confidential nature of the data.
7. Cost Effective and Practicable a. Cost effective. For the pressure indicators, the raw data relating to
dredging intensity for marine aggregate extraction are readily
126
available from the Crown Estate by the regulators. This is already captured as part of the licence conditions. Compiling the data and
converting it into a confidential, but readily accessible format can be done at low cost.
b. Operational Effectiveness. The data is quite simple to manage and
handle. Retrieving and reproducing the data in the format required does not take specialist technical skills.
c. Time demand. The data can be readily updated on an annual or
periodic basis, and is likely to require a period of time measureable in days.
d. Resource demand. Collecting the data is not resource intensive.
However, recording it in a suitable format would require users to posses a GIS licence, and access to EMECO software.
e. Universal. The data can be manipulated in a way that allows it to
be used at different scales. For example, dredge intensity can be measured at a site level, or combined across sites in a specific locality ,such as across the Thames estuary, or across all sites in a
particular region, such as OSPAR regions.
8.3 Conclusions
Comments on the Indicator Review Protocol
The application of the above criteria is fairly straightforward in the case of pressure indicators. It is clear that a far wider range of considerations will
come into account when considering impact indicators.
127
References 1. Bellan, G. (1980). Relationships of pollution to rocky substratum
polychaetes on the French Mediterranean coast. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 11: 318–321. 2. Bnllouin, L. (1956). Science and information theory. Academic Press,
New York.
3. Borja, A., Franco, J., and Muxika, I. (2004). The Biotic Indices and the Water Framework Directive: the required consensus in the new benthic monitoring tools. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48: 405–408.
4. Borja, A., Franco, J., and Pérez, V. (2000). A marine biotic index to
establish the ecological quality of soft‐bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40: 1100–1114.
5. Borja, A., Josefson, A. B., Miles, A., Muxika, I., Olsgard, F., Phillips, G., Rodríguez, J. G. and Rygg, B. (2007). An approach to the intercalibration of benthic ecological status assessment in the North
Atlantic ecoregion, according to the European Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 42–52.
6. Borja, A., Muxika, I., and Franco, J. (2003). The application of a Marine
Biotic Index to different impact sources affecting soft‐bottom benthic communities along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46: 835–
7. Byrnes JE, Reynolds PL, Stachowicz JJ (2007) Invasions and Extinctions Reshape Coastal Marine Food Webs. PLoS ONE 2(3): e295.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000295
8. Chapman, P. M., Dexter, R. N., and Long. E. R. (1987). Synoptic measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infauna community composition (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco Bay. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 37: 75–96. 9. Clarke, KR & Warwick, R.M (2001) Change in marine communities: an
approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition.
PRIMER-E: Plymouth. 10. Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme (CSEMP). 2007. The
Green Book. 11. Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRae, L., Amin, R. & Baillie, J.E.M.
2009. Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conservation Biology. 23 (2): 317-327.
12. Covich, AP, Austen, MC, Bärlocher, F, Chauvet, E, Cardinale, BJ,
Biles, CL, Inchausti, Dangles, PO, Solan, M, Gessner, MO, Statzner, B, and Moss, B (2004) The role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and marine benthic ecosystems, Bioscience, vol 54, No.8,
767- 775 13. Defra (2004). Achieving a better quality of life. Review of progress
towards sustainable development. Government Annual Report 2003.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. 14. Eastwood, P.D., Mills, C.M., Aldridge, J.N., Houghton, C.A. & Rogers,
S.I. 2007. Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of
direct, physical pressure on the seabed. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64: 453-463.
128
15. EEA (2005). EEA Core Set of Indicators. EEA Technical Report No.1/2005.
16. Engle, V. D., and Summers, J. K. (1999). Refinement, validation and application of a benthic condition index for Northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries, 22: 624–635.
17. Engle, V. D., Summers, J. K., and Gaston, G. R. (1994). A benthic index of environmental condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries, 17: 372–384.
18. Environment Agency. 2003. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Environmental assessment and appraisal of BAT. Horizontal guidance note IPPC H1. Environment Agency, 121pp.
19. Fano, E. A., Mistri, M., and Rossi, R. (2003). The ecofunctional quality index (EQI): a new tool for assessing lagoonal ecosystem impairment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56: 709–716.
20. Foden, J., Rogers, S.I. & Jones, A.P. 2009. Recovery of UK seabed habitats after cessation of aggregate extraction. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 390: 15-26
21. Folk, R.L., 1954. The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in
22. Folke, C, Carpenter, S, Walker, B, Scheffer, M, Elmqvist, T,
Gunderson, L, Holling, CS. (2004) Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Vol 35, pp 557-581
23. Forni, G., and Occhipinti Ambrogi, A. (2007). Daphne: a new multimetric benthic index for the quality assessment of marine coastal environment in the Northern Adriatic Sea a Affiliation. Chemistry and
Ecology, 23: 427–442. 24. Frontier, S. (1985). Diversity and structure in aquatic ecosystem.
Oceanography and marine Biology: an annual review, 23: 253–312.
25. Gomez Gesteira, L., and Dauvin, J. C. (2000). Amphipods are good bioindicators of the impact of oil spills on soft-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40: 1017–1027.
26. Grall, J., and Glémarec, M. (1997). Using biotic indices to estimate
macrobenthic community per‐turbations in the bay of Brest. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 44: 43–53.
27. Grall, J., and Glemarec, M. (2003). L‟indice d‟évaluation de l‟endofaune
côtiere. In: Bioévaluation de la qualité environnementale des sediments portuaires et des zones d‟immersion, Alzieu, C. (coord.). Ed.Ifremer, pp. 51–85.
28. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S eds.(2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
29. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D‟Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R.,
Spalding, M., Steneck, R. & Watson, R. 2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science. 319 (5865): 948-952
30. Hill, M. O. (1973). Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its
consequences. Ecology, 54: 427–432.
129
31. Hily, C., Le Bris, H., and Glémarec, M. (1986). Impacts biologiques des émissaires urbains sur les écosystèmes benthiques. Oceanis, 12: 419–
426. 32. Hurlbert, S. H. (1971). The non-concept of species diversity: A critique
and alternative parameters. Ecology, 52: 577–586.
33. ICES (2001). Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems. ICES Co-operative Research Report No. 249, pp. 15–59.
34. ICES (2008). Report of the Workshop on Benthos related Environment
Metrics (WKBEMET). ICES CM 2008/MHC:01. 35. Jeffrey, D. W., Wilson, J. G., Harris, C. R., and Tomlinson, D. L. (1985).
The application of two simple indices to Irish estuary pollution status.
Estuarine management and quality assessment. Plenum Press, London. 147–165 pp.
36. Lambshead, P. J. D., Platt, H. M., and Shaw, K. M. (1983). The
detection of differences among assemblages of marine benthic species based on an assessment of dominance and diversity. Journal of Natural History, 17: 859–874.
37. Leppäkoski, E. (1975). Assessment of degree of pollution on the basis of macrozoobenthos in marine and brackish water environments. Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. B, 35: 1–89.
38. Llansó, R. J., Scott, L. C., Dauer, D. M., Hyland, J. L., Russell, D. E. (2002a). An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity for the
mid‐Atlantic region of the United States. I. Classification of assemblages and habitat definition. Estuaries, 25: 1219–1230.
39. Llansó, R. J., Scott, L. C., Hyland, J. L., Dauer, D. M., Russell, D. E., Kutz, F. W. (2002b). An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity for the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. II. Index development.
Estuaries, 25: 1231–1242. 40. Loh, J., Green, R.E., Ricketts, T., Lamoreux, J., Jwnkins, M., Kapos, V.
& Randers, J. 2005. The Living Planet Index: using species population
time series to track trends in biodiversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 360: 289-295.
41. Magni, P., Hyland, J., Manzella, H., Rumohr, P., Viaroli, A. and
Zenetos. (2005). Proceedings of the Workshop „Indicators of Stress in the Marine Benthos‟, Torregrande-Oristano (Italy), October 2004. Paris, UNESCO/IOC, IMC. iv, 45pp.
42. Majeed, S. A. (1987). Organic matter and biotic indices on the beaches of North Brittany. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18: 490–495.
43. Margalef, R. (1968). Perspectives in ecological theory. Univ. Chicago
Press. 44. Maurer, D., Nguyen, H., Robertson, G., and Gerlinger, T. (1999). The
Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI): Its Suitability for Marine Environmental
Monitoring. Ecological Applications 9(2): 699-713. 45. Mee, L.D. and Bloxham, M. (2002). Assessing the impact of pollution
on aquatic systems at a global and regional level. Marine
Environmental Research, 54(3-5): 223-228. 46. Mee, L.D., Jefferson, R.L., Laffoley, D. and Elliot, M. (2008). How good
is good? Human values and Europe‟s proposed Marine Strategy
Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 187-204.
130
47. Meyer, T., Reincke, T., and Fürhaupter, K. (2006). Ostsee-Makrozoobenthos-Klassifizie-rungssystem für die
Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. University of Rostock, Germany. 48. Miles, A. C., Phillips, G. R., Brooks, L. F and Martina, L. J. (In prep).
The development of a Marine Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) for UK WFD
assessment. Environment Agency (UK), R&D Technical Report. 49. Muxika, I., Borja, A., and Bald, J. (2007). Using historical data, expert
judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions
and benthic ecological status, according to the European Water Framework Directive, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55: 16-29.
50. Nilsson, H. C., and Rosenberg, R. (2000). Succession in marine
benthic habitats and fauna in response to oxygen deficiency: analysed by sediment-profile imaging and by grab samples. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 197: 139–149.
51. Orfanidis, S., Panayotidis, P., and Stamatis, N. (2001). Ecological evaluation of transitional and coastal waters: a marine benthic macrophytes based model. Mediterranean Marine Science, 2: 45–65.
52. Painting, S.J., Devlin, M.J., Malcolm, M.J., Parker, E.R., Mills, D.K., Mills, C., Tett, P., Wither, A., Burt, A., Jones, J. and Wimpenny, K. (2006). Assessing the impact of nutrient enrichment in estuaries:
susceptibility to eutrophication. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55(1-6): 74-90.
53. Pardal, M. A., Cardoso, P. G., Sousa, J. P., Marques, J. C. and
Raffaelli, D. (2004). Assessing environmental quality: a novel approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 267: 1–8.
54. Paul, J. F., Scott, K. J., Campbell, D. E., Gentile, J. H., Strobel, C. S.,
Valente, R. M., Weisberg, S. B., Holland, A. F., and Ranasinghe, J. A. (2001). Developing and applying a benthic index of estuarine condition for the Virginian biogeographic province. Ecological Indicators, 1: 83–
99. 55. Pearson, T.H. and Rosenberg, R. (1978). Macrobenthic succession in
relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment.
Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review, 16: 229-311. 56. Perus, J., Bonsdorff, E., Back, S., Lax, H.G., Villnas, A., and Westberg,
V. (2007). Zoobenthos as indicators of ecological status in coastal
brackish waters: a comparative study from the Baltic Sea. Ambio, 36: 250–256.
57. Pielou, E. C. (1966). Species diversity and pattern diversity in the study
of ecological succession. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 10: 372–383. 58. Piet, G. J., Quirijns, F. J., Robinson, L., & Greenstreet, S. P. R. 2007.
Potential pressure indicators for fishing, and their data requirements.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64: 110–121. 59. Prior, A., Miles, A., Sparrow, A. J., and Price, N. (2004). Development
of a classification scheme for the marine benthic invertebrate
component, Water Framework Directive. Phase I & II Transitional and coastal waters. Environment Agency (UK), R&D Interim Technical Report, E1-116, E1-132: 103 p (+appendix).
60. R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
131
61. Ranasinghe, J. A., Weisberg, S. B., Dauer, D. M., Schaffner, L. C., Diaz, R. J., and Frithsen, J. B. (1994). Chesapeake Bay Benthic
Community Restoration Goals. CBP/TRS 107/94, Chesapeake Bay program Office, USEPA, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, 49 pp.
62. Rees, H. L., Eggleton, J. D., Rachor, E., and Vanden Berghe, E. (Eds).
2007. Structure and dynamics of the North Sea benthos. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 288. 258 pp.
63. Rogers, S.I., Somerfield, P.J., Schratzberger, M., Warwick, R.,
Maxwell, T. and Ellis, J.R. (2008). Sampling strategies to evaluate status of offshore soft sediment assemblages. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 880-894.
64. Rosenberg, R., Blomqvist, M., Nilsson, H. C., and Dimming, A. (2004).
Marine quality assessment by use of benthic species‐abundance distributions: a proposed new protocol within the European Union Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (9–10): 728–
739. 65. Rygg, B. (2002). Indicator species index for assessing benthic
ecological quality in marine waters of Norway. Norwegian Institute for
Water Research, Report N 40114: 1–32. 66. Rygg, B. (2006). Developing indices for quality status classification of
marine sort-bottom fauna in Norway. Norwegian Institute for Water
Research, Report N 5208: 1–32. 67. Sapp, M. (2009). The potential of microorganisms serving as
environmental indicators in marine habitats. Position Paper, SID 4
08/09 (Annex 2). 68. Satsmadjis, J. (1982). Analysis of benthic data and measurement of
pollution. Revue internation‐ale d‟Océanographie Medicale, 66–67: 103–107.
69. Satsmadjis, J. (1985). Comparison of indicators of pollution in the Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 16: 395–400.
70. Schimmel, S. C., Melzian, B. D., Campbell, D. E., Benyi, S. J., Rosen,
J. S., and. Buffum, H. W. (1994). Statistical Summary: EMAP Estuaries Virginian Province, 1991. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, USEPA, Narragansett, Rhode
Island, USA, 77 pp. 71. Schratzberger, M., Lampadariou, N., Somerfield, P.J., Vandepitte, L.,
Vanden Berghe, E. (2009). The impact of seabed disturbance on
nematode communities: linking field and laboratory observations. Marine Biology,156(4): 709-724.
72. sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62 (4), 344-359
73. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, USA, 115 pp.
74. Simboura, N., and Zenetos, A. (2002). Benthic indicators to use in ecological quality classification of Mediterranean soft bottom marine ecosystems, including a new biotic index. Mediterranean Marine
Science, 3: 77–111. 75. Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163: 688. 76. Smith, R. W., Bergen, M., Weisberg, S. B., Cadien, D., Dalkey, A.,
Montagne, D., Stull, J. K., and Velarde, R. G. (2001). Benthic response
132
index for assessing infaunal communities on the southern California mainland shelf. Ecological Applications, 11: 1073–1087.
77. Snelgrove PVR (1998) The biodiversity of macrofaunal organisms in marine sediment. Biodiversity and Conservation, vol7, no. 9 pp 1123-1132
78. Stelzenmüller, V., Lee, J., South, A. & Rogers, S.I. 2010. Quantifying cumulative impacts of human pressures on the marine environment: a geospatial modelling framework. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 398: 19-32
79. Stewart, L.K., Kostylev, V.E. and Orpin, A.R., 2009. Windows-based software for optimising entropy-based groupings of textural data. Computers & Geosciences, 35: 1552–1556.
80. Strobel, C. J., Buffum, H. W., Benyi, S. J., Petrocelli, E. A., Reifsteck, D. R. and Keith, D. J. (1995). Statistical Summary. EMAP Estuaries Virginian Province 1990 to 1993. National Health Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, USEPA, Narragansett, RI, USA, 72 pp.
81. Tett, P., Gowen, R., Mills, D., Fernandes, T., Gilpin, L., Huxham, M.,
Kennington, K., Read, P., Service, M., Wilkinson, M. and Malcolm, S. (2007). Defining and detecting undesirable disturbance in the context of marine eutrophication. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55:282-297.
82. Van Dolah, R. F., Hyland, J. L., Holland, A. F., Rosen, J. S., and Snoots, T.R. (1999). A benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern USA. Marine
Environmental Research, 48: 269–283. 83. Van Hoey, G., Drent, J., Ysebaert, T., and Herman, P. (2007). The
Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI), intercalibration and
assessment of Dutch coastal and transitional waters for the Water Framework Directive. Final report.
84. Van Nes, E.H., Amaro, T., Scheffer, M., Duineveld, G.C.A. (2007)
Possible mechanisms for a marine benthic regime shift in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 330: 39-47.
85. Wall, C.C, Peterson, B.J., Gobler, C.J. (2008) Facilitation of seagrass
Zostera marina productivity by suspension-feeding bivalves. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 357, pp.165-174
86. Ware, S.J., Bolam, S.G. and Rees, H.L. (2010). Impact and recovery
associated with the deposition of capital dredgings at UK disposal sites: Lessons for future licensing and monitoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 79-90.
87. Ware, S.J., Rees, H.R., Boyd, S.E., Birchenhough, S.N. (2009). Performance of selected indicators in evaluating the consequences of dredged material relocation and marine aggregate extraction.
Ecological Indicators, 9: 704-718. 88. Warwick, R. M., and Clarke, K. R. (1995). New biodiversity measures
reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 129: 301–305. 89. Weisberg, S. B., Frithsen, J. B., Holland, A. F., Paul, J. F., Scott, K. J.,
Summers, J. K., Wilson H. T., Heimbuch, D. G., Gerritsen, J.,
Schimmel, S. C., and Latimer, R. W. (1993). Virginian Province Demonstration Project Report, EMAP Estuaries, 1990.
133
EPA/620/R93/006, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Washington, DC., USA.
90. Whomersley, P., Huxham, M., Bolam, S.G., Schratzberger, M. and Augley, J. (2009). Response of intertidal macrofauna communities to multiple disturbance types and intensities: an experimental approach.
Marine Environmental Research, doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.12.001.
91. Whomersley, P., Huxham, M., Schratzberger, M. and Bolam S.G.
(2009). Differential response of meio- and macrofauna to in situ burial. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 89(6): 1091-1098.
92. Whomersley, P., Schratzberger, M., Huxham, M., Bates, H. and Rees, H.L. (2007) The use of time-series data in the assessment of macrobenthic community change after cessation of sewage sludge
disposal in Liverpool Bay (UK). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 32-41. 93. Whomersley, P., Ware, S., Rees, H.L., Mason, C., Bolam, T., Huxham,
M. and Bates, H. (2008). Biological indicators of disturbance at a
dredged material disposal site in Liverpool Bay, UK: an assessment using time-series data. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65(8): 1414-1420.
94. Wilson, J. G., and Jeffrey, D. W. (1987). Europe wide indices for monitoring estuarine pollution. In D.H.S. Richardson (ed.) Biological indicators of pollution, 225–42. Dublin. Royal Irish Academy.
95. Wilson, J. G., and Jeffrey, D.W. (1994). Benthic biological pollution indices in estuaries. Ed. by K. J. M. Kramer. In Biomonitoring of coastal waters and estuaries, 311–27. Baton Rouge. CRC Press.
96. Word, J. Q. (1979). The Infaunal Trophic Index. South Californian Coastline Water Research Project Annual Report, El Segundo, California, 19–39.
97. Word, J. Q. (1980). Classification of benthic invertebrates into Infaunal Trophic Index feeding groups. In: Coastal Water Research Project Biennial Report 1979–1980. SCCWRP, Long Beach, California, USA,
pp 103–121.
Papers produced
1. Barnes R. ME 4118 project report. Risk Assessment Guidelines for Indicator Development (2007)
2. Barry J and Coggan R (submitted Feb 2010) The Visual Fast Count method: critical examination and development for underwater video sampling. Aquatic Biology.
3. Barry J and Rees H L (2008) The use of simulated data following organic enrichment as a tool for testing the performance of environmental indicators. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65, pp
1456-1461. 4. Barry J and Rees H L (accepted February 2008) The use of simulated
data following organic enrichment as a tool for testing the performance
of environmental indicators. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 5. Barry J and Rees HL (2008) The use of simulated data following
organic enrichment as a tool for testing the performance of
134
environmental indicators. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65, 1456-1461.
6. Barry J and Rees HR (2007) The use of simulated data for testing the performance of environmental indicators. Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs. ICES symposium, London,
November 20-23. 7. Barry J, Boyd SE and Fryer R (to appear February 2010) Modelling the
effects of gravel extraction on the macrobenthos. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of the U.K. 8. Barry J, Boyd SE and Fryer R (to be submitted March 2008) Modelling
the effects of gravel extraction on the macrobenthos.
9. Barry J, Ware S and Norris B (in prep) Using Modifications of the Shannon-Wiener Index to Reflect Changes in Benthic Fauna Biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
10. Cefas (2006). Environmental indicators: a structured approach to the evaluation of impacts arising from human activities at sea (Defra project ME4118): detailed R&D plans for FY 2006/7. Report to Defra,
9pp. 11. E Bayer, R Barnes and H Rees, „The regulatory framework for marine
dredging indicators and their operational efficiency within the United Kingdom: a possible model for other nations?‟ (2008) 65 ICES Journal of Marine Science 1402-6
12. E. Bayer, R. Barnes and H.L. Rees, (2008) „The regulatory framework
for marine dredging indicators and their operational efficiency within the UK: a possible model for other nations‟, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1402-1406
13. Elizabeth Bayer – PhD. Currently Elizabeth is writing up her thesis. It is due for completion in Sept 2009.
14. Hull University/IECS and Cefas (2007). Effective integration and
operational use of P, S and I indicators: literature review and lessons for thematic R&D under ME4118. „Live‟ working document: IECS, 30pp.
15. Law, R.J., Kelly, C., Baker, K., Jones, J., McIntosh, A.D. and Moffat, C.F. (2002). Toxic equivalency factors for PAH and their applicability in shellfish pollution monitoring studies. Journal of Environmental
Monitoring, 4, 383-388.
16. Rees, H. L., Boyd, S. E., Schratzberger, M. & Murray, L. A. (2006). Role of benthic indicators in regulating human activities at sea.
Environmental Science & Policy, 9: 496-508. (Part-sponsored by Defra projects ME4118 and AE0261).
17. Rogers, S. I and Rees, H. L. (2006). Recent Defra-funded research in
Cefas on indicators. Report to Defra, 6pp. 18. Sapp M, Parker R, Teal LR, Schratzberger M (2008). Advancing
understanding of biogeography-diversity relationships of
microorganisms in the North Sea. Platform presentation at the World Conference on Marine Biodiversity, Valencia, Spain, 11-15 November 2008.
19. Schratzberger M, Forster RM, Goodsir F, Jennings S (2008). Nematode community dynamics over an annual production cycle in the central North Sea. Marine Environmental Research 66: 508-519
135
20. Schratzberger M, Lampadariou N, Somerfield P, Vandepitte L, Vanden Berghe E (2008). The impact of seabed disturbance on the diversity of
meiofauna communities - linking field and laboratory observations. Poster presentation at the World Conference on Marine Biodiversity, Valencia, Spain, 11-15 November 2008
21. Schratzberger M, Lampadariou N, Somerfield PJ, Vandepitte L, Vanden Berghe E (2009). The impact of seabed disturbance on nematode communities: linking field and laboratory observations.
Marine Biology 156: 709-724 22. Schratzberger M, Warr K and Rogers SI (2007). Functional diversity of
nematode communities in the southwestern North Sea. Marine
Environmental Research 63(4): 368-389 23. Ware, S., Rees, H. L. & Boyd, S. E. (submitted). Performance of
selected indicators in evaluating the consequences of marine dredged
material relocation and aggregate extraction. Ecological Indicators. (Part-sponsored by Defra projects ME4118 and AE0261).
24. Ware, S., Rees, H. L. & Boyd, S. E. (submitted). Performance of
selected indicators in evaluating the consequences of marine dredged material relocation and aggregate extraction. Ecological Indicators. (Part-sponsored by Defra projects ME4118 and AE0261).
25. Ware, SJ, Rees, HL, Boyd SE, Birchenough SN (2009). Performance of selected indicators in evaluating the consequences of dredged material relocation and marine aggregate extraction. Ecological
Indicators 9: 704-718. 26. Whomersley P, Huxham M, Schratzberger M, Bolam S (2009).
Differential response of meio- and macrofauna to in-situ burial. Journal
of the Marine Biological Association of the UK (in press). 27. Whomersley P, Schratzberger M, Huxham M, Bates H and Rees HL
(2007). The use of time-series data in the assessment of macrobenthic
community change after the cessation of sewage sludge disposal in Liverpool Bay (UK). Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (1): 32-41
28. Whomersley P, Ware S, Rees HL, Mason C, Bolam T, Huxham M,
Bates H (2008). Biological indicators of disturbance at a dredged-material disposal site in Liverpool Bay, UK: an assessment using time-series data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 1414-1420