Excerpts taken from the Vieux Fort Needs Assessment Project Report, 2006 11.3 Considerations for Water Body Classification According to UNEP/Tetra Tech, 2003 the classification of waters in each country that is party to the Convention should involve an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a thorough review process by all stakeholders. The results of the classification for the country should be published and permit limits should be established for all discharges based on whether their effluent discharge to Class I or Class II receiving waters. This should be combined with a compliance inspection programme to ensure compliance with the effluent limits. The full details of the considerations as proposed by UNEP/Tetra Tech (2003) are provided in Appendix 4 and the issue identification proposed for the process of classification is shown in Figure 11.3.1. Figure 11.3.1: Effluent Limitation Decision Tree Additional considerations for classification of the receiving waters include inter alia: • Sustenance of sensitive marine habitats/ecosystems (mangroves, seagrass, corals) and the extent of these systems; • The potential for adverse effects on humans due to contact and consumption of fish or shellfish; • The presence of endangered or endemic species and level of protection of the under the SPAW Protocol; • The definition of the boundaries of the waters based on the physical, legal and ecological parameters; • Ranking system for the water classification based on species index, abundance, breeding area for aquatic life, and the level of the threat to humans. 11.4 Water Bodies Classification Methods for Project Study Area Conducting the classification exercise for the waters of VF involved the following approach and activities: 1. The integrated approach. • The use of local knowledge; • Engagement of persons with experience in resource management and who worked on conservation initiative in the Study Area; • Including the local knowledgeable persons as part of the team for field reconnaissance; • Identification and spatial referencing of the ecological systems of importance and verification based on the available local knowledge. 2. Field exercise for the acquisition of primary and verification of secondary data. • Location of the areas with coral reefs both fringing and bank reefs and the depth at which they occur; • Identification of areas with sea grass beds and the extent of occurrence including depth; • Identification of areas with mangrove forest and their distribution along the coastline; • Collect information on species of importance existing within the habitat and their ecological functionality; • Using aerial photos to identify stretches of beach and conducting ground-truthing to verify the level and extent of recreational use; • Identification of areas used for line, pot and spare fishing; • Nearshore reconnaissance of the Project Study Area verifying the need for the Class I designation due to ecological, recreational and extractive use of the area and physical oceanographic parameters; • Estimating offshore locations, by use of analogue maps, aerial photos and field visits, where physical oceanographic processes allow for onshore directional movement of currents not more that 5% of the time for probable Class II candidates; • Estimating the ability of these offshore locations to provide a prescribed dilution factor for sewage as outline in the Effluent Guidelines for the WCR (CEHI, 1998 outlined in Section 5.3 above). 3. Establishing baseline water quality (section 9) and initial monitoring programme. • Determine the parameters that should be monitored; • Establishing permanent water sampling points in the Project Study Area; • Establish monitoring stations close to major point sources of pollution such as major drains of river washout areas; • Baseline data recorded and made available for comparison with data from subsequent WQM exercises that can be used to establish trends. 11.5 Limitations of the Classification Estimating the appropriate location of the boundary that distinguished Class I waters from Class II waters was based principally on: • Location of benthos of ecological significance; • Areas important to nearshore fishing and human body contact activities; • Dispersion and dilution potential of the receiving waters; • Low possibility of return of the sewage to the coastline. Limitations in the classification process included: 1. The absence of current studies at different bands of the water column to indicate the actual direction of movement and the calculation of a probability for the return of pollutions inshore; 2. The absence of bathymetry as an additional or alternative parameter to distance as the basis of the classification; 3. The absence of a buffer, intermediate or transition zone that will allow for dispersion over a specified distance at a particular velocity; 4. The absence of a coordinate reference system for the line of delimitation which can be important for the regulation and establishment of a legal basis for the discharge of effluents of a particular quality; 5. Cost-benefit analysis for the classification of the marine waters and the regulation of effluent discharges. 11.6 Recommendations for Replication of Water Bodies Classification In accordance the commitment under the Cartegena Convention and the soon to be ratified LBS Protocol the classification of coastal water bodies, for which VF was the pilot project, will have to be replicated throughout various coastal localities and subsequently the entire island of St. Lucia. The following considerations are necessary for replication: • Sourcing information on existing resources and conditions from previous studies. Many studies were conducted on coastal resources of St. Lucia which were either commissioned by GoSL, studies to justify donor funding for various coastal conservation and development projects, studies conducted by government institutions such as Fisheries Division and Forestry Department, research work and studies conducted by regional and international academic institutions, EIA reports to accompany development applications, resource management case studies, reports produced by various regional and international agencies, studies conducted as part of the administration of MEAs at the national level. The Northwest Coastal Conservation Study (ATRIA 1994 and 1999), the Biodiversity Country Study Report (1998), numerous studies on and for the SMMA, EIA reports for Praslin Bay Resort, Sapphire Bay Resort and Landings Marina are some examples. These reports can provide a wealth of pertinent secondary information on the natural coastal systems, minimising the amount of baseline work required to generate information to aid the classification process. • Make maximum use of the available national digital information database. The GIS database resident in the Physical Planning Division of the MPDEH and the Ministry of Agriculture are good sources of current and historical digital data. Aerial photos representing different time periods can be used to estimate the change in coastal resources over specified time periods and map the locations of habitats. • Incorporate local knowledge. Coastal resource users and key community resource persons should be consulted on the existing systems and the changes which occurred in recent years. They should be briefed on the LBS Protocol, the classification system and the importance of this initiative for resource conservation. They should be included in the team that is used to conduct the field reconnaissance and ground-truthing of the resources identified in the review of studies and aerial photos. Their knowledge on any coastal processes of importance should be noted and given due consideration. • Collect information from CSO and NDC on the community population dynamics and generators of liquid waste. Data on the coastal community residents and their economic status will allow for an assessment of the sewage load entering the environment and the level of treatment imparted. Additionally, there is a need to identify the major significant generators of sewage and other liquid waste such as coastal industries, hotels and businesses. • Survey the communities, businesses and institutions. This will allow for the establishment of a profile of the existing sewage disposal and treatment systems. Additionally, this will allow for the estimation of the threat and load of sewage entering the marine environment from direct and indirect sources. The critical issues related to sewage management will be elucidated from the survey results. • Establish a team of resource persons. The constituent of this team should have expertise in natural resource management, marine ecology, water quality monitoring, liquid waste management and socio-economic issues. This team should form the core planning body to have the SNA and water body classification executed. • Stakeholder and public consultation. This is a very important aspect of the SNA and water body classification and should be initiated at the onset of the project. Key community members should be engaged especially those who are actively involved in environmental work and marine resources management. • Engage significant generators of liquid waste directly. Government institutions and the private sector agencies including manufacturing and service sectors that generate relatively large volumes of liquid waste should be sensitised. Where necessary they should be given an opportunity to voluntarily comply with the stipulations of the LBS Protocol for effluent quality. A new wastewater treatment and disposal systems must be required to comply with the LBS stipulations and the existing ones should be given reasonable time to attain compliance. • Public education and awareness. An effort should be made to educate the public of St. Lucia on the Cartagena convention and LBS Protocol. This is important since a significant number of respondents to the agency and community surveys that were conducted during the pilot study indicated that they had no knowledge of the Cartagena Convention or LBS Protocol. • Map the receiving waters as Class I or Class II. Generate a map for each area showing the designated Class I and Class II waters and the justification for the designation. As the water body classification pilot project becomes replicated throughout various coastal localities a map indicating the classification for the entire island should be produced. • Amendment of laws and regulations. It is important that the national laws governing the discharge of liquid waste and protection of the environment be amended to reflect the water bodies classification for the island. These legal instruments include inter alia: Public Health (Sewage and Disposal of Sewage and Liquid Industrial Waste Works) Regulations (SRO No. 22, 1978); Public Health (Disposal of Offensive Matter) Regulations (SRO No. 21 of 1976); Water and Sewage Act No. 14 of 2005; Physical Planning and Development Act No. 29 of 2001. • Inventory of agencies and institutions generating liquid waste. It is necessary to have an inventory of the significant generators of sewage, their processes, quality of the raw sewage, treatment system, method of disposal and quality of effluent. This will allow for the development of a programme for voluntary compliance and where necessary enforcement of regulations to attain compliance as per the LBS Protocol stipulations. • Develop a compliance monitoring programme. The institutional arrangement for attaining and adhering to effluent quality compliance as required by the LBS protocol should be implemented. The inventory will form a part of this programme however the self monitoring of effluent by sewage generators and verification by the enforcement agencies will be needed. • Enforcement of regulations. Once the guidelines for effluent quality has been formally accepted and imbedded into the national legal instruments enforcement should be done. Excerpt taken from the Vieux Fort Needs Assessment Project Report, 2006 Water body classification 4. Mapping of the Class I and Class II waters (Figure 11.4.1). • Within the Laborie Bay the waters between the shoreline and 2 km offshore should be Class I for the protection of the existing reef and seagrass; • The 2 km also compensate for the reduce rate of dispersion and probable typical insure to offshore current circulation pattern of these inlets; • The waters between Laborie Bay and Black Bay enclosing the coastline of Petit Trou should be designated Class I up to a distance of 1 km offshore; • The waters between Black Bay including that enclosed by the Vieux Fort Bay should be designated Class II up to 2 km offshore; • The waters around the Moule a Chique headland from Mathurin Point to C Moule a Chique including Caesar Point and Ministre point should be designated Class I water up to 0.5 km offshore; • The water between C Moule a Chique and Saltibus Point should be designated Class I up to 2 km offshore for the protection of the existing breeding and nursery area and the existing coral reef system; • This area is adjacent to the Ramsar site wetlands of Savannes Bay the proposed Point Sable Protected Area and should be awarded additional buffering and protection; • The discharge of effluent other than that conforming to the Class I criteria of the LBS Protocol on the eastern seascape of the Project Study Area should be beyond the lowlying sea grass and reef system; • At a 2 km distance from the shoreline the current and circulation pattern of the eastern seaboard will reduce the probability of the pollutants moving towards the inshore and sensitive ecological systems existing. N C Moule a Chique Mathurin Pt Ministre Pt Figure 11.4.1: Classification of the Marine Waters of Vieux Fort Presentation of River and Coastal Water Information in Mabouya Valley and Environs National Plan of Action for Saint Lucia National Plan of Action (NPA) for Saint Lucia • Programme funded by the UNEP- CAR/RCU to assist countries address land- based sources of marine pollution • Develop better management practices to control pollution in coastal and marine areas National Plan of Action (NPA) for Saint Lucia • Saint Lucia’s NPA has 3 components – Participatory Approach to Policy Formulation – Public Awareness through Participation and Training – Assessment of Needs to Address Land-based Sources of Marine Pollution through a Consultative and Participatory Approach Public Awareness through Participation and Training • Objective: Educate and sensitise youth in this region through capacity building and training • Activities – Collection of baseline data for rivers and coastal water in Mabouya Valley and it environs – Administered a questionnaire within Mabouya valley and environs Public Awareness through Participation and Training • MVEC assisted CEHI with sample collection • MVEC assisted Statistics Department in administering the survey • Community sensitized to issues of LBS of marine pollution • Presentation of sample and survey results to community Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution • Practices occurring on land that negatively impact the marine environment: – Deforestation – Improper garbage disposal – Poor and improper sewage disposal Results of Deforestation Poor Solid Waste Disposal Sewage Pollution Methodology • Sampling Methodology for Laboratory – Two locations were selected • Mabouya Valley (3River and 2Seawater) • Dennery Village (2 River and 3 Seawater) – Each sampling site sampled at least 6times in a 30 day period – Dry and wet season sampling Sampling Location • Mabouya Valley – Northern Fond d’Or Bay – Point near river mouth – Grand Riviere – La Ressource River – Point near Convergence to 2 rivers • Dennery • Northern Part of Bay near Mouth of Minor Stream • Near Port Entrance • Southern Bay near recreational area • Dennery/Errard Bridge • Point upstream of Bridge Sample Points pH – measure of acidity or alkalinity • Enterococci and Faecal Coliform count – Small organisms that cannot be seen with the naked eye. – These naturally occur in the faeces of humans and other warm blooded animals. – Their presence show that pollution with faeces has occurred. – Many disease causing organisms are carried in faeces – Contact with faecally polluted water is a health risk Results- Mabouya Valley • Marine – North Fond d’Or Bay – Best results for all sampling sites with regards to faecal pollution – Sampling point located north of river mouth – Area would have met various national and international standards for recreational purposes except for data obtained on 1 day which was very high Results- Mabouya Valley • Marine - Point Near River Mouth (point where rivers meet the sea) – High Faecal Coliform and Enterococci in area – Not suitable for direct contact recreational use – Pollution coming from rivers Results- Mabouya Valley • River water – Grande Riviere River – Faecal Coliform and Enterococci counts relatively low compared to other sampling sites – Sample point in rural area upstream of Grande Riviere – Area does not meet international standards for contact recreational use Results- Mabouya Valley • River water - La Ressource River – Faecal coliform and enterrococci counts were very high and cause for concern – Cattle grazing in the area and possibly unsanitary human practices (garbage and sewage) need to be looked into – Communities located above sampling point – Area does not meet any standards for contact recreational use Results- Mabouya Valley • River water – Point near convergence of rivers – Faecal coliform and enterococci counts were quite high – Rivers flow through communities and could be polluted by human activities – Cattle grazing in the area and possibly unsanitary human practices (garbage and sewage) need to be looked into – Area does not meet any standards for contact recreational use (bathing) Dennery • Marine – Dennery Bay (northern part of Bay) – Faecal coliform and enterococci counts were high – Stream that passes through Dennery village joins with Bay at the sampling site – Area does not meet any standards for contact recreational use Dennery • Marine – Near Port Entrance – Faecal coliform and enterococci counts were high – Mixing with waters from northern part of Bay occurs resulting in high counts but lower than northern part of Bay – Area does not meet any standards for contact recreational use Dennery • Marine – Southern Part of the Bay – Faecal coliform and enterococci counts were high – Dennery/Errard River enters the bay at this point – High counts in Bay due to pollution from Dennery/Errard River – Area does not meet any standards for contact recreational use Dennery • River water – Errard/Dennery River – Faecal coliform and enterococci counts were very high – River almost stagnant and dammed off at mouth – Results indicate high levels of faecal pollution from communities above sampling site – High counts in Bay due to pollution from Dennery/Errard River Dennery • River water – Point upstream of Bridge – Faecal coliform and enterococci counts were very high – Cows seen along the river grazing – Faeces contribute to pollution of river – Area does not meet any standards for contact recreational use Community Survey Perception on River and MarineWater Quality Vs. Water Quality Test Results Community Survey • Communities Surveyed – Richfond – Grand Riviere – La Caye – Aux Leon – Deniere Riviere – La Pointe – Dennery Village • 507 persons surveyed Community Survey – Sea Water • Community Survey – 65% of persons surveyed felt that the sea water in the area was somewhat dirty to very dirty • Sea Water Quality Test – Coastal sea water quality test show water in the area was somewhat dirty to very dirty Community Survey – Sea Water • 45% of persons surveyed stated that the sea water has been that way for over 20 years • 26% felt that the state of the sea water was not dangerous to health • 59.5% felt that the sea water may to dangerous to their health Community Survey – Sea Water • 23.5% felt most polluted sea water area was where the river meets the sea • 21% felt that the most polluted sea water area was Fond d’Or Bay • Data showed that most polluted sea water area was where the river meets the sea Community Survey-Sea Water • 61% main cause of pollution is poor garbage disposal • 14% main cause of pollution was floods Community Survey-Sea Water • Improving sea water quality – 16% stop littering – 16% clean up of shore – 15% better garbage/sewerage disposal – 11% place more bins in community • Who should do it? – 42% Government – 39% Community Community Survey – River Water • Community Survey – 79% river water was somewhat dirty to very dirty • River Water Quality Test – River water quality test show water in the area was somewhat dirty to very dirty Community Survey – River Water • 45% of persons felt that the river water has been like this for over 20 years • 88% felt that the river water quality may be dangerous to their health • 5% felt that river water was not dangerous to their health Community Survey – River Water • Most Polluted Area – 13% Derniere Riviere – 14% Everywhere Community Survey – River Water • 46% improper garbage disposal main cause of pollution to river water • 16% Pesticides, weedicides • 11% Deforestation Community Survey – River Water • Improving river water quality – 27% proper garbage disposal, more bins etc – 16% educate people – 13% desilting of river • Who should do it? – 45% Community – 37% Government Recommendations • Sanitary survey needed to find out the actual sources of faecal pollution – Number of households with access to toilets – Number of animal farms located near the river banks • Avoid using river water near the sample points • Wear boots if you have to go into river Recommendations • Increased public awareness and sensitization • Harvest rain water • Remove grazing cattle from river banks • Refrain from throwing waste into the rivers • Place all garbage in bins