Mitigation Options for Nutrient Reduction in Surface Water and Groundwaters

at River Basin Scale in order to Reach Targets of the

Water Framework Directive

COST action 869

Wim Chardon (NL), Oscar Schoumans (NL),

Louise Heathwaite (UK),Brian Kronvang (Dk), Seppo Rekolainen (Fi)

1. Introduction / background information• EC Directives, Conventions, River Commissions• Objectives of the Water Framework Directive• Eutrophication status of surface waters• Needs of end users• European Research Networks

2. Proposed COST action• Objectives • Work packages • Management organisation• Dissemination

Content

Introduction

EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES (impact of nutrient emissions) Water: Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

• Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)• Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)• Waste framework: (75/442/EEC amended by 91/156/EEC)• Dangerous substances: (76/464/EEC)

Soil: Soil quality / Soil Framework Directive (next year implementation 2007/2008)?

Air: No overall Directive• National Emissions Ceilings directive (2001/81/EC)• IPPC directive (96/61/EC)• Target to reduce ammonia emissions from agriculture (93% EU total)• Air quality (1999/30/EC).

Nature: No overall Directive• Conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC).• Conservation of Natural Habitats (92/43/EEC)

MARINE CONVENTIONS (OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona)TRANSBOUNDARY RIVER COMMISSIONS (e.g. Rhine and Danube)

Objectives of the WFD

To establish a framework for the protection of inland surfacewaters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater

1. Prevent further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems

2. Promotes sustainable water use based on long-term protection of available water resources

3. Ensures the reduction of pollution of groundwater and surface waters

4. Contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts5. Provision of sufficient supply of good quality of water

In general: Protection and improvement of the quality of water

Introduction

WFD: River Basin Planning Requirements

2006 Set up National Monitoring Programmes

2009 Finalise and publish first RBMP’s with measures

2011 Measures fully operational

2015 Achieve environmental objecives in first RBMP’s

Introduction

Period 2006 – 2011 is a crucial period for implementing mitigation options.

So, the time is right (2006-2010)

IntroductionEutrophication status of surface watersSectorial contribution to N and P loads in the Baltic Sea and North

Sea

Source: European Environment Agency, 2003

IntroductionEutrophication status of surface watersPercentage of rivers classified as less than good in different European countries

Source: European Environment Agency, 2003

Introduction

Introduction

Needs of end users

– to support load partitioning assessments– to help identify risk areas (e.g. phosphorus vulnerable zones))– to predict trends in water quality– to develop Action Programmes / RBMP– to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation options

(including interaction between P and N)– to evaluate actions needed to achieve Directive objectives

Relevant for:Policy makers / RB managers / catchments officers / community

groups

Introduction

DG Environment, unit agriculture:

European Research Networks

COST 623 “Soil Erosion and Global Change” (1998-2003)COST 634 “On- and Off-site Environmental impacts of runoff and erosion” (2003-

2008)COST 856 “Denitrification in agriculture, air and water pollution” (2002-2007)COST 832 “Quantifying the Agricultural Contribution to Eutrophication” (1997-2003)

International Phosphorus Workgroup (about 20 EC-countries; Australia, New Zealand, USA)

- Wexford, 1995- Antrim, 1997 - Plymouth, 2001- Wageningen, 2004- Silkeborg, 2007

Introduction

Outcome of “IPW4 in Wageningen: Urgent need of a new cost action: Focus on mitigation options in relation to sources and pathways of the eutrophication of surface waters

1. Introduction / background information

• EC Directives, Conventions, River Commissions• Objectives of the Water Framework Directive√• Eutrophication status of surface waters• Needs of end users• European Research Networks

2. Proposed COST action• Objectives • Work packages • Management organisation• Dissemination

Content

√

Proposed Cost Action

What have we learnt so far?

Wide range of situations: High variability due to differences in climate, landscape, land

use, land management, and socio-economic and political factors

Importance of scale with respect to sources, pathways and processes (in and over land) and scale issues in socio-economic drivers…

Contribution of agricultural to the eutrophication of surface waters is, therefore, complex to explain and difficult to manage

Focus was on local scale (field scale) mainly dealing with surface runoff pathways.

Need for appropriate and cost-effective mitigation options at different scales (local – regional – river basin)

So, we have to bring different disciplines together…

Proposed Cost Action

Main objectives

- To evaluate options for reducing nutrient loss to surface waters at river basin scale

- To derive information on the optimal combinations of mitigation options in terms of applicability and cost effectiveness

Proposed Cost Action

Planned working groups

- WG1: Localisation of critical source areas at different scales- WG2: Influence of nutrients on ecological processes in surface

waters- WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different

scales- WG4: Evaluation of projects in example areas across the EU

Proposed Cost Action

WG1: Localisation of critical source areas (CSA)

- Space: To develop methodologies for localising critical source areas and hydrological transport routes within a river basin

- Time: To study the temporal dynamics of nutrient losses and scope for reducing nutrient losses (including the interactions between nutrients)

Transport controls on P loss

Erosion reduced 95%

1980 1985 1990 1995

Conventionaltill wheat

Convertedto no-till

Total P

mg/ L

6

4

2

0

-

-

Transport controls on P and N loss

Conventionaltill wheat

1980 1985 19951990Conventional

till wheat

1980 1985 19951990

Nitrate, mg/ L Algal-available P, mg/L

30

20

10

0

0.5

1.0

0

I nfi ltration increased 33%

Convertedto no-till

Convertedto no-till

The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix

www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/cswm

Groundwater examples

medium – high risk groundwater scenario

The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix

Groundwater examples

low - medium risk groundwater scenario

The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix

Proposed Cost Action

WG2: Influence of nutrients in surface water systems

- To study the influence of nutrients on ecological processes in surface waters within river basins (at different scales)

- To study the influence of ecology on the choice of mitigation options Lake phytoplankton response to nutrient

additions

0

25

50

75

100

Paddition

Naddition

N+Paddition

%

resp

ondi

ng t

o nu

trie

nt

addi

tion

Elser et al

Response of laboratory 'weed' alga (Selenastrum )

to nutrient additions

0

25

50

75

100

P addition N addition

%

resp

ondi

ng t

o nu

trie

nt

addi

tion

OECD report

Miller et al

Source: Foy et al., 2004

Proposed Cost Action

WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales

- To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an economical, environmental and social perspective

Potential for P reduction- inland waters only

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention

tonn

es P

yr -1

agriculture agriculture

urban sewered

urban sewered

rural septic tanks

rural septic tanksUrban run off

Overall reduction of

31%

Agriculture by 25%

Human derived P by 46%

Cost effectiveness/delivery times

€/kg

High

Low

Years1 10

fenced riparian buffer zones

Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets

Non P laundry detergent

Source: Annett et al., 2004

Proposed Cost Action

WG4: Evaluation of projects in example areas across the EU

- To study example areas within Europe, where mitigation can be tested and the effectiveness may be monitored

- To evaluate existing or finished projects on mitigation, what did work, and what did not, what could be improved

• P surplus 14.8 kg P ha-1

• P surplus increasing

• gross annual P surplus 13,074 tonnes

• 276 waste water treatment works –13 with P removal

• 63% of lakes eutrophic or hypertrophic

0 - 0.01 mg SRP /L> 0.01 - 0.02 mg SRP /L>0.02 - 0.035 mg SRP /L>0.035 - 0.065 mg SRP /L>0.065 - 0.1 mg SRP /L> 0.1 mg SRP /L

0.311.513.927.020.826.6

AVERAGE CONCENTRATION % RIVER LENGTH

AVERAGE PHOSPHORUS 2000

10 0 10 20 Kilometres

N

EW

S

3%4%2%

5% 1%

44%41%

agricultureurban sewered

rainfall to watersrural septic tanks

industrial point sourcediffuse urban

other diffuse

Proposed Cost Action

No country No country No country1 AT 10 GR 19 NO2 CH 11 HU 20 PO3 CZ 12 IE 21 PL4 DE 13 IL 22 PT5 DK 14 IT 23 RO6 EE 15 LT 24 SE7 ES 16 LU 25 SK8 FI 17 LV 26 UK9 FR 18 NL

Participating countries (n=26; status July 2005)

Proposed Cost Action(tentative timetable)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011StartInaugural MC Meeting (elections)

1st annual workshopPlanning and Start of WGs

MCProgress Report

Evaluation Workshop (Dk)

MC WG outcome reports

Progress ReportPlanning of WGs activities

MC Meeting Progress

ReportMC

Progress Report

Final report

wg2: phase 2: evaluation of the impact of reduction in loads

wg4 phase 2: applicability of mitigation options at catchments scalewg3 phase 2: cost-effectiveness of mitigation options

Overview available information, filling in website

Analyses of desk studies, modeling and monitoring existing activities within WG's

Overview available information, filling in website

wg1: phase 1; comparison of methodologies CSA

wg3 phase 1; overview potential mitigigation optionswg4 phase 1: state of the art of experiences with mitigation options

Set up phase 2

Applications and testing

wg2: phase 1: processes in surface waters, indicators, critical values

wg1: phase 2: application of CSA methodologies under different conditions

Management organisation

Steering CommitteeChair & Vice-chair +

WG’s coordinators & end-user representative

MC CommitteeChair & Vice-chair +

Country representatives

WG1Critical Source

Area

WG3Mitigation

Options

WG2EcologicalAspects

WG4Effectiveness River Basins

Proposed Cost Action

Proposed Cost Action

Dissemination

- Website containing results of the cost-effectiveness of mitigation options at different scales

- Set up a cross disciplinary network of researchers dealing with the WFD with respect to nutrients

- Contribution to a special issue based on outcome of COST 832 and IPW

- Contribution to the next IPW meeting in 2007 (Dk) and 2010- Small groups of end users will be invited to COST workshops- Set up advisory packages / look up tables / guidance notes for end

users- Scientific papers or a special issue of an international journal by the

end of the COST action

1. Introduction / background information

• EC Directives, Conventions, River Commissions• Objectives of the Water Framework Directive√• Eutrophication status of surface waters• Needs of end users• European Research Networks

2. Proposed COST action• Objectives • Work packages • Management organisation• Dissemination

Content

√

√

Thank you for your attention

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Questions?

Proposed Cost Action

Introduction

WFD: Why?

Source EC:Less than 1% of planet’s water is available for human consumption• 20% of all surface waters is seriously threatened with pollution (EU)• groundwater supplies around 65% of all European’s drinking water• 60% of European cities overexploit their groundwater resources• 50% of wetlands have “endangered status” due to ground water over-

exploitation• The area of irrigated land in Southern Europe has increased by 20% since

1985

Promote sustainable water

use

Promote sustainable water

use

Protect and enhance status

of the water environment

Protect and enhance status

of the water environment

River Basin Planning

Ecological objectives

Integrating surface & ground

waters

Phosphorus Fluxes in UK Agriculture

Phosphorus Fluxes in UK Agriculture

Fertilizer74% Meat

56%

Milk

25%

Grain19%

Sewage sludge

3%

Feed

20%Atmosphere

3%

Inputs

234 000 tonnes

Outputs57 000 tonnes

P surplus: 177 000 tonnes (c. 10 kg ha-1 a-1)

Nutrient export

surface models

subsurface models

farm track

watertable

variable source area

permanently saturated

area

Proposed Cost Action

WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales

- To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an cost/economical, environmental and social perspective

Potential for P reduction- inland waters only

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention

tonn

es P

yr -1

agriculture agriculture

urban sewered

urban sewered

rural septic tanks

rural septic tanksUrban run off

Overall reduction of

31%

Agriculture by 25%

Human derived P by 46%

Source: Annett et al., 2004

Cost effectiveness/delivery times

€/kg

High

Low

Years1 10

fenced riparian buffer zones

Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets

Non P laundry detergent

Proposed Cost Action

WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales

- To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an cost/economical, environmental and social perspective

Potential for P reduction- inland waters only

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention

tonn

es P

yr -1

agriculture agriculture

urban sewered

urban sewered

rural septic tanks

rural septic tanksUrban run off

Overall reduction of

31%

Agriculture by 25%

Human derived P by 46%

Source: Annett et al., 2004

Cost effectiveness/delivery times

€/kg

High

Low

Years1 10

fenced riparian buffer zones

Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets

Non P laundry detergent

Watertable

Variable Source Area

Critical Source Area (CSA)

Drained Watertable

CSAsHydrologically Disconnected

HydrologicallyConnected

Delineation of Critical Landscape Zones

Proposed Cost Action

WG3: Evaluation of (potential) mitigation options at different scales

- To identify areas where mitigation actions are most likely to be effective from an economical, environmental and social perspective

Potential for P reduction- inland waters only

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Current P inputs to inland waters P inputs to inland watersfollowing intervention

tonn

es P

yr -1

agriculture agriculture

urban sewered

urban sewered

rural septic tanks

rural septic tanksUrban run off

Overall reduction of

31%

Agriculture by 25%

Human derived P by 46%

Source: Annett et al., 2004

Cost effectiveness/delivery times

€/kg

High

Low

Years1 10

fenced riparian buffer zones

Chemical P removal at WWTW Fields to Olsen P index 2Balanced farm budgets

Non P laundry detergent