Protecting our Marine Environment: Appendix - Report - 09 November 2011

STATES OF JERSEY REVIEW OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FINAL REPORT TO STATES OF JERSEY ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL REVIEW FROM WCA ENVIRONMENT LIMITED

 September 2011

wca environment limited Brunel House

Volunteer Way Faringdon

Oxfordshire SN7 7YR

UK

Email: solutions@wca-environment.com

Web: www.wca-environment.com

Report details

Report Quality Check

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A healthy marine environment is very important to the social and economic wellbeing of the island of Jersey. The waters and beaches around Jersey support a vibrant aquaculture and tourism industry and are home to sites of international environmental significance. The importance of the marine environment to Jersey understandably increases the concerns of stakeholders to potential impacts from any major developments or discharges on the coastline.

Much of the available resources for monitoring the marine environment are focussed on  microbiological  analysis.  This is  to  be  expected  given  the  health  protection requirements for bathing waters and shellfish. However, the present arrangements for microbiological analysis do not provide sufficient capacity to allow the desired degree of reactive or investigative monitoring. A policy review of delivery capability for reactive monitoring is urgently required.

The aquaculture industry is, unsurprisingly, passionate about the potential risk to their livelihood and is deeply concerned about sporadic high coliform values. Also, the bathing waters at Bonne Nuit are subject to occasional elevated levels of the indicator organisms. While the elevated coliform levels do seem to be correlated with high rainfall, it cannot be determined with any certainty what the main sources of pollution are. Environmental Protection has undertaken drainage and outfall studies including the involvement of the aquaculture industry but these have not identified major sources of pollution. Targeted and intensive surveys are required in order to understand the relative contribution of different sources of coliforms. The existing resources for microbiological monitoring on Jersey are insufficient to be able to deliver the necessary evidence to identify sources of coliforms both in the quantity of sample data needed and also in the sophistication of analysis required. At the moment, this resource can only be realistically provided by external providers. If answers to these long standing microbiological quality issues are to be found, the costs of gathering the necessary evidence will be substantial and are certain to be beyond existing budgets. Discussions indicate that there may be some scope for cost sharing and collaborative working with the aquaculture industry to undertake the necessary monitoring.

Jersey is not part of the European Union and so has no legal obligation to adhere to EU Directives although Jersey does aim to implement best practice arising from EU legislation and has its own laws to achieve this. Jersey complies well with European regulations where the protection goal is human health, such as the Bathing Waters Directive or shellfish hygiene regulations. In contrast, the requirements of marine environmental directives such as the Water Framework Directive are addressed at a minimal level. There is insufficient knowledge of the pressures on Jersey's marine environment arising from the discharges and emission of chemicals other than some monitoring of metals. Therefore, it is impossible to know the chemical status of the marine environment in terms required by the Water Framework Directive although the high nitrogen levels are likely to mean that locally some areas are at less than good status.

Bellozanne sewage treatment plant fails the Urban Waste Water Directive total nitrogen limits and the locally applied discharge consent. The recent CREH[1] trophic status report indicates that St Aubins bay is probably not subject to eutrophication although the potential for eutrophication was identified when the models were more stringently applied. Overall, there remains a risk of more subtle effects on local ecosystems arising from high nutrients such as dominance of particular species which would benefit from periodic monitoring.

One submission has criticized the limited scope of marine monitoring and has argued that information is lacking on other hazardous chemicals. They have also expressed the opinion that the shellfish metals monitoring is outdated. In our opinion, the long term monitoring of shellfish and seaweed for metals is a powerful set of data as it allows meaningful analysis of trends and comparisons with other datasets to be undertaken. However, the criticism of the limited scope of monitoring is justified. We believe there are some important priority pollutants not included in the current monitoring programme. For example, there is no data on mercury or persistent organics, such as PCBs or brominated flame retardants. Some limited monitoring for these substances is recommended to understand the baseline concentration of these chemicals at the sites likely to be at greatest risk. These chemicals are found at elevated concentrations in UK biota and there are potential sources of these substances on Jersey.

We recommend undertaking a risk-based assessment of the chemical contaminants most likely to be present in Jersey's waters and the estimated reasonable worst case loads of these substances. This exercise should then be followed up with limited, but targeted, monitoring of effluents and sessile biota for any chemicals at risk of breaching predicted no effect concentrations.

Save Our Shoreline have vigorously raised a number of concerns about pollution arising from the construction of the incinerator. Some of these issues are pending decisions on potential legal action and EP has submitted an extensive case file to the AG for legal opinion. This quite rightly places limits on the discussion and the information that the regulator, EP can make public at this stage in the investigation. However, having been briefed in camera on the events that took place and the samples taken during that time, we have seen no evidence that significant pollution of the sea has occurred. This does not mean that there were no inappropriate working practices, just that there is no evidence of harm to the environment.

There is mistrust and cynicism amongst some stakeholders about the regulator's work to protect the environment. It is clear from the submissions and from face to face meetings that some believe strongly in conspiracies to cover up potentially embarrassing information and unwillingness by the authorities to tackle difficult issues. We have seen no evidence of actions to deliberately mislead stakeholders and the correspondence suggests that Environmental Protection communicate in a polite and factual manner. Where stakeholder aspirations are not met, this has been due to the lack of resource, misunderstandings, the constraints of current practices or a lack of closure on contentious issues. This atmosphere of mistrust and the use of correspondence out of context on web sites inevitably results in the regulators being very cautious and communicating in a formal and factual way. These more formal responses to stakeholders can further fuel suspicion. It should be noted that in the UK, non-governmental organisations such as SOS would not normally have the same direct frequent access to regulatory staff. This closer relationship between the regulator and the community is a beneficial outcome but does require resource to deliver.

The regulatory teams work in a cross functional manner with the small team of staff willing and able to cover for colleague's work areas. This is helpful as the regulator has budget and resources constraints and has to prioritise areas of its extensive remit. This multifunctional working provides resilience and flexibility and is to be commended. We were also impressed by EPs commitment to positive environmental outcomes and willingness to try new approaches. There may be opportunities to reduce some of the workload and free up' resources by streamlining some processes such as input into environmental impact assessments and planning applications with the objective to avoid iterative work.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 3 CONTENTS  ..................................................................................................... 6 TABLES  ..................................................................................................... 8 FIGURES  ..................................................................................................... 9 1  INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 10

1. Terms of Reference ...................................................................... 10
2. Structure of the Report ................................................................. 11
3. Submissions ................................................................................. 11

2  EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS ........................................................... 13

1. Existing regulatory functions .......................................................... 13

1. Environmental Protection .............................................................. 13
2. Health protection .......................................................................... 14
3. Jersey Harbours ........................................................................... 15
4. Fisheries and Marine Resources ..................................................... 15
5. States Veterinary Officer ............................................................... 15
6. Transport and Technical Services Department ................................. 15

2. Current Monitoring Activities .......................................................... 16

1. Monitoring of pollution incidents .................................................... 16
2. Surface freshwater quality ............................................................. 17
3. Outfall monitoring ......................................................................... 18
4. Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................... 19
5. Metal monitoring .......................................................................... 19

3. Available resources ....................................................................... 19

1. Laboratory resources .................................................................... 19
2. Monitoring resources..................................................................... 20

4. Information available to the public on the environment .................... 21

3  DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 23

1. Compliance with international regulations ....................................... 23

1. Shellfish Waters Directive .............................................................. 24
2. Shellfish hygiene .......................................................................... 24
3. Water Framework Directive ........................................................... 26
4. The Bathing Water Directive and revised Bathing Water Directive ..... 29
5. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive ....................................... 33
6. Urban Waste Water Directive ......................................................... 35
7. Concluding remarks, compliance with international regulations ........ 38

2. Microbiological pollution and monitoring ......................................... 39

1. Microbiological concerns on Jersey ................................................. 39
2. Sources of microbiological pollution ................................................ 40
3. Microbial Source Tracking .............................................................. 41
4. Use of Impedance Technology ....................................................... 43

3. Chemical pollution and monitoring ................................................. 45

1. Adequacy of chemical monitoring ................................................... 45
2. Substances of potential concern ..................................................... 48

1. Substances of potential concern - Endocrine disruptors .................... 48
2. Substances of potential concern - Mercury ...................................... 49
3. Substances of potential concern – Brominated flame retardants ....... 50
4. Substances of potential concern – PCBs .......................................... 51

4. Adequacy of resources .................................................................. 51

1. Capability for microbiological monitoring ......................................... 51
2. Laboratory analytical quality .......................................................... 53
   3. Analytical budgets ........................................................................ 54
   4. Pollution incident response ............................................................ 55

6. Engagement with stakeholders ...................................................... 55

1. Engagement with Save Our Shoreline (SOS) ................................... 56
2. Engagement with the aquaculture industry ..................................... 58

6. Sources of Pollution ...................................................................... 60

1. Construction of the EfW plant at La Collette .................................... 60
2. Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Plant ............................................... 61
3. Bonne Nuit Sewage Treatment Plant .............................................. 65
4. Fire fighting foam contamination of the St Ouen's aquifers ............... 67

4. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 71

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 72
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. 73
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................... 75

TABLES

Table 3.1 Priority pollutants within the Water Framework Directive (2010) .......... 27 Table 3.2 UK nitrogen standards for coastal waters .......................................... 28 Table 3.3 Requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to

sensitive areas which are subject to eutrophication.......................... 36 Table 3.4 Excretion of faecal indicator bacteria by wild birds on Morecambe Bay

(Jones 2002) ................................................................................ 41 Table 3.5 Faecal coliforms in livestock faeces, farm slurry and sewage sludge (Jones

2002) .......................................................................................... 41 Table 3.6 Time needed for bivalves to reach maximum concentrations of faecal

coliforms (FC) in their bodies (Solic 1999) ....................................... 44 Table 3.7 Summary of email correspondence between SOS and Jersey regulators . 56 Table 3.8 Average total nitrogen concentrations in Bellozanne effluent. ................ 62 Table 3.9 Comparison of Bellozanne effluent metals concentrations with typical

Environment Agency STW data. ..................................................... 63 Table 3.10 Investigative coliform monitoring data at Bonne Nuit. Figures in brackets

are confirmed enterococci. ............................................................ 66

FIGURES

Figure 3.1  Timescales for implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive ...................................................................................... 35 Figure 3.2  Map showing the location of the three near coast monitoring points

used for trend analysis .................................................................. 68 Figure 3.3  PFOS concentrations between 1999 and 2006 at site 115.............. 69 Figure 3.4  PFOS concentrations between 1999 and 2007 at site 310, BH8 ......... 69 Figure 3.5  PFOS concentrations between 1999 and 2007 at site 311, BH9 ......... 69

1 INTRODUCTION

The States of Jersey Environment Scrutiny Panel have conducted a review into the monitoring and regulation of coastal water quality, entitled "Protecting our Marine Environment". This review is being undertaken against a backdrop of growing public and stakeholder concern in Jersey about pollution of the marine environment. The aim of this report is to support the review by comparing activities currently undertaken in Jersey for the protection of the marine environment with UK best practice and relevant European legislation.

The overall purpose of the review is to evaluate:

• the importance of protecting Jersey's marine environment against pollution
• concerns about marine water quality and the potential effect on island residents, recreational users, and the island's fish farming industry, of any potential for reduction in water quality
• the effectiveness of States monitoring and regulatory activities in protecting the marine environment

In making observations and recommendations on marine monitoring activities on Jersey, they need to be put into context within Jersey's special environmental and constitutional position. For example, the coastal waters of Jersey support an exceptionally rich and diverse environment that is of international importance. The good environmental conditions also bring huge social and economic benefit to the island from tourism and shellfish cultivation. However, Jersey is also a relatively small island with limited resources and a different regulatory framework to the Environment Agency of England and Wales. Therefore it is important to recognise the importance of a Jersey solution' to the protection of their marine environment, so it is not appropriate to undertake a simple gap analysis between Jersey and UK systems. Instead, this report will focus on existing marine protection processes in Jersey and examine how well they meet the aspirations of stakeholders and address the protection goals of relevant European legislation. This report is based on the submissions received from stakeholders by the Jersey Scrutiny Panel, literature sources and observations from the authors' visit to the Island during 27 to 29 September 2010 and the 10 and 11 January 2011.

1. Terms of Reference

The Scrutiny Panel review of marine protection terms of reference includes examination of the following activities:

1. Applicable environmental legislation, including consideration of relevant international standards and any anticipated developments

2. The remit of Environmental Protection, Health Protection, Harbours, Fisheries and Marine Resources, States Veterinary Officer and Transport and Technical Services Department
3. Existing and potential sources of pollution
4. Pollution prevention work undertaken
5. Regulatory powers including enforcement activities, procedures for investigation, prosecution and sanctions
6. Monitoring activities, current testing regimes, planning controls, emergency planning and discharge consents
7. Laboratory resources and arrangements for analysis of results
8. Information available to the public on environmental protection and health issues
9. Resources available for marine environmental monitoring, regulation and protection
10. The role of, and engagement with, stakeholders.

2. Structure of the Report

The report summarises the current Jersey situation with respect to regulatory frameworks and monitoring in Section 2. A discussion on the underpinning scientific and regulatory issues, together with an opinion, is provided in Section 3. Overall conclusions are presented in Section 4. Finally, recommendations for the way forward are summarised in Section 5.

3. Submissions

Written submissions were received from the following stakeholders:

Environmental Protection

Health Protection Services

Save Our Shoreline

Société Jersiase

Jersey Recreational Fisherman's Association

Mr S Luce (on behalf of the Connetable of St Martin)

Opinion and concerns were also expressed verbally by aquaculture industry representatives.

The key concerns and opinions expressed in the submissions and discussions are:

• A decline in the last few years in microbiological standards in marine waters that is adversely affecting the quality of bathing beaches and financially impacting the aquaculture industry
• The current waste water treatment infrastructure is inadequate
• The current chemical monitoring programme is insufficient to assess the state of Jersey's marine environment
• A perceived lack of sufficient transparency and engagement with stakeholders by regulators
• In  the  absence of  data  on chemicals of concern,  a more  precautionary approach should be adopted in controlling emissions to coastal waters
• More emphasis should be given to responding more swiftly to pollution events
• International standards on environmental protection are not adequately met
• The controls on emissions from major discharge points, such as the energy from waste plant, may be too lenient
• Regulators have resource (manpower and budget) and logistical constraints that prevent them from doing more

These opinions are examined throughout this report and viewed against the available evidence to explore if the concerns are justified.

2 EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS

1. Existing regulatory functions

The relevant regulatory functions for marine issues on Jersey are Environmental Protection, Health Protection, Jersey Harbours, Fisheries and Marine Resources, The States Veterinary Officer, and Transport and Technical Services. Their individual functions and resources are summarised below.

1. Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection administers and enforces environmental legislation, and Memoranda of Understanding. Specific areas in which Environmental Protection works are as follows:

To safeguard the quality and availability of water for the health and sustainability of the Island

To protect the environment and people from the harmful effects of waste management operations

To ensure we can comply with our wider legal implications allowing the Island to have an equitable footing on the international stage

To ensure the safe use, storage and transport of pesticides

To ensure the safe disposal of banned/revoked products

To ensure there are minimum standards for the export of edible product.

To promote animal welfare and enforce registration which ensures the health status of food.

To prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of pests and diseases

To prevent the spread of injurious weeds

Environmental Protection consists of Water Resources, Waste Management and Agricultural Inspection. Environmental Protection have 13 staff, of which five staff are responsible for monitoring, assessment and regulation of all of the Island's controlled waters (including groundwater, streams, coastal waters and water supply.

As well as responsibility for aquatic monitoring, staff in the Water Resources section is also responsible for implementation, promotion and enforcement of relevant legislation, policy, and codes of practise. These include Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000, the Water Resources (Jersey) Law 2007, the Water (Jersey) Law 1972, the OSPAR convention and several Memoranda of Understanding. The Water Resources section also responds to and investigates pollution incidents, writes up follow-up reports and undertakes enforcement action. The team also develop programmes of pollution prevention, awareness and education, and policy development. They are responsible for monitoring the fresh and marine aquatic environment. Water Resources register, licence and enforce water abstractions. Water Resources also act as a consultee to States Departments and other bodies for planning applications and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) that may impact the aquatic environment.

Waste Management area is responsible for enforcing the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005. Waste Management administer, determine and advise on notifications for proposed transfrontier waste shipments. Waste Management are also responsible for the issuing of waste management licences. The section undertakes inspections of licensed, exempt, and unlicensed waste activities including fly tipping. The Waste Management section register carriers of hazardous or healthcare wastes, and advise on the system of control procedures for transport of hazardous or healthcare wastes. Waste Management also provides advice during consultations on planning applications, environmental impact assessments, and other States-sponsored projects.

Agricultural Inspection enforces the Export of Agricultural Produce (Jersey) Order 1972, the Pesticide (Jersey) Law 1991 and other relevant legislation. Agricultural inspection is responsible for addressing issues and concerns arising from modern agricultural practises. They work with a range of stakeholders, particularly concerning the use of agrochemicals and fertilisers and their potential effects on the environment. The section also works to prevent the introduction and establishment of non-indigenous pests or diseases on local and imported material.

A Memorandum of Understanding has been in place since 2003, between the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Economic Development, in order to clarify roles with respect to marine pollution. The Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 has complimentary, but separate, enforcement powers to some elements of the Shipping (Jersey) Law 2002, the MARPOL Convention and FEPA. The Memorandum of Understanding was established in order to avoid duplication of effort across departments, to provide efficient and cost-effective pollution prevention and control, and to clarify the roles of Jersey Harbours and the Planning and Environment Department in the event of a pollution incident in Jersey's territorial seas or coastal waters.

2. Health protection

Health Protection is concerned with any environmental issues that have the potential to affect public health. This includes beach and the impacts arising from bathing water quality, and aquaculture. Health Protection are responsible for warning beach users, or closing beaches, if there are concerns about the standard of water quality following receipt of the results of the bathing water monitoring carried out by Environmental Protection. They are also responsible for advising on health issues associated with microbiological or heavy metal contamination of fish and shellfish.

3. Jersey Harbours

Jersey Harbours are responsible for their duties under Shipping (Jersey) Law 2002. They contract out the monitoring of harbour waters to the Fisheries and Marine Resources section.

A Memorandum of Understanding has been in place since 2003, between the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Economic Development, in order to clarify roles with respect to marine pollution. The Memorandum of Understanding states that the Harbour Master is responsible for the administration of harbours and territorial waters and other issues that may be required related to shipping and navigation, under the Harbours (Administration) (Jersey) Law 1961. Jersey Harbours are required to keep Environmental Protection informed about any areas for which they are responsible. For example, Harbours must inform Environmental Protection of any pollution incident in territorial and coastal waters it is aware of, and will provide assistance through the use of suitable vessels and equipment. Environmental Protection will consult with the Harbour Master before discharge permits or certificates are issued for discharges to territorial seas or coastal waters.

4. Fisheries and Marine Resources

Fisheries and Marine Resources are responsible for monitoring farmed shellfish, monitoring of heavy metals accumulation in marine biota, annual harbour monitoring, marine mammal monitoring, off-shore reef assessment, and assessment of fishing stocks.

The Memorandum of Understanding between the Minister for Planning and Environment and the Minister for Economic Development was updated in 2010, in order to clarify roles with respect to marine pollution. The updated MOU included Fisheries and Marine Resources who are responsible for administering the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 (Jersey) Order 1987 (FEPA) and covers areas such as dumping, dredging or blasting at sea.

5. States Veterinary Officer

The States Veterinary Officer is responsible for the monthly monitoring of Escherechia coli levels in shellfish. The cost of shellfish monitoring is paid by the States and this cost has been increasing with the desire to include more investigative samples.

6. Transport and Technical Services Department

Transport and Technical Services has responsibility for minimising the impact of waste on the environment, developing on-island travel networks that meet the needs of the community, and providing well maintained public amenities and infrastructure. The areas of responsibility that may impact on marine quality are:

• the provision of waste management facilities
• the provision, management and maintenance of the foul and surface water sewerage system
• the treatment and disposal of the island's liquid waste

Transport and Technical Service Department also undertakes monitoring of effluent discharge from sewage treatment plants for operational clarity, sampling of trade effluent, and monitoring levels and spills of pumping stations and the cavern.

2. Current Monitoring Activities

Monitoring of Jersey's environmental waters including coastline and coastal waters is carried out by Environmental Protection. Marine biota monitoring is undertaken by Fisheries and Marine Resources

Monitoring programmes currently carried out include:

• Bathing water quality
• Beach outfalls
• Surface water quality (SSIs)
• Surface flow monitoring (mostly on off measurements of low flows in summer 2010)
• Groundwater quality
• Groundwater quantity
• Macroinvertebrates
• Diffuse pollution project
• Heavy metal monitoring of outfalls
• Crabbe monitoring boreholes
• Monitoring with respect to pollution incidents
• Regulatory samples for discharge permits

1. Monitoring of pollution incidents

The type and number of samples taken depends on the type and severity of the pollution incident. Typically, Environmental Protection aim to take samples from at least 3 points for pollution to streams, reservoirs or ponds. The points are upstream of the pollution incident to demonstrate background quality, and at the pollution incident and downstream of it, to assess the extent of the event.

Environmental Protection investigates, writes up and, where appropriate administers or recommends enforcement action to approximately 120 pollution incidents a year, although few of these are marine related. To ensure consistent approach all pollution incidents are signed off by at least three EPOs. Officers adhere to enforcement policy and guidance protocols which have been agreed by the Attorney General (AG).

To ensure consistency of approach to States departments, all incidents concerning States Departments are detailed each quarter in a written report to the AG. EPOs report directly to the AG and not via the Minister.

2. Surface freshwater quality

For the purposes of carrying out functions within the Water Pollution (Jersey) Law 2000 officers monitor controlled waters (inc. surface waters) sediments and biota (including activities or inputs into controlled water and the impact of these inputs). The States of Jersey also aim to achieve EU standards where possible, although are not obliged to comply with them. Jersey law requires a duty to monitor the environment but is not prescriptive about the detail of what monitoring is required.

From 1995 surface water monitoring has been carried out at nine sites across Jersey, identified as sites of potential ecological significance. In 2000, three new sites were included. The monitoring programme has created a database of background levels for some water quality parameters (approx. 360,000 water quality records for controlled waters). These are used to analyse long-term trends, as well as impacts from diffuse pollution and pollution incidents. Surface water monitoring is used to determine whether selected water quality objectives are met under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) although Jersey has not developed local standards to describe good chemical status.

Monitoring takes place at the SSI sites located at Grouville , Grand Vaux, Longueville, Millbrook, Mourier Valley, Pre d'Auvergne, Tesson Mill, Vallee des Vaux and Pont Rose. The Surface Water Monitoring Protocol is followed. Monitoring is carried out quarterly. Field monitoring includes measuring pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and temperature. Samples are then analysed by the Official Analyst to the States of Jersey for chemical and microbiological parameters[2].

Surface water monitoring data are loaded onto the bespoke WQMIS database quarterly and abnormal results are investigated. The UK Environment Agency similarly loads all monitoring data onto an archive (WIMS) with reports for abnormal samples being generated by the laboratory.

3. Outfall monitoring

Routine monitoring of drainage outfalls along Jersey's coast is carried out, especially following high rainfall events, in order to quantify changes in bacteriological loading. Environmental Protection work alongside Transport and Technical Services in order to identify potential sources of bacteriological loading. Following heavy rainfall events, shellfish farmers have expressed concern over microbiological pollution from outfalls. EP have liaised with shell fish farmers and sampled and investigated all instances where the farmers have expressed concern. This has included drainage investigations. EP have further equipped farmers with sample bottles so that they can take samples of outfalls themselves when they are concerned. No major pollution sources, including no unreported discharges of sewage by TTS have been identified. However, this still does not satisfy stakeholder expectations who have expressed a desire to see more done and whom remain suspicious of unreported spills.

An outfall monitoring programme was carried out between 1994 and 1997, following concerns regarding shellfish contamination. Between 2003 and 2006 routine water samples have been collected from 23 outfalls.

Outfalls were monitored in 2008, following the detection of increased levels of E. coli in shellfish. Since 2009, up to 15 outfalls have been monitored every other month although these are limited to a maximum of 8 at a time by constraints at the Analyst This monitoring covered outfalls that discharge into bathing waters which failed the guide' standard in 2008 and several outfalls into Grouville Bay (the location of the oyster beds). Occasional samples have also been taken from outfalls between Le Hurel and Seymour slip, Le Bourg west, Pontac slip, Greve d'Azette, Weighbridge, and First Tower. Outfall monitoring is tide-dependent. Some outfalls can only be accessed safely at lowest spring tide, for example the Weighbridge outfall and First Tower outfall.

Outfall monitoring includes field monitoring such as temperature, pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen. The States of Jersey Analyst then carries out analysis of the samples determining Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), suspended solids, ammonia, chloride, nitrite, nitrate, phosphate, sulphate, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, presumptive total coliforms, presumptive faecal coliforms and presumptive faecal streptococci.

The outfall monitoring programme, and in particular monitoring after storm events, is constrained by the resources of the States of Jersey Official Analyst laboratory (Section 2.3).

Currently data are checked every month for abnormal results by Environmental Protection.

4. Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrate monitoring of streams is carried out to fulfil the biological element of the surface water assessment under the Water Framework Directive and to gather evidential impact following pollution events. Approximately 40 stream (and latterly pond) sites are surveyed per year. Macroinvertebrate analysis is labour intensive and requires considerable skill and experience, so the current sampling regime represents a significant investment of resources.

The budget allocation has been fixed within a quinquenial review (approx £15,000 per year or almost two thirds of the consultancy budget) which has allowed EP to assess "Good" biological status for the Island under the Water Framework Directive using selected measures from the Directive. This has now been completed and EP have been able to reduce expenditure significantly.

5. Metal monitoring

Following previous concerns regarding the accumulation of metals in marine organisms, a study was started in 1993 by Fisheries and Marine Resources to assess if there was any contamination of marine biota due to metals mobilised from the incinerator ash at the Waterfront Reclamation Site (St Aubins Bay). Sampling has taken place since 1993 and is carried out up to four times a year at five coastal sites to the south and south-east of Jersey. The species sampled were the common limpet, Patella vulgate, slipper limpet, Crepidula fornicata and a serrated seaweed, Fucus serratus.  

Baseline data have started to be collected from potential sources of metal inputs such as seawater from and off the reclamation site at La Collette, ground / surface water from land drainage (road run-off etc.), and the discharge from Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Works. These data were not available for this report.

Environmental Protection assess whether additional regulatory monitoring is required for the Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Works discharge. TTS provide Environmental Protection with updates regarding new trade effluent consents issued under the Drainage Law (administered by TTS). Where appropriate, metals monitoring will be a requirement in waste management licences issued by Environmental Protection.

3. Available resources

1. Laboratory resources

In December 2003 laboratory analysis services moved from the then Water Resources Section, Bellozanne to the States Official Analyst. All agreed analytical requirements and service delivery conditions are detailed in a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Environmental Protection and the States Official Analyst. Analysis covered by the SLA includes:

• Pollution incidents

• Routine monitoring of surface waters and outfalls
• Routine monitoring of groundwater
• Crabbe monitoring boreholes
• Bathing waters
• Discharge permits
• Macroinvertebrate monitoring

The Service Level Agreement was updated on 1st January 2010 and will expire on 31st December 2011 with an annual cost of £58,496 which was set in 2003 and has not increased since. Ad hoc analysis not covered by the SLA is arranged by prior agreement and separately funded from Environmental Protection's budget.

Samples from pollution incidents are analysed the same working day, if possible, or as soon as reasonably practicable. For routine monitoring, analysis takes place according to the timetable established each year by Environmental Protection.

2. Monitoring resources

Staff time for monitoring work is 20 days during the bathing water season and 30 days a year related to bathing water work. The cost for analysing the bathing water samples is covered by the Service Level Agreement. The cost for preparation of a report by CREH, assessing compliance with the 1976 Directive, the 2006 Directive, and WHO guidelines, was around £4,000 for 2009. Environmental Protection have prepared draft bathing water profiles for each bathing water catchment under the 2006 Bathing Waters Directive. This involved pulling together and mapping various data collected by a variety of departments (for example, septic tanks and soakaways, livestock etc).

Staff time for carrying out surface water monitoring is 8 days a year, with a further 2 days for inputting and checking data and following up abnormal results. The analytical cost of the monitoring is included in the Service Level Agreement with the Official State Analyst.

Staff time for carrying out outfall monitoring is 12 days per year, plus 3 days for data input and checking and preparing equipment. Analysis costs are covered in the Service Level Agreement.

Other monitoring activities are: borehole monitoring 20 days, borehole water level dipping 24 days, monitoring for the diffuse pollution project (DPP) 34 days, macro invertebrate sampling 40 days. Sampling is also undertaken of Crabbe boreholes (former green waste site) and sewage treatment works to regulate discharge permits (approximately 6 days). Each year, Environmental Protection collect approximately 2000 water samples as part of its monitoring programme.

Much of the analysis of samples is carried out under the Service Level Agreement; however there are additional activities, such as monitoring of heavy metals and storm samples for the diffuse pollution project that are not planned and need to be funded from Environmental Protection's budget.

4. Information available to the public on the environment

Environmental Protection are responsible for providing public information about pollution prevention, assisted by other States Departments where appropriate. This includes production of information leaflets, making information available on the States of Jersey website, specific campaigns such as the Oil Care Campaign, and producing material as and when it is required in response to pollution concerns.

Environmental Protection have produced a range of public information and guidance leaflets, which include the Ships and Boats leaflet, Oil Pollution leaflet, Organic Waste, Pesticide and home pollution leaflets. These leaflets are based in part on information obtained from the Environment Agency, DEFRA and EU websites and so reflect accepted best practice.

These leaflets are available from a range of outlets including shops, parish halls, museums and garden centres. Environmental Protection have mailed these leaflets out to businesses and engaged the fuel distribution companies and boiler engineers as part of the Oil Care Group. Fisheries and Marine Resources also assist with distribution of some of the leaflets.

Water Made Clearer Leaflets are available on the States of Jersey website, along with other information including bathing water and groundwater monitoring results and application forms for registering water abstraction or applying for a discharge permit.

Environmental Protection has also carried out specific campaigns to promote particular issues. For example, the Oil Care campaign aims to increase public awareness and provide practical advice to reduce the risk of oil pollution. This includes the formation of an Oil Care Group that aims to bring together the oil industry (oil companies, plumbers, boiler engineers) with Environmental Protection to discuss common concerns, approaches and joint solutions. Initiatives of the group include the distribution by the fuel companies of an oil care tank sticker to the majority of owners (domestic and business) on the island and a letter targeted at owners of single-skinned oil tanks informing them of the environmental risks of these tanks. Other initiatives of the group are the production of a Code of Best Practice, a redesign of the oil pollution leaflet (funded by members of the group) and provision of more stringent building bye laws relating to the installation of oil tanks and associate pipework. Following concerns from the oil industry as to their statutory responsibilities, a joint training day with Jersey Water was organised to inform the industry of the Law and potential impact of oil loss on Jersey's water resource. Both Building Control (Planning and Environment) and OFTEC (Oil Firing Technical Association) have also participated in Oil Care Group meetings, following concerns raised by members about industry regulation.

Environmental Protection joins in with other initiatives. For example, they are currently piloting the Blue Fish Campaign under the umbrella of Eco-Active. This is a public/business awareness campaign which aims to protect the Island's water resource (streams, reservoirs and coastal waters) from pollution, whilst promoting correct use of the Island's drainage. The campaign will be targeting schools, businesses and the States of Jersey.

The campaign fits into Eco-Active Business - Water Guidance and includes the provision of a pollution prevention plan for business to complete. This enables a better understanding of company's site drainage which offers the opportunity to reduce the risk of pollution and minimise waste. States Departments will also be encouraged to complete a pollution prevention plan to become Eco-Active State member.

The annual budget for producing, printing, distributing of pollution prevention materials and running the oil care group is £1500, and staff time is approximately 25 days. Options for cost-sharing are explored and used, such as using fuel delivery drivers to distribute oil-related information, and other States Departments to distribute pollution prevention material. Financial contributions from partners in oil distribution companies and Jersey Water also help to mitigate costs.

3 DISCUSSION

In this section, the principal issues and procedures in place relating to Jersey's marine environment are analysed in detail. Within each section opinions are provided on the adequacy of existing arrangements. The subject areas explored are:

• Compliance with international regulations
• Microbiological pollution and monitoring
• Chemical pollution and monitoring
• Adequacy of resources
• Engagement with stakeholders
• Sources of pollution

1. Compliance with international regulations

The most significant current piece of protective legislation for the marine environment is the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC). There is also the older Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/116/EEC) which sets the standard for water quality in areas where shellfish grow and reproduce. Although the Shellfish Waters Directive appears from its EU reference to be relatively new, the 2006 version is just an update of the original 1979 Directive. The Shellfish Hygiene Directive (91/492/EEC) complements the water quality protection by laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs intended for human consumption. The Bathing Waters Directives (76/1160/EEC and 2006/7/EEC) seek to protect human health and the environment principally from faecal pollution. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) is a recent development that seeks to protect marine ecosystems from all potential pressures. The Urban Waste Water Directive (91/271/EEC) is also relevant as the Bellozanne effluent is one of the largest point source discharges to Jersey's coastal waters.

Jersey is not a member of the European Union and its Directives or guidance are not legally binding. However the aim is wherever possible and appropriate to adhere to the Directives as best practice. The process by which certain parts of EU environmental Directives are selected as appropriate to Jersey is unclear. For a relatively small geographic area such as Jersey some of the detailed requirements of the Directives are certainly not relevant. However, from the evidence available, a structured risk based analysis of which parts of the Directives are meaningful to Jersey's situation has not been undertaken.

1. Shellfish Waters Directive

The Environment Agency is the competent authority in England and Wales for the Shellfish Waters Directive[3] and its purpose is to support the shellfish farming industry by protecting shellfish waters. In the UK, businesses that need permits to discharge to shellfish waters have to comply with the requirements of the directive. The Shellfish Waters Directive will, like a number of existing environmental directives, be revoked by 2013 and replaced by the WFD. However, the level of environmental protection for shellfish waters within the WFD must be at least as strong as in the revoked directives.

The  Shellfish  Waters  Directive  lists  a  number  of  parameters  which  must  be monitored and sets standards for these in shellfish waters, although many of these standards are qualitative and not numeric. The parameters which must be monitored include:

Physicochemical conditions  (pH, colour, dissolved oxygen, temperature, suspended

solids, and salinity)

Petroleum hydrocarbons Organohalogens

Metals

Faecal coliforms

(No visible film must be observed) (Unspecified)

(Silver, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,

nickel, lead, and zinc)

No more than 300 per 100 ml of shellfish flesh

2. Shellfish hygiene

The quality of commercially harvested shellfish intended for human consumption must comply with the EU Food Hygiene Regulations (852/853/854), which took effect on 1st January 2006. In the UK, these regulations are enforced by the Food Standards Agency. Harvested shellfish were previously classified under the Shellfish Hygiene Directive.

As with previous shellfish hygiene legislation, under the new Hygiene Regulations European Union Member States are still required to put in place a programme for monitoring  and  classifying  shellfish  harvesting  areas.  Production  areas  are categorised by the level of microbiological contamination, using the level of E. coli found in shellfish as an indicator organism. These areas are classified as Class A, B, C, or prohibited:

• Class A - shellfish contain less than 230 E. coli per 100 grams of flesh
• Class B - shellfish contain less than 4,600 E. coli per 100 grams of flesh
• Class C - shellfish contain less than 46,000 E. coli per 100 grams of flesh
• Prohibited area - above 46,000 E. coli per 100 grams of flesh

Shellfish from Class A beds can be sold without further treatment, whereas shellfish from Class B beds require a period of depuration before sale.

It is interesting to note that the Shellfish Waters Directive microbiological standard of no more than 300 faecal coliforms per 100 ml of shellfish flesh implies a requirement to achieve Class A status for classification of harvesting areas. However, the current policy in the UK[4] is only to aim to improve water quality such that at least Class B classification can be achieved. This is stated as an achievable interim target towards meeting the guideline faecal coliform standard for shellfish flesh quality under the Shellfish Waters Directive.

There does not appear to be a similar policy statement in Jersey on the level of ambition for shellfish quality, and the degree of influence that this will have in infrastructure  investment  and  operational  resources.  The  lack  of  a  clear  policy position on the objectives for shellfish quality can cause misunderstandings with stakeholders on the level of support and investment they can expect. The recent draft Jersey Aquaculture Strategy recommends the establishment of shellfish quality objectives for the Jersey Liquid Waste Strategy and Water Framework Directive which should lead to clearer policy in this area.

3. Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is one of the most ambitious pieces of environmental regulation in the EU's history. The WFD aims to deliver overall general environmental outcomes in terms of ecology rather than tackling individual chemicals or industrial scenarios as previous regulations have tended to. The WFD requires that member states plan to achieve Good' status for surface waters, including coastal waters. Good status is defined in terms of the quality of a number of biological elements and environmental quality standards (EQSs) for chemicals. The following elements define Good status with a one out, all out' principle such that if one metric is less than good, the whole water body cannot be classified as Good status, even if the other metrics are all top quality:

• biology (phytoplankton, diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish)
• hydromorphology
• physico-chemical (including chemical pollutants that influence ecological status)
• priority and priority-hazardous substances.

The WFD also establishes minimum monitoring requirements for these. However, monitoring in the marine environment is limited to the physico-chemical and priority and priority hazardous substances. The elements of the WFD that are most relevant for Jersey are considered in turn below:

WFD Priority Pollutants

Thirty three chemicals are considered to be of sufficient concern to require Europe- wide EQSs to be implemented and thirteen of these (priority hazardous substances') are of such a concern that all emissions, discharges and losses must ultimately cease with the aim of reducing concentrations to near zero. The current list of the chemicals viewed as being so hazardous that they require Europe-wide action is shown in Table 3.1. For the WFD priority and priority hazardous substances separate EQSs may be set for marine and freshwaters. EQSs set for the marine environment within the WFD can be very low and reflect the very low effect concentrations of the most hazardous chemicals. For example, the EQS for tributyl tin is 0.0002 µg l-1.

The list of priority and priority hazardous substances is under review within the EU. The potential change to the list of priority pollutants is shown in Appendix 1. In addition to new substances, the current EQS for nickel and lead is likely to be made more stringent. The new EQSs being developed for the proposed additions and changes to the WFD priority list will also include sediment and biota EQSs where there are sufficient data to allow derivation of values.

Table 3.1 Priority pollutants within the Water Framework Directive (2010)

The Environment Agency has adopted a risk-based approach to monitoring the elements of the WFD, including the priority and priority hazardous substances, such that parameters will only normally be monitored where there is evidence that the substance may be present in significant concentrations.

WFD physico-chemical elements

Perhaps rather confusingly, the WFD also sets standards for some chemical elements as part of the ecological classification. These physico-chemical standards are meant to protect or support the biology and so describe basic parameters such as oxygen concentrations or acceptable levels of nutrients. The most relevant physico-chemical element  in  the  WFD  for  marine  waters  is  nitrogen  as  this  protects  against eutrophication.  Nitrogen  is  a  known  pressure  on  Jersey's  coastal  waters  with elevated loads running into the sea from the use of nitrate fertilizers and the Bellozanne outfall.

The proposed UK WFD nitrogen standards for coastal waters are shown in Table 3.2. The standards are based on the mean from November to February, and preferably should  be  from  5  years  of  monitoring  data.  To  enable  comparison  with  any monitoring data these standard values have been converted from those expressed as µmoles N in the UK Technical Advisory Group WFD Phase 2 standards[5].

Table 3.2 UK nitrogen standards for coastal waters

It  should  be  noted  that  these  standards  are  expressed  as  dissolved  inorganic nitrogen which is the sum of nitrate, nitrite and ammoniacal nitrogen. This cannot be directly compared to the total nitrogen values reported in the Bellozanne outfall as they  also  include  organic  nitrogen  species.  However,  it  is  certain  from  the concentrations of nitrogen in the outfall that there will be an area in the vicinity of the Bellozanne outfall that is at less than Good' status.

WFD biological monitoring

Biological monitoring for the WFD consists of four metrics which measure impacts to the following biological elements:

• Macroinvertebrates
• Diatoms
• Phytobenthos
• Fish

These biological monitoring metrics are relevant only for freshwater. Of these four potential metrics, only macroinvertebrate monitoring is undertaken on the island. Each of the four biological metrics is sensitive to different pressures. For example, the  diatom  measure  used  responds  principally  to  nutrient  loading  whereas  the macroinvertebrate tool responds to many different pressures including the presence of chemical pollutants.

In the EU, statistical analysis of biological data has been used as a line of evidence when deriving EQSs for WFD chemicals to reality-check that the EQS is not too stringent or insufficiently protective. The most useful biological metric for correlating with chemical pressures has proved to be macroinvertebrate monitoring. Therefore, the biology data collected on Jersey are relevant and useful, and macroinvertebrates are a wise choice of biological metric to use. Monitoring for the other biological elements (diatoms etc.) would be extremely resource-intensive and would only be necessary if Jersey chose to comply with all the legislative requirements of the WFD.

As the stream lengths are short on Jersey, the freshwater macroinvertebrate data provide a good indication of the overall water quality flowing into coastal waters.

Opinion:

The  surface water macroinvertebrate  and  general chemical monitoring  provide useful evidence of the status of Jersey's rivers and streams with respect to the protection goals of the WFD. However, the lack of monitoring in coastal waters means that the risks of ecological damage are unknown. Urgent consideration should be given to ongoing monitoring the nutrient status of Jersey's coastal waters, especially if the loads of nitrogen being discharged remain high. WFD priority pollutant chemicals should be assessed for the likelihood of emissions or losses to sea and monitored accordingly in sediment or biota.

4. The Bathing Water Directive and revised Bathing Water Directive

The main objective of the Bathing Water Directives is to protect public health and the environment from faecal pollution at bathing waters. Member States are required to identify popular bathing areas and to monitor water quality there throughout the bathing season, which in England and Wales runs from mid May to the end of September.

The  original  Bathing  Water  Directive  established  in  1976  set  a  number  of microbiological  and  physico-chemical  standards  that  bathing  waters  must  either comply with ("mandatory" standards) or endeavour to meet ("guideline" standards). The two main standards used to assess the quality of bathing water are total coliforms, and faecal coliform bacteria found in the guts of humans and other warm- blooded animals.

Bathing water on Jersey has been monitored annually since 1991. Monitoring is carried  out  following  the  1976  EU  Bathing  waters  Directive  (76/160/EEC)[6]  and compliance measured against the standards.

Currently 16 sites are monitored for bathing water quality. Sites currently sampled are:

• Archirondel
• Beauport
• Bonne Nuit
• Bouley Bay
• Green Island
• Greve de Lecq
• Grouville
• Havre des Pas
• La Haule
• Le Braye
• Plemont
• Portelet
• Rozel
• St Brelade's Bay
• Victoria Pool
• The Watersplash

From 2004 onwards monitoring has been carried out by Environmental Protection with analysis carried out by The States of Jersey Official Analyst Laboratory. Prior to this analysis was undertaken at the Hospital Pathology lab and Bellozanne lab.

Bathing water monitoring is undertaken following the internal Bathing Water Protocol to ensure consistency, and a commendable amount of ancillary visual observations are also recorded during sampling. Data from the bathing water monitoring are uploaded onto the States of Jersey website weekly throughout the bathing water season. Results are sent to The Marine Conservation Society for the Good Beach Guide' website at the end of the bathing water season. Annually, compliance is reported in the Jersey in Figures' publication. Results are audited and an annual report is prepared by the Centre for Research into Environment and Health, (CREH) University of Wales.

Historically, Environmental Protection have worked closely with CREH with respect to the assessment of the health risk arising from differing bacterial loadings of bathing waters. This led to the development of recognised WHO standards which are now used within Europe.

Research into bathing water and human health since the original Directive's introduction in 1976 has led to the development of the revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC), which will be implemented in stages between now and 2015, when the original Directive will be repealed. The revised Directive uses two parameters to assess water quality, Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci, using a four year data set for each set of results, and sets much tighter standards than the original Directive.

There will be four classification categories: Excellent (approximately twice as stringent as the current Guideline standard); Good (similar to the current Guideline); Sufficient (approximately twice as stringent as the current Mandatory standard) and Poor, for waters which do not comply with the Directive's standards.

Key dates for the introduction of the revised Directive from a UK perspective are:

• 2011: The Environment Agency will publish a profile for each bathing water in England and Wales
• 2012: Signs must be in place at all bathing waters by the beginning of the bathing season. The Environment Agency will begin monitoring using the parameters of the revised Directive
• 2014: Final bathing water report using the standards of the current Directive
• 2015: First set of classifications using the new parameters will be published, based on the data set commenced in 2012
• 2016: New classifications will appear on the signs using symbols that are being prepared by the EC

The creation of bathing beach profiles is a new requirement. A bathing water profile is primarily intended to gain an understanding of the faecal sources and routes of pollution, and focuses on indicators for faecal pollution. It will be necessary to assess and report on the sources of potential pollution and the location-specific characteristics of the bathing beach. A bathing beach profile also offers an opportunity as a convenient mechanism for communicating the local coastal environment management action plans in place on Jersey to the general public. Jersey Environmental Protection have mapped out and drafted all 16 of the bathing beach profiles and this has involved considerable work with the pulling together of relevant data collected by the States of Jersey. As of September 2011, all bathing water profiles are now available on the Jersey website[7].

There is no standard format for a bathing beach profile and its minimum content is expressed only in general terms. However, detailed EU guidance on drafting bathing beach profiles has recently become available[8]. The general requirements for a bathing beach profile are:

1. A description of the physical, geographical and hydrological characteristics of the bathing water, and of other surface waters in the catchment area of the bathing water concerned, that could be a source of pollution;
2. An identification and assessment of causes of pollution that might affect bathing waters and impair bathers' health;

3. An assessment of the potential for proliferation of cyanobacteria;
4. An  assessment  of  the  potential  for  proliferation  of  macro-algae  and/or phytoplankton;
5. If the assessment under point (b) shows that there is a risk of short-term pollution, the following additional information is required:

The anticipated nature, frequency and duration of expected short-term pollution,

Details of any remaining causes of pollution, including management measures taken and the time schedule for their elimination,

Management measures taken during short-term pollution and the identity and contact details of bodies responsible for taking such action,

6. The location of the monitoring point

The first rounds of bathing beach profiles produced and displayed on the Jersey website meet these requirements and are in a clear and easily understood format.

In  the  case  of  bathing  waters  classified  as  less  than  excellent',  there  is  a requirement to periodically review the profile against the above criteria depending on the condition of the bathing beach. Beaches classified as good', sufficient' and poor' require review every 4 years, 3 years and 2 years respectively. Also, in the event of significant construction works or significant changes in the infrastructure in the vicinity of the bathing water, the bathing water profile has to be updated before the start of the next bathing season. This would be particularly relevant for a small island with many popular beaches such as Jersey, as most development is likely to be in the vicinity of bathing water.

The provision of bathing beach profiles offers potential benefits to Jersey's tourist industry as it is an opportunity to provide more information to the public and communicate the generally good condition of the beaches. It does, however, require additional cross departmental working to implement and maintain.

Opinion:

Jersey  complies  with  the  existing  Bathing  Water  Directive  requirements.  High results are investigated by follow up sampling and work is in hand to undertake beach profiling as required by the amended directive. Producing bathing beach profiles is a significant extra piece of work for Environment Protection but is a useful tool for communicating environmental issues to the public.

Jersey bathing water data are reported in a clear and easily accessible format on the internet.

5. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) came into force on 15 July, 2008. Key requirements of the Directive are:

• An assessment of the current state of UK seas by July, 2012
• A detailed description of what Good Environmental Status means for UK waters, and associated targets and indicators by July, 2012
• Establishment of a monitoring programme to measure progress toward Good Environmental Status by July, 2014
• Establishment of a programme of measures for achieving Good Environmental Status by 2016

The MFSD shares the same conceptual model as the WFD in that it aims to protect marine ecosystems by describing the overall environmental outcomes that are desired, and attempts to consider all the significant pressures that might be detrimental. Good Environmental Status for marine ecosystems is described in a high level manner using the following descriptors:

Biological diversity  – the quality and occurrence of habitats, and the distribution and abundance of species, are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

Non-indigenous species – non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter ecosystems.

Fisheries – populations of commercially exploited marine species exhibit a population age and size distribution indicative of healthy stocks.

Food webs – all elements of marine food webs (to the extent they are known) occur at abundance, diversity, and levels capable of ensuring long- term abundance and retention of full reproductive capacity.

Eutrophication – human-induced eutrophication is minimized with respect to losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms, and oxygen deficiency.

Sea  floor  integrity  – sea floor integrity is at a level that ensures the structure and function of its ecosystems is safeguarded.

Hydrographical conditions  – permanent alterations of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect ecosystems.

Contamination  – concentrations of contaminants do not give rise to pollution effects.

Seafood contamination – contaminants in seafood for human consumption

do not exceed levels established by EU legislation or standards.

Marine Litter – the properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause

harm to marine environments.

Noise – the introduction of energy, including noise, do not adversely affect the marine environment.

The Directive leaves it to Member States to describe in more detail what Good Environmental Status means at a local level through the development of national targets and indicators. A workshop was held by Defra in 2010 to bring experts together with the aim of providing more descriptive detail to the high level normative definitions above. A report summarizing the output of the workshop and recommendations has been published (WCA 2010).

The requirements of the marine strategy directive were transposed into UK law in July 2010 via a Statutory Instrument[9]. The UK's aim is to determine what Good Environmental Status means for its seas by 2012 and the UK is actively working with the European Commission to enable delivery of the Directive requirements. The further detail on the proposed timeline for UK implementation is given in figure 3.1. The European Commission has recently (September 2010) published a Decision[10] which provides more clarity and detail on what Good Environmental Status looks like. However, while the recent Decision provides more detailed advice on each of the eleven descriptors, much of the text remains at a fairly high level stating generalized ambitions for each descriptor. Some of the defined criteria supporting the descriptors refer to those safeguards and standards already in place such as chemical standards under the Water Framework Directive. However, the marine strategy directive has more inclusive and holistic intentions than simply compliance with some numerical standards. The underpinning philosophy of the directive is that good environmental status is that protecting the marine environment must be seen within the context of sustainable use of the sea's resources. The directive is also risk based as it recommends that geographical areas or environmental indicators be screened out as low risk or inappropriate allowing resources to be targeted where it matters most.

Describe  Initial  Monitoring  Programme  Criteria and  assessment  programme  of measures  

• of UK seas established implemented

2010  2012   2015   2020

2014  2016

GES defined  

Directive  including  Pofr omgeraamsumrees  Transposed  targets and  designed  

• indicators

• Measures taken to  
• achieve GES

Figure 3.1  Timescales  for  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy

Framework Directive

Opinion:

The  marine  strategy  directive  offers  Jersey  an  opportunity  to  have  a  clear framework for protecting the marine environment as a whole entity against the various pressures it faces. As the marine environment is so important to Jersey, we recommend that Jersey actively explores the potential for adopting and complying with the provisions of this directive. Adopting this directive need not be a tick box exercise against a list of standards but could provide a risk based framework for protecting all aspects of the Jersey's coastal waters.

6. Urban Waste Water Directive

The  aim  of the  Urban  Waste  Water Directive  (91/271/EEC)[11]  is  to  protect the environment  from  the  adverse  effect  of  waste  water  discharges.  It  sets  out guidelines and legislation on how to collect, treat and discharge urban waste water. In 1998 the Commission issued Directive 98/15/EC, amending Directive 91/271/EEC, to clarify the requirements of the Directive in relation to discharges from urban waste water treatment plants to sensitive areas which are subject to eutrophication. The minimum quality of the effluent required for discharge to a sensitive area is shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment

plants to sensitive areas which are subject to eutrophication

The total nitrogen standard is on an annual average basis. However, this can be replaced with a daily average of 20 mg l-1 as long as this gives the same level of environmental protection.

Discussion around compliance with the Urban Waste Water Directive requirements often focuses on whether or not the receiving water is defined as sensitive to eutrophication or not. The two most relevant definitions of sensitive' in the directive are:

• where waters are found to be eutrophic or where they may in the near future become eutrophic if protective action is not taken
• areas where further treatment is required in order to meet other directives

Two studies (1997 and 2010) have been undertaken in St Aubin's bay by CREH to determine the eutrophic status and potential. The first study concluded that St. Aubin's bay displayed some evidence of eutrophication in the nearshore area and potential for eutrophication in the bay itself. The overall conclusion of the first study was that nutrient removal at Bellozanne would be a prudent precautionary measure to adopt. The results of the second study indicated that St Aubin's bay is not subject to eutrophication.

One important difference between the two reports is that the accepted methodology (CSTT) used to assess eutrophication was modified soon after the first report. The main change in the methodology between the two reports is in the definition of hypernutrification'. The 1997 report bases its conclusions on the expectation of no summer hypernutrification whereas the 2010 assesses against no winter hypernutrification.

The two trophic studies indicate that total nutrient fluxes into St Aubin's bay have not materially changed between 1997 and 2010. The more recent study also demonstrated that 72% of the annual input of dissolved inorganic nitrogen derives from Bellozanne. Of the two principal nutrients, phosphorous and nitrogen, it is usually the latter that is the controlling factor for marine eutrophication.

Although the headline conclusion of the most recent CREH report is that St Aubin's bay is not subject to eutrophication, the assessment does conclude that a more stringent application of the model to the data between March and June could yield predicted chlorophyll a concentrations above the eutrophic summer threshold. Some additional seasonal monitoring may help clarify these risks. The 2010 report also suggests that the near shore surf zone showed elevated nutrient and chlorophyll areas. This increases the probability of near shore luxuriant macroalgae growth with the potential for subsequent odour nuisance or low dissolved oxygen levels when the algae decay.

In addition to the assessment for the potential of eutrophication, an area may also be described as sensitive with respect to the urban waste water directive if further effluent treatment is required to meet the goals of other directives. These other requirements could be, for example, to meet bathing water directive, water framework directive, habitats directive etc. While Jersey has not implemented all these directives, the principle of considering the wider goals of environmental protection when considering nutrient loads is an important one. The proximity of the Ramsar site to the discharge point may also be relevant as elevated nutrient levels could cause subtle effects such as changes in species abundance. A Ramsar site might not by itself be considered by the UK Environment Agency as a formal protected area' under the water framework directive unless the site was also included in a register for a supporting habitats based EU directive; although it would still receive the appropriate protection in permits etc. In practice, many of the UK Ramsar sites are also Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive and so their protection and environmental objectives would form part of UK river basin management plans.

Bellozanne currently cannot achieve the 10 mg l-1 total nitrogen standard due to operational difficulties achieving sufficient denitrification. At the time of writing, discussions are underway on the future treatment options for Bellozanne. Much of the debate is focussing around the designation of St Aubin's bay as a sensitive area

as defined by the urban waste water directive. This is an important line of evidence to inform policy decisions but it should not be used in isolation and other wider environmental objectives also need to be considered.

Opinion:

The discharge from Bellozanne does not comply with the Urban Waste Water Directive requirements for a sensitive area. The latest CREH trophic study suggests that St Aubin's bay is not subject to eutrophication when using the established methodology although there may be risks if a more precautionary approach is adopted.

However, the Urban Waste Water Directive trigger values should not be viewed in isolation when making policy decisions on infrastructure etc. as the overall impacts on other ecological receptors need also to be considered.

7. Concluding remarks, compliance with international regulations

Comparison of existing practices against EU environmental protection regulation needs to be viewed in the context of Jersey's special political position. As Jersey is not part of the EU, it has no obligation to comply with its regulations. However, Jersey does aim to use other international regulations to drive forward its own best practice. This has led to the situation where some EU environmental regulatory protections are adhered to very closely whilst others are not followed. It is not clear whether the current situation with regard to compliance with EU regulations has come about from a structured risk based decision making process or whether it has evolved over time to respond to pressing needs to protect specific areas such as bathing beaches.

Historically, EU Directives tended to target one activity or protection goal such as setting limits on the concentrations on dangerous substances. This approach resulted in inconsistencies and the risk of gaps in overall environmental protection. Directives were also not always based on environmental outcomes so that there was often little guidance in what a problem free environment would look like. It was often assumed that simply if certain limit values were met then the protection goal had been achieved.

Recent framework directives have replaced the specific protections provided in older Directives  with  risk  based  provisions  that  are  described in  terms  on  ecological outcomes. The risk based approaches and considerations of economic feasibility in the Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy could be helpful for Jersey to demonstrate  a  more  inclusive  level  of  environmental  protection  for  the  marine compartment. Some of the relevant framework directive needs are already partially in  place  and  adhered  to.  Completing  the  implementation  of  these  framework directives on Jersey could be undertaken with a pragmatic approach. However, no matter how pragmatically this was undertaken, it is certain that this could not be accommodated within the existing regulatory resources.

2. Microbiological pollution and monitoring