Water Framework Directive Marine Plants Task Team Tools Paper ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case Study – Outer Solway South The Outer Solway South is in contrast to Milford Haven with numerous impacted sites on the stretch of coast. This was used as a case study to ensure that the de shoring factor did not overestimate the quality status of the water body once applied to the species richness. The results are shown in tables 13 and 14 and indicate two definite bad quality sites with the remaining sites sitting on or near the Good/Moderate boundary, this is further illustrated in figure 17 which also shows the standard error at each site. The average EQR for the water body is 5.0 and Moderate quality status. The EQR range based on the average standard error is 0.438 – 0.562. Table 13: Metric component results for 10 sites within the Outer Solway South using the full species list Full Species List Outer Solway South Shore Species Corrected Site Name Description richness SR % greens % reds ESG ratio % opport Parton 15 51 51 35.29 45.10 0.46 19.61 Tom Hurd Rock 14 39 43.68 30.77 38.46 0.44 17.95 Redness 14 44 49.28 36.36 38.64 0.47 25.00 Harrington 14 24 26.88 16.67 41.67 0.50 33.33 Cunning point (mine water site) 14 32 35.84 37.50 46.88 0.78 25.00 Cunning point (control) 14 57 63.84 33.33 38.60 0.54 24.56 Saltom Bay 14 35 39.2 31.43 37.14 0.35 22.86 Huntsman outfall 12 6 8.34 83.33 16.67 0.00 66.67 Whitehaven, Byerstead Fault 12 6 8.34 100.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 Tom Hurd Rock 12 28 38.92 46.43 42.86 0.33 39.29 Table 14: Final quality status and EQR for the Outer Solway South including the individual site classifications, Standard deviation and standard error using the reduced species list. Full Species List Outer Solway South Corrected Quality Site Name SR % greens % Reds ESG % Opport EQR Class StDev St Error Parton 0.76 0.49 0.77 0.54 0.67 0.65 GOOD 0.126 0.056 Tom Hurd Rock 0.69 0.58 0.53 0.53 0.72 0.61 GOOD 0.088 0.040 Redness 0.74 0.47 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.57 MODERATE 0.101 0.045 Harrington 0.49 0.87 0.59 0.60 0.43 0.60 MODERATE 0.168 0.075 Cunning point (mine water site) 0.61 0.45 0.80 0.87 0.55 0.66 GOOD 0.175 0.078 Cunning point (control) 0.87 0.53 0.53 0.65 0.56 0.63 GOOD 0.143 0.064 Saltom Bay 0.64 0.57 0.50 0.40 0.59 0.54 MODERATE 0.094 0.042 Huntsman outfall 0.24 0.08 0.22 0.00 0.12 0.13 BAD 0.100 0.045 Whitehaven, Byerstead Fault 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.13 BAD 0.194 0.087 Tom Hurd Rock 0.64 0.34 0.74 0.39 0.31 0.48 MODERATE 0.195 0.087 Average 0.50 0.139 0.062
EQR Value 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Parton Figure 17: FSL EQR with error bars representing standard error Tom Hurd Rock Redness Harrington Site Name Cunning point (mine water site) Cunning point (control) Saltom Bay Huntsman outfall Whitehaven, Byerstead Fault Tom Hurd Rock
Page 1 and 2: Water Framework Directive Marine Pl
Page 3 and 4: dates will result in a larger speci
Page 5 and 6: Figure 2: Sites included within the
Page 7 and 8: fauna and flora and exposed shores
Page 9 and 10: Table 1: Field sampling sheet to re
Page 11 and 12: These different community factors c
Page 13 and 14: All datasets were tested for normal
Page 15 and 16: Table 3: Calculation of ‘deshor
Page 17 and 18: Development of a Reduced Species Li
Page 19 and 20: certain species are only present on
Page 21 and 22: Figure 11: Map of the UK and Republ
Page 23 and 24: Table 4: Species lists for each of
Page 25 and 26: Table 6: Boundaries values for RSL,
Page 27 and 28: The final metric system works on a
Page 29 and 30: Table 10: Final quality status and
Page 31: EQR Value EQR Value 1.00 0.80 0.60

Water Framework Directive Marine Plants Task Team Tools Paper ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?