Project part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)

The Interreg IVB North Sea Region Programme


Disclaimer:
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this report. Material included herein does not represent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of it.
Back to overview reports



Management measures analysis and comparison

Table of content

Authors:

by S. Saathoff, J. Knüppel, S. Manson & A. Boerema



10b. Templates for evaluation of measures in terms of WFD aims: Identification of pressures and explanation of resulting deficits for the estuary zones using Environmental Integrative Indicators (EII)

Table 38: Step 1a of WFD pressures evaluation (template): Identification of main pressures per estuary zone by estimating the relevance of state indicators (scoring from no relevance for the system (0) to very highly relevant for the system (4)). State indicators highly or very highly relevant indicate potential main pressures of the respective estuary zone.
State Indicators   FRESHWATER OLIGOHALINE MESOHALINE POLYHALINE
Code Indicator
1.1 Habitat loss and degradation during the last about 100 years: Intertidal 0 0 0 0
xxx Habitat loss and degradation during the last about 100 years: Subtidal 0 0 0 0
1.4 Gross change in morphology during the last about 100 years 0 0 0 0
1.5 Gross change of the hydrographic regime during the last about 100 years 0 0 0 0
3.1/3.2 Decrease of water and sediment chemical quality 0 0 0 0
3.3 Increased chemical loads on organisms 0 0 0 0
3.4 Decrease of microbial quality 0 0 0 0
3.8 Aesthetic pollution 0 0 0 0


Table 39: Step 1b of WFD pressures evaluation (template): Identification of main pressures per estuary zone by estimating the relevance of driver indicators (scoring from no relevance for the system (0) to highly relevant for the system (4)). Driver indicators highly or very highly relevant indicate potential main pressures of the respective estuary zone.

Driver Indicators 		  FRESHWATER OLIGOHALINE MESOHALINE POLYHALINE
Code Indicator
1.3 Land claim during the last about 100 years 0 0 0 0
1.7 Relative Sea Level Rise 0 0 0 0
2.3 Discharge of nutrients and/or harmful substances 0 0 0 0
2.6 Capital dredging 0 0 0 0
2.4 Maintenance dredging 0 0 0 0
2.5a Relocation of dredged material 0 0 0 0
2.9 Aquaculture 0 0 0 0
2.10 Fisheries activities 0 0 0 0
2.8 Wind farm development 0 0 0 0
2.11 Marina developments 0 0 0 0
2.12 Port developments 0 0 0 0
xxx Industrial development 0 0 0 0
2.13 Insallation of pipelines and cables 0 0 0 0
2.14 Oil and gas exploration and production 0 0 0 0
2.16 Tourism and recreation 0 0 0 0


Table 40: Valuation system for estimating the relevance state and driver indicators for the system
Relevance of indicator
0 = No relevance for the system
1 = Low relevance for the system
2 = Medium relevance for the system
3 = Highly relevant for the system (= potential main pressure)
4 = Very highly relevant for the system  (= potential main pressure)


Table 41: Results of step 1a of WFD pressures evaluation (template): List of potential three main pressures per estuary zone added by description of the resulting deficits with special focus on WFD quality elements (main pressure = highly or very highly state indicator OR additional pressure)

RESULTS SURVEY_1
ESTUARY ZONE MAIN PRESSURES COMMENTS (to be added by RWG members) DEFICIT DESCRIPTION (to be added by project partner after RWG meeting)
State Indicators OR additional pressure
Code  (if available) Indicator
FRESHWATER        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        
OLIGOHALINE        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        
MESOHALINE        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        
POLYHALINE        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        


Table 42: Results of step 1b of WFD pressures evaluation (template): List of potential three main pressures per estuary zone added by description of the resulting deficits with special focus on WFD quality elements (main pressure = highly or very highly driver indicator OR additional pressure)

RESULTS SURVEY_2
ESTUARY ZONE MAIN PRESSURES COMMENTS (to be added by RWG members) DEFICIT DESCRIPTION (to be added by project partner after RWG meeting)
Driver Indicators OR additional pressure
Code (if available) Indicator
FRESHWATER        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        
OLIGOHALINE        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        
MESOHALINE        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        
POLYHALINE        
Main Pressure 1        
Main Pressure 2        
Main Pressure 3        


Table 43: Zonation schemes defined for the estuary zones of Weser, Elbe, Humber and Scheldt in the frame of TIDE (Geerts et al. 2011. )
TIDE ZONATION SCHEMES
Estuary zone Chlorinity range Elbe Weser Schelde Humber
FRESHWATER 1       <300 mg Cl-/l 0 - 91 0-24 (1) 0-44 0-31 (1) 0-58 0-31 (1) Trent: 0-45 TIDETrent-km + Ouse till confluence with the Aire : 0-34 TIDEOuse-Humber-km
(FRESHWATER 2)     24-46 (2) 31-44 (2) 31-58 (2)
(FRESHWATER 3)   46-64 (3)
(FRESHWATER 4) 64-91 (4)
OLIGOHALINE   300-3.000 mg Cl-/l 91-118 44-69 58-89 Trent: 45- 85 TIDETrent-km + Ouse further downstream: 34-60 TIDEOuse-Humber-km
MESOHALINE   3.000-11.000 mg Cl-/l 118-141 69-84 89-116 Humber: 60-93 TIDEOuse-Humber-km
POLYHALINE   >11.000 mg Cl-/l 141-171 84-119 116-160 Humber: 93-123 TIDEOuse-Humber-km



Back to top
10a. Composition of Regional Working Groups identifying main pressures and resulting deficits for the estuary zone using Environmenta 10c. Templates for evaluation of measures in terms of Natura 2000 aims: Conservation objectives for relevant operational areas based

Important to know

Reports / Measures / Tools

Report: Management measures analysis and comparison


Management issues

How and by which management measures can tidal amplification be reduced?
How can public acceptance for management actions be increased?
How can the Ecosystem Services Approach be used to support management decisions?
How can we assure accessibility to an inland estuarine port without affecting the habitats and safety against flooding?
How can we prevent excessive degradation or loss of tidal marshes?
How does habitat management affect the supply of ecosystem services?
What are the key areas of conflicts or synergies in TIDE estuaries?
What are the restoration opportunities for side branch systems and river banks (e.g. left side branch Weser)?
What factors determine the distribution of suspended sediments in an estuary?
What measures are successful for the dissipation of tidal energy?
What monitoring is required to support and assess management decisions?
What parameters should be used to define and evaluate measure targets?
What tool is available to help manage multiple users of a resource in an integrated way (i.e. achieving more holistic management)?
Which aspects do I have to take into account in order to make a measure a success?
Which measures are suitable to achieve specific ecological targets?
Which measures are suitable to achieve specific morphological and hydrological targets?
Which measures are suitable to identify, protect or develop valuable submerged habitats e.g. mussel beds and Sabellaria reefs?
Which measures are suitable to improve the physical characteristics and chemical water quality?
Which measures are suitable to provide ecosystem services and benefits?
Which synergistic effects and conflicts can be expected by planning and implementing a certain measure?
“Working with nature”: What are the opportunities for sediment management in estuaries?