An improved system for monitoring and

An improved system for monitoring and

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the

Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

RusNIP II. Implementation of the Baltic Sea

Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation

REPORT 6645 • MARCH 2015

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for

HELCOM purposes

RusNIP II. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the

Russian Federation

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Order

Phone: + 46 (0)8-505 933 40

Fax: + 46 (0)8-505 933 99

E-mail: [email protected]

Address: Arkitektkopia AB, Box 110 93, SE-161 11 Bromma, Sweden

Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se/publikationer

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Phone: + 46 (0)10-698 10 00, Fax: + 46 (0)10-698 10 99

E-mail: [email protected]

Address: Naturvårdsverket, SE-106 48 Stockholm, Sweden

Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se

ISBN 978-91-620-6645-1

ISSN 0282-7298

© Naturvårdsverket 2015

Print: Arkitektkopia AB, Bromma 2015

Cover photos: Dmitry Domnin

N

OR

DIC ECOLAB

EL

Printed Matter

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Preface

In November 2007 the Ministers of the environment for the Baltic Sea

Countries and high representatives of the European Community decided on a joint action plan within HELCOM – the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). The aim of the plan is to achieve good environmental status of the Baltic Sea by

2021. Under the agreement, the Baltic Sea countries are obliged to draw up national plans for a combined assessment by 2010, which was evaluated at

Ministerial meetings in Moscow in May 2010 and in Copenhagen in October

2013. In the Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting the Ministers decided on further actions and recommendations adding to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action

Plan, including updated country-allocated nutrient reduction targets (CART).

The RusNIP project “Capacity for Compliance with Baltic Sea Action

Plan” started in 2009 and contributed structurally and substantially to the drafting of the Russian National Implementation Plan (NIP) to the BSAP.

During the second phase of the project, RusNIP II, the focus has been on activities related to monitoring and assessment, including modelling test cases in Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions in cooperation with the EU projects

BaltHazAR and BASE.

This final report describes HELCOM reporting schemes as well recommended methodologies for calculating pollution loads to the Baltic Sea and its division on sources. Further, it contains a review of the present Russian monitoring and assessment system as well as recommendations on how the system could be improved in order to comply with requirements of future Pollution

Load Compilations (PLCs).

The report contains two annexes; Annex 1 describes obstacles associated with acquisition of reliable data on pollution loads in Russia and Annex 2 gives an overview of methods for calculating pollution loads from different pollution source categories.

The report and its sub-reports have been elaborated by Swedish experts in co-operation with responsible authorities and organisations in Russia. The following persons have been directly involved in the project:

Swedish EPA; Ulla-Britta Fallenius, Håkan Staaf

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Faruk Djodjic, Caroline Orback,

Elin Widén-Nilsson.

SPb PO Ecology & Business; Leonid Korovin, Ekaterina Vorobeyeva, Larisa

Makarova, Natalia Oblomkova, Alexandra Kapustina.

NW Department of Roshydromet; Valentina Varlashina.

Kaliningrad Centre for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring;

Nataliya Shchagina.

3

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

P.P.Shirshov’s Institute of Oceanology, Atlantic Branch Russian Academy of

Sciences; Chubarenko Boris, Dmitry Domnin.

Kaliningrad State Technical University; Sergey Kondratenko, Anton Umanski,

Andrey Aldushin.

Stockholm and Moscow, March 2014

Head, Policy Development

Swedish Environmental

Head, Department of

Cooperation, Ministry

4

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Contents

PREFACE

1 SUMMARY

3.1

3.2

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

2.2 Objectives

2.2.1 Overall objectives

2.2.2

2.2.3

Project Objective for phase II:

Operative objectives for phase II:

3 STATE AUTHORITIES AND INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN THE

PROCESS OF COLLECTING AND SUBMITTING INFORMATION

TO HELCOM

Organisational structure

Conclusions

BSAP NUTRIENT REDUCTION TARGETS

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2010

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013

Conclusions

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

NUTRIENT INPUT AND DISTANCE TO TARGETS FOR RUSSIA

Waterborne input

Airborne input

Conclusions

6

6.1

6.2

6.3

MONITORING AND ANNUAL REPORTING TO HELCOM

Reporting requirements

Coastal point sources

Monitored Rivers

6.4

6.5

Unmonitored areas

Transboundary loads

6.6 Reporting to HELCOM PLC database by Russia

6.7 Conclusions

7

7.1

7.2

7.2.1

7.2.2

7.2.3

7.2.4

SOURCE APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT FOR PLC PERIODICAL 27

Purpose of source apportionment 27

Methods for source apportionment

Source apportionment of riverine input to the sea

28

28

Source apportionment of loads to inland surface waters

Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Background loads

28

29

29

22

23

24

25

20

20

20

21

18

18

19

19

15

15

15

15

17

12

12

14

10

10

11

11

11

11

3

7

5

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

7.3

7.3.1

7.3.2

7.3.3

7.3.4

7.4

8

8.1

8.2

8.2.1

8.3

8.4

8.4.1

8.4.2

8.4.3

8.5

9

The situation in Russia

Point sources

Diffuse sources.

Background load.

Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Conclusions

MODELLING TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES

General about modelling tools

FyrisNP model

The ILLM model

FyrisNP course

Test cases for modelling

Luga River – Leningrad region

Mamonovka river – Kaliningrad region

Instruch river – Kaliningrad area

Conclusions

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.6

10

A MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR PRODUCING

DATA COMPLIANT WITH HELCOM REQUIREMENTS

Main components of the system

Organisational structure

The monitored rivers program, including transboundary rivers

Program for unmonitored areas

Program for source apportionment

Reporting program

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RUSNIP II PROJECT

43

45

45

46

41

41

42

47

Annex 1 Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for HELCOM Pollution

Load Compilations 49

Annex 2 Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment 89

36

38

39

39

34

34

35

35

35

36

30

30

30

31

31

32

6

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

1 Summary

The Ministers of the Environment from the Baltic Sea Countries and the High

Representative of the European Commission in November 2007, within the framework of HELCOM, adopted the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan

(BSAP) concerning the Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland.

The goal of the action plan is to achieve good environmental status by 2021.

The action plan consists of around 150 different activities in four main segments; eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity and nature conservation including fisheries, and maritime activities.

At the Ministerial Meeting in Moscow 2010 it was recognised that there is a need to support activities agreed in the BSAP and to follow up the implementation of the Russian NIP with regard to e.g. the eutrophication and hazardous substances segments (mainly heavy metals) and to do that it is most important to have reliable monitoring and assessment.

In the Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting 2013 the ministers decided on further actions and recommendations adding to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action

Plan including updated country-allocated nutrient reduction targets (CART).

It further agreed to monitor and evaluate regularly the progress in implementing the measures to reduce the nutrient inputs and to develop and deliver operational assessments of pressures of e.g. nutrient and hazardous substances inputs (PLCs).

In the review of the fifth Pollution Load Compilation (PLC 5.5) for the

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting the PLC data sets were updated and for several countries also corrected and gap-filled. The Russian data were partly estimated due to serious gaps and uncertainties in data reported from the

Russian Federation.

The present document is a report from a joint co-operation project between Sweden and the Russian Federation “Capacity for Compliance with

Baltic Sea Action Plan”, named RusNIP II. The aim of the activities in RusNIP

II is to contribute to the harmonisation of assessment methods in the Russian catchment area of the Baltic Sea in order to produce comparable and reliable data on pollution loads, mainly nutrients and selected hazardous substances.

Such data are needed for use within HELCOM PLC assessments and the follow-up of measures taken to fulfil the BSAP requirements concerning nutrient reduction targets (CART).

The project started in 2012, but the RusNIP II project has awaited the outcome of the EU BaltHazAR project before starting some of the RusNIP activities in order not to do any double work. The BaltHazAR II project was finalized 30 June 2012

At the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting it was decided on new nutrient reduction targets for all HELCOM countries including both waterborne and airborne inputs to the Baltic Sea. Based on these figures new input targets

(Maximum Allowable Inputs, or MAI) for waterborne nitrogen and phosphorus to sub-basins from Russia were calculated in order to estimate the distance

7

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes to targets and the reductions required. Reduction targets for Russia are especially strict for phosphorus, and inputs has to be reduced by 50–60 % both for Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper, as compared with the mean load during

1997–2003. For nitrogen a reduction of 11 % is required for Gulf of Finland and 19 % for Baltic Proper.

Nitrogen waterborne load from Russia to Gulf of Finland is at present about 70,000 tons per year and it has not changed much during the period

1994 – 2010. The distance to target during 2008–2010 is about 5,000 ton/yr.

For phosphorus a considerable reduction has occurred since 2005–2006, corresponding to about 1,500 tons of P/yr. or about half-way to the input target.

The load development to the Baltic Sea from Kaliningrad area is uncertain due to lack of data.

A main task of the project has been to assess if the Russian monitoring and assessment system can deliver data and information to HELCOM, in compliance with HELCOM PLC requirements. The overall conclusion is that this is not the case. Russia has not yet fulfilled the HELCOM requirements for annual reporting of PLC data. The main gaps are: a) loads from point sources are given in aggregated form, b) not all obligatory parameters are measured in monitored river, c) unmonitored areas are not reported. In perennial reportings (every 6 years) Russia has reported discharges from coastal point sources and the total riverine inputs, but no source apportionment of inland nutrient sources has been performed.

The project has identified three main reasons for the above mentioned deficiencies:

The first is that the organisational structure for collecting and compiling data for HELCOM PLC is very complicated and includes a large number of communication steps, from the regional up to the federal level. To simplify and improve the efficiency of data collection and reporting it is proposed that the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation develops and approves legal documents that establish obligations for executors at all levels with regard to participation and submission of data and information to the

Helsinki Commission on a regular basis.

A second reason is insufficient funding. It is necessary to allocate additional funding from the federal budget, as well as to make necessary changes in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The latter refers specifically to regulatory documents and /or regulations that defines how the flow of information and timing regarding submission of the data to HELCOM, and specify the responsibilities of all levels of performers.

A third reason is a lack of methodological basis and responsible authorities for the calculation and assessment of loads from unmonitored areas, diffuse sources, background load and retention. Such a basis is needed in order to be able to make complete source apportionments of loads from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment rivers to the relevant Baltic Sea sub-basins.

The project proposes several new methods in this respect.

8

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

In order to be able to regularly perform calculations of source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Baltic Sea, it is recommendable to use numerical models. A system for regular data collection, as part of the state monitoring, is needed to supply the models with indata and to update this information regularly. Specifically, we propose that the FyrisNP, or a similar model, should be set up for long-term use in all monitored rivers; Neva

(downstream Ladoga), Luga, Narva and Pregolya. For Narva River this issue must be negotiated with Estonia.

However, many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with successfully. From now on Russia is able to fulfill HELCOM requirements for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-calibration exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM PLC 6 project.

Within the project we have worked with test cases for modelling using the

Swedish FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model. Advantages and disadvantages with these two numerical models were identified as well as information needed in order to use the models. A three day training course on the

FyrisNP model was arranged at SLU, Uppsala in May 2012. In the course

12 Russian experts from authorities and institutions were present. Before the training course started a number of manuals were made available in Russian language.

Further, the project has formulated a number of more detailed conclusions and recommendations in order to improve monitoring and assessments of pollution load from the Russian catchment area of the Baltic Sea.

The different reports elaborated within the project have been discussed in working group meetings with responsible authorities and institutions which have given valuable comments and amendments to the final report and its annexes.

9

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

2 Introduction

2.1 Background

The Ministers of the environment from the countries around the Baltic Sea decided on 15 November 2007 on a joint action programme, the HELCOM

Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). The plan consists of four main segments and another four documents. The main segments are: eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity including fisheries and maritime issues (shipping, accidents, emergency services etc.). The other four documents deal with the development of assessment tools and methodologies, awareness raising and capacity building, financing and implementation/review of the plan.

Under the eutrophication segment, it was agreed that there is a need to reduce nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea and that the principle of maximum allowable inputs of nutrients should be applied for reaching good environmental status. With regard to eutrophication, a provisional “burden sharing” was agreed indicating the required country-wise nutrient reductions to the various sub-basins. The measures in the eutrophication segment were to be implemented in 2016 with some exceptions for sewage treatment plants.

According to the BSAP all member countries should have their respective

National Implementation Plans (BSAP-NIP) ready for discussions and decisions by the Ministerial Meeting in May 2010 in Moscow.

During the project period, two HELCOM Ministerial Meetings have been held; 2010 in Moscow and 2013 in Copenhagen. In the Copenhagen meeting, new country-wise nutrient reduction targets (CART) were adopted and an updated Pollution Load Compilation (PLC5.5) was presented. These new achievements have been taken into account in the RusNIP II project.

In the extended summary of the main results of the HELCOM Fifth

Pollution Load Compilation (PLC5) discharges from point sources and losses from non-point pollution sources as well as the natural background losses into inland surface waters were quantified. This report revealed gaps in reporting from several Contracting Parties and it was also stated that there were serious gaps and uncertaincies in the data reported from the Russian Federation.

In order to promote the elaboration of the Russian BSAP-NIP, Sweden and Russia have established a joint co-operation project for strengthening this work in the bilateral Work Programmes for 2009–2010, 2011–2012 and

2013–2015.

10

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

2.2 Objectives

2.2.1 Overall objectives

a) To contribute, mainly concerning eutrophication, to the implementation of BSAP and its goal to achieve good environmental status in the Baltic

Sea by 2021, b) To strengthen the capacity of Russian authorities to meet the requirements of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the most effective way.

RusNIP phase I project “Implementation of the Baltic Sea Plan BSAP in the

Russian Federation, eutrophication segment, and point sources” was finalized in 2010

1

report 6368. The project contributed structurally and substantially to the drafting of the Russian National Implementation Plan NIP to the Baltic

Sea Action Plan, BSAP.

RusNIP phase II project has mainly concentrated its efforts on activities concerning monitoring and assessment including test cases in Leningrad and

Kaliningrad regions.

2.2.2 Project Objective for phase II:

Strengthen the capacity of responsible Russian authorities in implementing management system for assessing the pollution loads to the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Proper from point and diffuse sources, including data production, source apportionment and reporting concerning the eutrophication segment and to some extent the hazardous substances segment of the BSAP. This is done in co-operation with the BaltHazAR project.

2.2.3 Operative objectives for phase II:

1. Relevant Russian authorities, institutions and stakeholders for producing effective monitoring and assessment are 1a) identified and 1b) recommendations elaborated for producing reliable pollution and monitoring data.

2. Recommendations are elaborated on effective monitoring and assessment tools and corresponding administrative routines for repeatedly re-assessing the current environmental problems in co-operation with BaltHazAR project.

The target group is decision makers and experts at the Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment, Rosgidromet, Rosprirodnadzor, Rosvodresursy as well as their representations and subject level authorities within the domains of the Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Authority of the Russian Federation, The stakeholders are industrial and agricultural companies, waste water and water management utilities as well as municipal and rural municipalities and the general public in the area which will primarily be involved in the work with the pilot catchments.

1

Swedish EPA 2010. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, Point sources. Results from the RusNIP project. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 6368

11

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

3 State authorities and institutions involved in the process of collecting and submitting information to HELCOM

3.1 Organisational structure

To elaborate the environmental protection policy, assess the efficiency of measures aimed at reducing the inputs of nutrients and pollutants from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment, reliable data are needed on their inputs from land-based sources, based on the results of water quality monitoring of water bodies (surface water and marine waters).

Within the framework of the Helsinki Convention these issues could be addressed by compiling data on water pollution loads (HELCOM

Recommendation 26/2. Pollution load compilation. Adopted 02.03.2005).

These data are stored in a database (PLC database) that contains information about the loads of pollutants released into the Baltic Sea from HELCOM

Contracting Parties.

The database is updated in connection with the annual and periodic reporting rounds by the Contracting Parties. The completeness and accuracy of load data submitted by the Contracting Parties is a key factor to decision- making aimed to reduce anthropogenic loads on the Baltic Sea and to provide good environmental status of the sea.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation (MNR) coordinates and controls the activities its subordinated authorities, namely The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and

Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet), of The Federal Service for Supervisory Control in the sphere of Environmental Management

(Rosprirodnadzor), of Federal Agency for Water Resources (Rosvodresursy) and of Federal Agency for Subsurface Resources Management (Rosnedra).

With regard to the State monitoring of the water bodies the MNR of the

Russian Federation establishes requirements for environmental and pollution control and observations, for the acquisition, processing, storage and distribution of information about the environment and pollution status, as well as for obtaining information products.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation organizes and ensures the fulfillment of commitments subsequent to the international agreements involving the Russian Federation on issues within the scope of activities of the Ministry. The MNR is the only official body responsible for providing the Baltic Sea pollution load data to HELCOM.

12

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

In Russia there are six authorities involved in the work to produce reliable information concerning monitoring and assessment of eutrophication and some hazardous substances (mainly heavy metals) to fulfil HELCOM Load

Compilation, HELCOM PLC and follow up of the Baltic Sea Action Plan

(BSAP). For more detailed information see Annex 1.

Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment of the Russian Federation

(MNR)

The Federal Service for

Hydrometeorology and

Environmental monitoring

(Roshydromet)

Observation data transfer

The Federal Agency for

Water Resources

(Rosvodresursy)

Department of Roshydromet within the North-West

Federal District, Hydromet

SRI (SHI, HCI, SOI,

IGCE ...)

Control of data availability and quality of monitoring data on water bodies, data integration

Neva Ladoga Water Basin

Administration (NLWBA);

Rosvodresursy

FSBI “North-West

Administration for

Hydrometeorology and

Environmental Monitoring”

(NW AHEM), organizations which have the licenses from Roshydromet

(Sevmorgeo LLC)

Collection and transmission of quality of surface inland waters and marine waters observation data within the system of the state monitoring, data collection from point sources of pollutants that discharge into water bodies

FSI “Baltvodohoz”,

FSI “Pskovvodohoz”, etc

Figure 1. The scheme shows interactions between the Government of the Russian Federation and the institutions (organizations) under various agencies involved in the process of collecting and submitting data to HELCOM, including data used for compiling loads of water pollution on the

Russian Baltic Sea catchment area.

13

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

On behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the

Russian Federation (MNR), the SPb PO “Ecology and Business” (Saint-

Petersburg Public Organization) participates in the procedure of the observations data transmission to HELCOM for the purpose of adding the data to the PLC database. The employees of the “Ecology and Business” are contact persons in the HELCOM working and expert groups (HELCOM LAND and

LOAD groups, etc.). In accordance with the decisions taken at the meetings of these groups, the SPb PO “Ecology and Business” develops reports indicating the data to be submitted to HELCOM; the reports subsequently are forwarded to the MNR Department in charge of International Cooperation.

On the basis of these reports submitted by the “Ecology and Business” the

Department of International Cooperation generates queries for particular data to be submitted and forwards the requests to the appropriate agencies. After receiving the requested data, the Department of International Cooperation, after coordination, forward the data to SPb PO “Ecology and Business” for inclusion in the HELCOM format, and finally the data is forwarded to

HELCOM.

3.2 Conclusions

• The MNR of Russia is responsible for the implementation of the commitments under the Helsinki Convention, including data communication.

• In accordance with the above scheme, the procedure of data collection and data transmission to HELCOM is a long and nonlinear one and includes a large number of the communication stages from the regional authorities up to the Federal level, and only after that the data is transmitted to HELCOM.

• Regulatory documents and/or regulations that would specify the flow of information and timing regarding submission of data to HELCOM, and that would specify the responsibilities of all levels of performers are lacking.

14

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

4 BSAP nutrient reduction targets

4.1 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007

Eutrophication was an important issue in Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) that was agreed at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2007. The eutrophication segment of BSAP contained several initiatives to reduce emissions; primarily, new recommendations about wastewater treatment and preliminary nutrient reduction targets for all HELCOM countries

2

(HELCOM

2007). These targets were expressed as annual amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to be reduced by each HELCOM country, as compared with the waterborne load to the Baltic Sea from a country during the period 1997–2003.

The reduction of waterborne inputs from Russia, as defined in BSAP 2007, was as follows:

– 4,145 ton N/yr. and 1,661 ton P/yr to Gulf of Finland,

– 114 ton P/yr. for Gulf of Riga and

– 2,821 ton N/yr. and 724 ton P/yr to Baltic Proper.

4.2 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2010

In the HELCOM Ministerial Declaration 2010 it is stated in the document concerning the main results of the Fifth Pollution Load Compilation that

“there were particularly serious problems with the data from Russia”. It is further stated that one of the challenges of the future load compilations will be to ensure that each of the HELCOM Contracting Party monitors and reports reliable and complete data sets on pollution loads, so that the total pollution loads entering the Baltic Sea may be estimated with reasonable accuracy.”

4.3 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013

At the Ministerial meeting 2013, revised country-allocated nutrient reductions targets (CART) were adopted. The new CART values replace the preliminary reduction targets from 2007. The new CART targets for Russia are

10,380 tons of nitrogen and 3,790 tons of phosphorus as compared with the flow-normalized load during the reference period 1997–2003. The CART, as divided on sub-basins, are given in table 1.

2

HELCOM 2007. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. www.helcom.fi.

15

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Table 1. Revised nutrient reduction requirements (CART) per sub-basin for Russia. For nitrogen,

CART includes both airborne and waterborne loads. CART figures are calculated after correcting for transboundary waterborne loads and figures within parenthesis are targets before correcting for transboundary shares.

Sub-basin Nitrogen

(Ton N/yr.)

Baltic Proper

Gulf of Finland

Gulf of Riga

Kattegat

2,498 (3,153)

7,879 (8,478)

4 (4)

Total 10,381 (11,635)

Airborne /waterborne 1,025 (10%)

/9,356 (90%)

Phosphorus

(Ton P/yr.)

481 (609)

3,277 (3,303)

30 (30)

3,788 (3,942)

Only waterborne

Transboundary inputs accounted for

From Poland via Pregolya

From Finland via Vuoksa

From Russia via Daugava

(Airborne)

The Russian CART targets are corrected for transboundary waterborne loads between Russia and Finland, Latvia and Poland as indicated in the table, and the uncorrected targets are shown for comparison. This means that Russia now has a target for transboundary loads to Gulf of Riga via Latvia and that the target to Gulf of Finland and Kaliningrad has been lowered by transferring a part of these targets to Finland and Poland. However, transboundary loads from Lithuania and Belarus via the Matrosovka Canal are not accounted for in the CART calculations. The Russian target for Kattegat can only be met by reducing nitrogen deposition originating from emissions in Russia.

The revised reduction requirements differ from the old ones for several reasons:

– Eutrophication targets defining good environmental status have been changed in several sub-basins

– The sum of waterborne and airborne inputs from a country to the Baltic

Sea has been used as a basis for allocating reduction targets. Originally only waterborne inputs were used.

– The inputs during the reference period have been changed due to normalization of nutrient inputs via both air and water.

Reduction targets for nitrogen are expressed as the total reduction target of airborne and waterborne input from a country, while the target for phosphorus only refers to waterborne loads. Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus is considered constant over time, since the sources for phosphorus deposited on the Baltic Sea are unknown and no regular monitoring exists.

For some countries such as Russia the new CART includes reduction targets also in distant sub-basins to which they do not border. These targets can thus only be met by reducing atmospheric emissions. Reduction targets for subcatchments bordering directly to a country have been divided in an atmospheric part and a waterborne part.

The transboundary inputs to the Baltic Sea, both from HELCOM countries and non-HELCOM countries, which were used in CART, are rather uncertain and there is clearly a need to further improve them. This should be

16

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes done in bilateral (or in some cases trilateral) agreements between countries about monitoring programs for transboundary rivers and how to divide the reduction targets between downstream and upstream countries. Thus, both the upstream and the downstream country have responsibilities for the reduction of loads entering the Baltic Sea via transboundary rivers.

The follow-up of the nutrient reduction targets will be made centrally within HELCOM (HELCOM PRESSURE/STATE) in order to use a harmonized methodology for these assessments. This activity will start in 2014 and it will annually result in a HELCOM Environmental Fact Sheet describing the nutrient load development and how far countries are from their targets. The follow-up reporting by HELCOM will be based on the following information:

1) Annual PLC reports from countries containing N and P loads from monitored river, unmonitored areas and coastal point sources

2) Annual reports from EMEP on normalized nitrogen deposition to the

Baltic Sea, divided per country and sub-basin, from the year 1995..

4.4 Conclusions

• New nutrient reduction requirements (CART) for HELCOM countries were decided at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in October 2013.

• For Russia the new total reduction targets are 10,380 ton N/yr and 3,790 ton P/yr, as compared to the normalized average inputs during the reference period 1997–2003. The targets for nitrogen include both airborne and waterborne inputs, while the phosphorus targets only include waterborne loads.

• The progress towards the nutrient reduction targets will be assessed centrally within the HELCOM system and published annually as a Helcom

Environmental Fact Sheet.

17

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

5 Nutrient input and distance to targets for Russia

5.1 Waterborne input

The follow-up on how inputs to the sea are developed in relation to CART is facilitated by defining a maximum allowable input (MAI) to each sub-basin and country. For a country MAI is then calculated by subtracting the nutrient reduction target from the average normalized input during the reference period 1997–2003. This gives us an input target, expressed as tons per year, that has to be reached in order to fulfill the nutrient reduction targets. Since the new CART takes into account transboundary loads, which was not the case for the 2007 targets, the process of defining an input target is a complicated procedure. Besides, transboundary loads are considered uncertain, so at the moment input targets can only be calculated using national input data as they have been reported to HELCOM so far, i.e. without considering transboundary loads. The waterborne input targets for Russia calculated in this way are shown in table 2.

Table 2. Waterborne nutrient input targets (maximum allowable input) for Russia to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland. Calculations are made without considering transboundary loads.

Input to sub-basins (tons of N or P/yr)

Baltic Proper Gulf of Finland Gulf of Riga

Nitrogen

–Reference load 97-03

–Reduction requirement

–Waterborne input target

Phosphorus

–Reference load 97-03

–Reduction requirement

–Waterborne input target

10,950

2,112

8,838

960

609

351

74,006

8,267

65,739

6,218

3,303

2,915

0

0

0

0

0

0

The proportion between the airborne and waterborne share of the nitrogen reduction requirements differs between sub-catchments. For Russia the waterborne share is 70 % for Baltic Proper and 98 % for Gulf of Finland.

The calculated waterborne input targets in table 2 are not corrected for transboundary loads, which means that no input target can be calculated for the Gulf of Riga. Thus the burden to reduce inputs from transboundary loads falls on the down-stream country. In the future, however, all major transboundary inputs to and from Russia should be monitored and quantified in order to create a follow-up system related to the new targets in table 1.

The waterborne inputs of total-N and total-P from Russia during the period 1994–2010 for Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland are shown in

Annex 2, chapter 3.1

18

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

5.2 Airborne input

Data on emissions and depositions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia in the

HELCOM area are provided every year by EMEP

3

. From 2013 onwards also normalized data on deposition of nitrogen to different Baltic Sea sub-basins per country are available. In the PLC 5.5 project, EMEP delivered normalized data for the period 1995–2010 and these data have been used in this project.

Russia has new reduction requirements for nitrogen deposition to Baltic

Proper, Gulf of Finland and Kattegat. The indicative reduction targets have not been reached for any of the sub-basins. Instead deposition rates have been increased over time, see Annex 2, chapter 3.2. This is probably mainly caused by the fact that EMEP has extended its calculation domain from the year

2007, to cover a larger part of Russia making the reported emissions from

Russia higher. This technical change gives an unfair extra burden on Russia.

This issue has to be brought up in HELCOM groups in order to find a solution for future target revisions.

5.3 Conclusions

• Maximum allowable inputs (MAI) of waterborne nitrogen and phosphorus to sub-basins from Russia have been calculated in order to estimate the distance to targets and the reduction requirements. MAI could only be calculated without considering transboundary loads, and thus no MAI for Gulf of Riga was established.

• The nutrient reduction targets for Russia are especially strict for phosphorus and they require a reduction of inputs by 50–60 % as compared to the reference level 1997–2003. For nitrogen a reduction of 11 % is required for Gulf of Finland and 19 % for Baltic Proper as compared with the reference level during 1997–2003.

• Nitrogen load from Russia to Gulf of Finland is at present about 70,000 tons per year and it has not changed much during the period 1994 –

2010. The distance to target during 2008–2010 is about 5,000 ton/yr.

For phosphorus a considerable reduction has occurred since 2005–2006, corresponding to about 1,500 tons of P/yr. or about half-way to the input target. The temporal development of loads to the Baltic Sea from

Kaliningrad area is uncertain due to lack of data.

• I the PLC 5.5 data set on waterborne inputs, compiled for the 2013

Ministerial Meeting, the Russian data have been reconstructed for the period 1994–2010. This data set was considered the best available, but it may not reflect the true development during the period. Thus, efforts should be made to update and improve it.

• Nitrogen deposition on Baltic Sea sub-basins has been calculated by

EMEP for the period 1995–2010. Contributions from Russia have increased after 2007, mainly depending on the fact that a larger share of Russia was included in EMEP’s calculation domain from that year.

3

The European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme. http:emep.int.

19

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

6 Monitoring and annual reporting to HELCOM

6.1 Reporting requirements

HELCOM reporting requirements on member states are laid down in the PLC

Guidelines. These are presently under revision and will be finalized during

2014 to be used for PLC6. Annual reporting includes the following parts:

1) Point sources discharging directly to the Baltic Sea, divided on:

– Urban wastewater treatment plants

– Industries

– Fish farms

2) Monitored rivers

3) Unmonitored areas

4) Transboundary loads

The monitored parameters include the following groups of parameters: water flow, organic matter, nutrients and heavy metals. Individual parameters are either mandatory or voluntary. Inclusion of some organic pollutants as voluntary parameters is under discussion in the revised guidelines.

6.2 Coastal point sources

Discharges from point sources have not been a primary task of the RusNIP II project, but have been partly covered by Activity 1a in an analysis of obstacles associated with acquisition of reliable data on pollution loads for reporting to

HELCOM.

Russia is obliged to annually submit information on point sources discharging directly into the Baltic Sea to be entered into the PLC database. The information shall be based on the parameters used for the monitored rivers according to the PLC Guidelines.

According to the report concerning identification and analysis of obstacles elaborated within RusNIP II project almost all major point sources discharging directly into the Baltic Sea have monitoring programs for tot-N and tot-P and also several heavy metals in their discharges, see Annex 1.

The PLC database includes 32 point sources in Russia discharging directly into the Baltic Sea (Gulf of Finland and the Central Baltic Sea). The sources include:

– 12 industrial enterprises;

– 20 municipal wastewater treatment plants;

As of 2010, Russia provided to the PLC database information on all point sources, but the data were aggregated, meaning that a total figure on the input

20

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes of substances from all point sources into the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic

Proper (Kaliningrad region) was provided.

The main remaining problem is that discharges are reported in aggregated form. According to the Russian legislation any information on the composition and quantities of wastewater discharged by users of natural resources is confidential and can be disclosed at the discretion of the user of the natural resources. But it should be noted here that almost all natural resource users discharging directly into the Sea are monitoring discharges of N-tot and P-tot.

Analysis of 2006 PLC data showed that, 5 of 12 industrial enterprises failed to submit data on these indicators. The situation with obligatory heavy metal parameters is almost the same as for nutrients. All heavy metals parameters are measured, except for discharges from five industrial enterprises.

6.3 Monitored Rivers

Data for the following five Russian rivers draining to the Baltic Sea have been reported to HELCOM on a regular basis:

Neva – Leningrad region including St Petersburg

Luga – Leningrad region

Seleznevka – Leningrad region

Pregolya – Kaliningrad region

Narva – Border River between Russia and Estonia

The catchments of the rivers Neva, including Ladoga catchment, together with

Luga and Narva cover more than 95% of the Russian part of the area draining into Gulf of Finland. Seleznevka is a very small transboundary river flowing from Finland into the Bay of Vyborg. Data for Seleznevka River were not used in the PLC5.5 project.

Other Russian rivers flowing into the Gulf of Finland that are listed in the

PLC database are: Peschanaya, Polevaya, Sestra, Shingarka, Sista, Strelka,

Tchernaya, Tchulkovka and Voronka. In the PLC 5.5 project these rivers were included in unmonitored areas.

According to an analysis performed within the PLC 5.5 project the following data gaps or other problems concerning nutrient data reported by Russia were identified:

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Pregolya River

1994–2010.

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Seleznevka river

1994–2010.

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Luga River 1994–2000.

– Total nitrogen missing for Neva River 1994–1999.

– The monitored phosphorus load in Neva River seems only to include dissolved fractions some years, although reported as total phosphorus and in other years phosphorus inputs are very high.

21

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

For obligatory heavy metals, data are missing for Pregolya. For Neva and

Luga all heavy metals parameters have been reported, except mercury.

The RusNIP II project has not dealt with issues related to practical water sampling and chemical analyses in rivers. Within the BaltHazAR II project, studies on water monitoring were carried out by SYKE and ILRAS (Institute of Limnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg) and other assigned Russian experts. In the final report of the HELCOM assignment

4

, several recommendations are given based on studies in the test cases Luga,

Roshinka, Pregolya, Neva and Narva rivers.

Some conclusions in this report were:

– Reliable estimates of transported nutrients call for intensive and welltimed water sampling, appropriate sampling techniques, accurate chemical analyses and a suitable load calculation method.

– Flow rate should be measured daily.

– Both total-N, total- P and inorganic fractions should be monitored

– At least 12 samplings per year should be performed.

– Proper monitoring programs should be established for large animal farms.

According to information in Annex 1 many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with successfully and that Russia from now on is able to fulfill HELCOM requirements for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-calibration exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM PLC6 project.

6.4 Unmonitored areas

Russia has not reported loads from unmonitored areas to the HELCOM PLC database. In the Russian part of the catchment of Gulf of Finland the unmonitored areas include coastal areas on both the northern and southern part of the Gulf, covering about 8,300 km2.

.

According to the PRIMER project, the annual inputs of tot-N and tot-P amounted to 2,200 tons and 130 tons, respectively, during the period 2008–2010. These loads would correspond to only about 3% of the total waterborne nutrient load from Russia to the Gulf of Finland. Unmonitored areas cover about 3 % of the whole Russian catchment and about 5% of the population resides here. These areas contain several large animal production units and industrial plants.

In the Kaliningrad region the unmonitored areas amount to 29 %, or about 4,400 km

2

. Here, the relative contribution from areas without regular monitoring should be more significant, relatively seen.

4

HELCOM 2012. BaltHaZAR Project. Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pollution load data from different sources for e.g. HELCOM pollution load compilations http://www.helcom.

fi/helcom-at-work/projects/completed-projects/balthazar/

22

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

6.5 Transboundary loads

Russia does not report to HELCOM on the loads entering the Baltic Sea from

Neman and Daugava (Western Dvina) rivers. This information is available from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, respectively.

The Narva River is a “boundary” river flowing along the territorial border between Russia and Estonia. According to the decision of HELCOM on load sharing regarding the Narva River, Russia also is obliged to provide data on loads, entering the Sea from the Russian part of the catchment basin, to the PLC database. The solution to this problem can be developed by the Joint Russian-Estonian Commission on Protection and Rational Use of

Transboundary Waters. On the Russian side, the Government of the Russian

Federation is responsible for enforcement of the decisions of the above-mentioned Commission. The head of the Rosvodresursy, is co-chairperson of the

Inter-Governmental Commission on the Russian side.

The situation with the Neman River is a more complicated one. The river flows through the territory of Belarus, and as a transboundary river it enters the territory of Lithuania, further on, downstream the river turns into a boundary river between Russia and Lithuania. In the delta, the Matrosovka branch flows out of the Neman River and runs into the Russian territory. The water flow in Matrosovka river accounts for 25% of the total Neman River flow.

It is necessary to reach an agreement with Lithuania about how the

Neman River loads will be split between Lithuania and Russia to be reported to HELCOM.

The Western Dvina River (the Daugava) is a transboundary river, which heads from the territory of Russia, flows through the territory of Belarus and falls into the Gulf of Riga in Latvia. Under the new scheme for nutrient reduction from the HELCOM Contracting Parties Russia also needs to provide the load data for this river.

The Pregolya River is a transboundary river that flows through the territory of Poland and Russia. The mouth of the Pregolya River is located in the territory of Russia. The Russian part of the Pregolya River catchment is about

50%. In the PLC database the load entering the Baltic Sea via the Pregolya

River is allocated to Russia without specifying the share of the load coming from the territory of Poland. However, under the new scheme on nutrient load from the HELCOM Contracting Parties, Poland is obliged to provide load data for the Polish part of the Pregolya River catchment area.

There are two transboundary rivers which not are listed in the HELCOM database (Mamonovka and Vuoksa).

The Mamonovka River is a transboundary river flowing through the territories of Poland and Russia, finally entering into the Vistula Lagoon. As of today, the Mamonovka River is not included as a monitored river in the

HELCOM PLC database. However, in the future, it will be necessary to ensure that the Mamonovka River is included in the database. To determine the contribution from the Russian and Polish territories, delineation and coor-

23

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes dination of load assessments could be carried out within the framework of a

Polish-Russian agreement on transboundary collaboration.

The Vuoksa River is a transboundary river between Finland and Russia.

Vuoksa River flows into the Lake of Ladoga located in the territory of Russia.

Russia has no obligation to provide HELCOM with data on the nutrient loads coming with the Vuoksa River. However, the Observation Network under

FSBI “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring” (NW AHEM) includes a number of stations on the Vuoksa River located near the State border and in the river mouth. The share of the load coming from the territory of Finland can be estimated by comparing the load at the border with the load at the estuarine station.

6.6 Reporting to HELCOM PLC database by Russia

Currently, Russia does not fully fulfill the commitment of the data provision to the PLC database, neither in the annual nor in and periodical reporting.

Details on Russia’s obligations to report to HELCOM (the PLC database ) is given in table 3

Table 3. The present situation of annual and periodical reporting from Russia to the HELCOM PLC.

Annual reporting round

– monitored rivers

– unmonitored territories

– point sources (direct discharges to the sea)

The values for all parameters are given almost in full.

There is a lack of all data.

The values for all parameters are given almost in full (aggregated form)

Periodical reporting round

– point sources (located in the catchment areas of the rivers)

– diffuse sources

– background load

– retention

The values for all parameters are given almost in full.

There is a lack of all data.

There is a lack of all data.

There is a lack of all data.

Gaps in the provision of information for the periodic reporting round show that Russia, having a general idea of the pollution amount, currently owns a weak tool base (regulatory and methodological) to estimate the distribution of the load by source, and hence the adoption of the correct management decisions aimed at reducing nutrients input to the Baltic Sea.

The PLC database is primarily designed to assess the pressure on the Baltic

Sea, and only secondarily to promote the adoption of correct management decisions.

24

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

6.7 Conclusions

There is a lack of methodological basis and responsible authorities for the calculation and assessment of loads from unmonitored areas, diffuse sources, background load and retention. Such a basis is needed in order to be able to make complete source apportionments of loads from Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment rivers to the relevant Baltic Sea sub-basins.

• Russia does not yet fulfill the HELCOM requirements for annual reporting of PLC data. The main gaps are:

– Loads from point sources are given in aggregated form

– Not all obligatory parameters are measured in monitored river

– Unmonitored areas are not reported

• In order to improve the provision of data from Russia to the PLC database it is necessary to establish a regulatory and organizational system that would make it possible to meet the following challenges:

– Lack of regulatory documents approved by the Ministry of Natural

Recourses that would allow to organize acquisition of official data to be submitted to the PLC database;

– Lack of methodological basis as well as a responsible authority in charge of computation and estimation of loads from unmonitored territories, diffuse sources, background load and retention.

– Absence of decisions by bilateral Commissions on transboundary watercourses as a basis for transboundary collaboration in order to determine the contribution of each party to pollution loads on transboundary watercourses.

• Data on point sources discharging directly to the sea are accumulated in

NLWBA, subordinated to Rosvodresursy – a responsible authority for water management. The reason for the aggregated data representation is that under Russian law, information about the composition and the number of discharges from natural resources users is confidential and can be disclosed only with permission.

• The Federal Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service

(Rosprirodnadzor) exercise control and supervision, including control and supervision over users of natural recourses. As part of their control activities they have the right to request the quantitative and qualitative composition of the discharges directly from the natural recourses user.

• Many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with successfully and Russia from now on is able to fulfill HELCOM requirements for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-calibration exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM PLC6 project.

• Unmonitored areas in the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment probably contributes with relatively small loads of nutrients to the Gulf of

Finland in comparison with other sources. The situation in Kaliningrad area is more uncertain but data from the EU BASE project can be used so make preliminary estimates.

25

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

• Particular groundwork concerning unmonitored territories has been done. In particular, work has been done by the Institute of Limnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which in 2013, on request of NLWBA, performed computations of the load coming from unmonitored territories of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland catchment area, and a proprietary mathematical model developed in the Institute was used for that task.

26

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

7 Source apportionment assessment for PLC Periodical

7.1 Purpose of source apportionment

Periodic Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs) of waterborne loads within

HELCOM are made every sixth year. The main purpose of periodical PLCs is to quantify dis charges from point sources and losses from non-point pollution sources as well as from natu ral background losses into inland surface waters within the catchment area of the Baltic Sea located within the borders of the

Contracting Parties. The latest PLC periodical was PLC5

5

that used 2006 as a reference year. PLC6 was planned to use 2012 as a reporting year, but because of work with PLC 5.5 and other projects for the HELCOM Ministerial

Meeting 2013 the reporting period has been shifted to 2014.

Other PLC objectives are to:

• follow up the long-term changes in the pollution load from various sources by normalizing data and making trend analysis with standardized methodologies;

• determine the priority order of different sources of pollutants for the pollution of the Bal tic Sea;

• assess overall the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce the pollution load in the Baltic Sea catchment area;

• Provide information for assessment of long-term changes and the state of the marine en vironment in the open sea and the coastal zones.

The national objectives for PLC are generally the same as those of HELCOM, but a country may e.g. have specific objectives or targets for individual sectors of society that could be analyzed at the same time.

The PLC guidelines are presently under revision and the section concerning periodical reporting has not yet been finalized. Traditionally the source apportionment for nutrients has been performed using two main methodologies:

A. The load approach. Here the starting point is the monitored annual load to the sea (net load) which is divided in four main categories:

– Point sources (coastal and inland)

– Diffuse sources (inland)

– Background losses (inland)

– Transboundary loads

B. The source approach. In this approach the focus is on the load to inland surface waters in the river catchments (gross load) which should be divided on the three main categories as in approach A. These categories could then be divided in sub-categories like:

5

HELCOM 2011. Fifth Pollution Load Compilation. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No 128.

27

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Point sources: industries, municipal wastewater treatment plants and fish farms.

Diffuse sources: agricultural land, forestry, scattered dwellings, peat land, mountain areas, storm water, atmospheric deposition on inland waters,

Background losses; forest land, peat land, mountain areas and part of the agricultural land and atmospheric deposition can be considered natural background losses.

These two approaches will still be included in the new Guidelines, but the main focus are on the source apportionment of net loads to the Sea.

In the PLC 5 assessment

6

(HELCOM 2011) most countries reported their inputs to the Baltic Sea as divided on point sources, diffuse load, natural background load and transboundary load. Most countries also reported source apportioned nutrient losses and discharges to inland surface waters, although only a few countries reported sub-categories. Russia however only reported direct point sources and unspecified riverine load.

7.2 Methods for source apportionment

7.2.1 Source apportionment of riverine input to the sea

The PLC Guidelines suggest a relatively simple method for dividing the riverine input (net load) on different sources in the river catchment, for more details see Annex 2, chapter 5.3. In practice, source apportionment according to this method can only be calculated for monitored rivers, see details in

Annex 2, chapter 5.3.1. If loads from point sources and background loads are available, nutrient loads from diffuse sources can then be calculated as;

Load from diffuse sources = Total load at river mouth – net load from point sources – net load from background sources.

An alternative to this method is to use a numerical computer models.

During the last decade many models have been developed that can simultaneously calculate retention and source apportionment both in the catchment

(gross load) and at the river mouth (net load), see Annex 2, chapter 6.

7.2.2 Source apportionment of loads to inland surface waters

A large amount of data is generally needed in order to produce a complete nutrient source apportionment and the work can be simplified by using a numerical model. There are several tools available, both commercial and free of charge, that can perform source apportionment assessments. In this project we have used two models; the Swedish FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model.

6

HELCOM 2011. Fifth Pollution Load Compilation. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No 128.

28

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

For a large catchment with many sources a first step is to divide the catchment in sub-catchments as a basis for organizing information on land-use, hydrological conditions, point sources and leaching coefficients. In this project, a report has been elaborated, describing the methodology and the indata needed for the FyrisNP model using Luga River as an example, see document

“Luga River, update of input data and set up of FyrisNP model”. The modelling results are described further in Chapter 8 and in more detail in Annex 2,

Chapter 6.

7.2.3 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Retention in river and lakes removes substances from the water body by biological and physical processes. The simplest way of calculating total retention in a catchment is to make a mass balance for the whole river system and calculate retention as the difference between the sum of all inputs at source

(gross load) from the load calculated at the river mouth station (net load).

This approach gives the total retention figure for the whole river system.

Retention may differ between sources due to their location in the catchment, and thus the source apportionment at the coast must take this in consideration. For small rivers this may be less important.

When applying the mass balance approach to a large river catchment the calculations become complicated and using a numerical model may be necessary. Both the FyrisNP model and the ILLM model can calculate retention, but the amount of indata needed is considerable.

In the EU RECOCA project

7

, nutrient retention in surface water (river and lakes) was calculated for practically all major river catchments around the

Baltic Sea, using the MESAW model. MESAW is a statistical model with flexible data needs but it is based on statistics on land use and point sources.

7.2.4 Background loads

Natural background loads to surface waters are defined as losses from land areas that are unaffected by human activities, such as losses from unmanaged land and the share of losses from managed land that would occur irrespective of anthropogenic activities (like agriculture and forestry). Generally, nutrient losses from unmanaged land can be used as an approximation for natural background losses. Unmanaged land areas include:

• unmanaged forest and woodlands;

• unmanaged heathland;

• shrub land;

• unmanaged bogs, wet meadows and wetlands;

• abandoned agricultural land.

7

RECOCA – Reduction of Baltic Sea Nutrient Inputs and Cost Allocation within the Baltic Sea Catchment. A project within the BONUS programme.

29

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Natural background losses can be estimated using different approaches or a combination of approaches. The most common ones are:

A. Monitoring of small unmanaged catchment areas lacking point sources;

B. Monitoring of concentrations of pollutants in soil water or groundwater unaffected by human activity;

C. Use of calibrated nutrient pollution models.

Examples of natural background losses and flow-weighted concentrations of nutrients as reported by HELCOM countries see Annex 2. The variation is considerable and it is difficult to recommend a specific value for an area without detailed information about climate, soils and land cover or water monitoring in unmanaged areas. Forest areas can often be considered as unmanaged land even if some forestry activities take place. Normally, nutrient losses from managed forests do not differ significantly from pristine forests in the same area. Water monitoring data from small forested catchments can thus be used as a basis for estimating background loads.

It is important to realize that also nutrient losses from agricultural land contain a background component. Since arable land generally covers the most fertile soils in a region, the background losses from agricultural land should be higher than from forested areas.

7.3 The situation in Russia

7.3.1 Point sources

When providing information on point sources located in the catchment areas of rivers, we are faced with the same problem described in Annex 1, Section 3.6, namely that from 2008 NLWBA can provide data only in aggregate form, and the only way to get the information is to request it from natural resources users.

As noted in Chapter 6.2 a large number of point sources discharging directly to the sea already monitor discharges of N-tot and P-tot. The situation with point sources located in river catchment areas is less favourable in this respect, but no exact information is available.

The PLC database includes 233 point sources in Russia, located in the catchment areas of rivers, of which 73 sources are industrial enterprises and

160 sources are municipal wastewater treatment plants.

7.3.2 Diffuse sources.

As in the case of unmonitored territories of Russian Federation, there is no regulatory and methodological framework for the regular assessment of the nutrient input from diffuse sources.

30

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

7.3.3 Background load.

Russia does not report on the background loads to the Baltic Sea originating from its territory. To analyze the reasons of the lack of data it is necessary to determine the meaning of the “background load” definition. Leakage from uncultivated land is taken as a background load in the PLC manual. A number of countries provide data on background load value, so in this respect it is necessary to study the experience of foreign colleagues.

7.3.4 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Retention data for some major Russian rivers as well as retention in selected lakes are given in Table 4. The indicated lake retention data were used in the

RusNIP I project when estimating retention of nutrient of discharges from major point sources in the catchments

8

. It was assumed that most of the retention from the point source to the Gulf of Finland occur in lakes.

Table 4. Total retention of selected rivers and lakes in the Russian catchment of the Baltic Sea.

The catchment size refers to the assessed area in the studies and may differ somewhat from the total catchment size.

Water object Data source

Luga

Nitrogen load retention

0.26

Phosphoroud load retention

0.35

Catchment size

(km

2

)

12,100

Narva

Neman

Neva

Pregolya

0.56

0.30

0.74

0.25

0.37

0.40

0.57

58,100

95,900

279,600

84,600

Orback &

Djodjic 2014

Stålnacke et al.

2011

Lakes

Lake Onega

Lake Ladoga

Lake Ilmen

Lake Peipsi

(Chudskoye)

0.3

0.76

0.76

0.53

0.56

Kondratyev

2007

1 , 2008 2

Kondratyev &

Trumball 2012

3

***

***

***

1

Kondratyev, S.A. 2007. Formation of external loading on water bodies; problems of modelling (in

Russian). Nauka. St Petersburg, 255 p.

2

Kondratyev, S.A. 2008. The influence of catchment land covers on phosphorus balance for large freshwater system – in I. Petrosillo et al. (eds.), Use of landscape sciences for the assessment of environmental security. Springer Verlag, 225–235.

3

Kondratyev, S & Trumbull, N. 2012. Nutrient loading on the Eastern Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) from the Russian catchment area. J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 60, 3, 145–151.

8

Swedish Environmental protection Agency 2010. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, Point sources. Results from the RusNIP project.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 6368

31

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Retention is also needed when calculating the input to the sea from transboundary load. When estimating retention in the CART assessment for the 2013 Ministerial meeting retention data from the RECOCA was used.

Figures for Russia are shown in table 5.

Table 5. Transboundary riverine loads from and to Russia and retention used in the CART calculations for the 2014 Ministerial meeting. Loads from Russia to Latvia are already compensated for retention in Belarus. The Finnish loads via Russia were supplied from Finland already with retention taken into account.

From Via To subbasin

Load at border

Tot-N Tot-P

Retention

(fraction)

N P

Load to Baltic

Sea

Tot-N

5,353

Tot-P

49 Finland Russia Gulf of

Finland

Poland Russia Baltic

Proper

Russia Latvia Gulf of

Riga

4,400

2,681

320

316

0.3

0.27

0.37

0.32

3,080

1,957

202

215

Russia did not report on load retention coming from its territory to the Baltic

Sea in PLC5. As in the case of unmonitored territories, Russia has no official regulatory and methodological framework for the calculation of retention in streams and reservoirs in the territory of the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment. In the framework of research projects conducted by the Institute of

Limnology, load retention in waterways and water bodies was studied in the territory of the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment. However, this information is not public, and work to assess retention level is not held regularly.

Appropriateness of the use of this information needs to be discussed.

7.4 Conclusions

• Russia has not delivered data on source apportionment to HELCOM

PLC, neither for riverine nutrient load to the Baltic Sea or for loads to inland surface waters.

• PLC Guidelines offer a relatively simple method for dividing monitored riverine nutrient inputs to the sea into the categories; point sources, diffuse sources and background loads. The diffuse losses can be determined as the difference between estimated discharges and net loads from point sources and net input of background losses.

• To obtain information on discharges from point sources it is necessary to approach each user of natural resources individually.

• Background loads can be determined by monitoring concentrations or loads at the outlet of small forested areas. Background loads from agricultural areas can be estimated by measuring nutrient losses from unfertilized grasslands.

32

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

• There are indicative background leaching coefficients for different land use classes for Sweden see Annex 2. These might be applied in the

Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea if local data are not available.

• Information about retention is needed both for source apportionment of riverine inputs to the sea and for transboundary loads. Several numerical catchment models can be used to calculate retention, e.g. the Swedish

FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model.

• The lack of final decisions on monitoring and assessment from bilateral commissions on transboundary and border rivers on the allocation of nutrient loads prevents the reporting of riverine inputs in a correct way.

33

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

8 Modelling tools and activities

8.1 General about modelling tools

When modeling diffuse loads there is a fundamental need to first organize input data in a geographic referenced database with respect to the river catchments. Geographic Information System tools are fundamental to delineate water catchments and to build up flow networks. All input data for modeling of diffuse load using an available modeling tool need to be geographically connected to the catchments through the database and GIS tool. Once input data have been organized with a catchment a modeling tool can be applied.

Figure 2. Illustration of basic tool boxes in load assessments and pressure analysis.

Common for all modelling tools is that the load calculation process is performed in the same order, which starts with the hydrology by determining the runoff from the catchment. (figure 2). Having determined the runoff, the diffuse load is calculated from the catchment statistics on land cover in combination with data on soils and climate, leaching coefficients of the land cover combined with GIS area, runoff data and atmospheric deposition. Point

source load is normally a list of loads from individual facilities (annual average or temporally distributed) geographically connected to the catchment.

Catchment models should be able to model both the hydrology of the area, i.e. water flow dynamics over time, and pollution transport. A model intended for calculation of load and retention of pollutants and simulate the effects of measures should be deterministic, distributed or semi-distributed and non-stationary. A deterministic model always produces the same result for a given indata set, as opposed to a stochastic model. A model with distrib-

uted parameters solves the model equations for spatially defined points in the model domain and a non-stationary model allows the water flow to vary over time. See Annex 2, chapter 6.

34

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

8.2 FyrisNP model

The FyrisNP model is a dynamic semi-empirical model that has been developed at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, Sweden

9

.

The model calculates source apportioned gross and net transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in rivers and lakes and its main scope is to assess the effects of different nutrient reduction measures on the catchment scale. The time step for the model is in the majority of applications one month and the spatial resolution is on the sub-catchment level. Retention, i.e. losses of nutrients in rivers and lakes through sedimentation, up-take by plants and denitrification, is calculated as a function of water temperature, nutrients concentrations, water flow, lake surface area and stream surface area. The model is calibrated against time series of measured nitrogen or phosphorus concentrations by adjusting two parameters. For more details see Annex 2.

8.2.1 The ILLM model

The ILLM model is a tool for estimating annual nutrient loads on water bodies, developed by the Institute of Limnology, Academy of Sciences in St.

Petersburg

10

. ILLM is a semi-empirical model based on mass balances, assuming that the catchment is a homogeneous storage stank. The temporal resolution of the model is 1 year. All nutrient sources (point and diffuse) located in the catchment adds nutrients to this storage tank, which then releases nutrients to water. Part of the nutrient load is removed with crop yield. The remaining nutrients are partly retained in the hydrographic network (retention in rivers and lakes) while the remaining amount form a load on the receiving water body. For more details see Annex 2, chapter 6.

8.3 FyrisNP course

A three-day Fyris NP course was arranged at SLU in May 2012. The course was attended by 12 Russian participants from 8 authorities/ institutes. The main focus of the course was to learn how the model works and to use it with real data sets. The time was too short to produce new indata for the

Luga river catchment. Before the training course started “The FyrisNP model-

A user´s manual, FyrisNP” model; Step by step manual” and “Lazybones manual – Input data and set-up of FyrisNP model for source apportionment” were available.

Monitoring data from Luga River was made available for the period

2001–2009, only for nitrogen and no phosphorus data. All other indata was produced by the Harmobalt project 2008–2009.

9

Widén-Nilsson, E., Hansson, K., Wallin ,M., Djodjic F., Lindgren G. 2012 B. The FyrisNP model Version

3.2. –Technical description. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. Environmental Assessment.

Rapport 2012:9

10 http://www.limno.org.ru

35

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

Data was available from the hydrochemical monitoring stations in Luga River:

– 8 long-term permanent stations

– 10 new temporary stations established by the Harmobalt project

– 4 additional stations close to point sources

The present delineation of sub-catchment is made for the Harmobalt purpose, and is not optimal for the permanent stations and therefore it was decided to run the model only with Swedish test data at the first course.

8.4 Test cases for modelling

According to the project plan two modelling test cases should be used, Luga

River in Leningrad region and Mamonovka River in Kaliningrad region.

Besides this, some assessments have been performed on the Instruch river catchment in Kaliningrad region. According to the project plan the modelling activities should be performed in cooperation with the BaltHazAR II project as far as possible. This has been done by complementary studies and avoiding double work.

8.4.1 Luga River – Leningrad region

Luga River is besides Neva (including areas upstream Lake Ladoga) the largest river in the Russian part of the catchment of Gulf of Finland. A first assessment of loads and a source apportionment using the FyrisNP model was made during 2007–2009 within the Harmobalt project

11

. Luga is a relatively large

11

Andreev, P.N., Zagrebina, T.A., Muratova, N.A., Tsepelev, V.Y.& Shumkova, P.N. 2009. Report within the framework of the contract “Harmonisation of methods for monitoring and assessment of nutrient loads from land to the Baltic Sea and effects of countermeasures – HarmoBalt. Federal Service for

Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. St. Petersburg.

36

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes river (13,600 km

2

) and the input data need are considerable. The analysis was based on data for 17 sub-catchments and only results for nitrogen was published. The results for phosphorus were considered unsatisfactory.

In the BaltHazAR II the ILLM model was applied to the for the Luga

River catchment using data for the period 2001–2007. The estimated average annual load of nitrogen and phosphorus for the catchment upstream

Kingisepp station was 5,240 tons of nitrogen and 312 tons of phosphorus which fits well with monitoring data. The major nutrient source was losses from manure. In the BaltHazAR report some recommendations are given for improvement of the model, e.g. to estimate specific coefficients for different soil types and land use categorize and to improve the assessment of the nutrient uptake by crops.

In the RusNIP project the FyrisNP model has been set up for the Luga catchment, using a new delineation of sub-catchments. The catchment has been divided into 45 sub – catchments (Figure 3). The new delineation has been created in a way that:

• all measurement points are located in an outlet of a sub-catchment.

• the following model requirements are full filled:

– lakes close to the outlet

– major point sources high up in an sub catchment

– the flow network is optimized

Luga River

0

1

25

2

3

13

4

5

6

11

10

9

12

7

15

8

14

16

19

17

20

50 100 Kilometers

18

21

44

41

43

25

22

35

26

23

27

31

32

24

28

29

30

36

34

40

42

33

39

37

38

45

Figure 3. The new delineation of sub-catchment of the Luga river catchment.

The purpose of this study was to create a hydrologically sound setup of the

FyrisNP model that can be used as an example for future modelling work on monitored rivers in Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea. The indata quality has to be improved further, especially for scattered settlements and agricultural statistics. More recent monitoring data could also be used. For more details see Annex 2 and the report “Luga River, update of input data and set up of Fyris model”.

37

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

8.4.2 Mamonovka river – Kaliningrad region

Mamonovka is a small river with a cross-border catchment of 350 km

2

. The river arises in Poland and enters into the Baltic Sea via the Vistula lagoon in the south-western part of Kaliningrad region. About 60% of the catchment is situated in Poland (Figure 4).

A study on Mamonovka River catchment using the FyrisNP model was performed within the BaltHazar II project

12

. Land use data and discharges from settlements were collected from both the Russian and Polish side.

Leaching coefficients from south-east Sweden were used for the different land cover categories. The catchment was divided in 10 sub-catchments and the hydrological model HYPE was used to obtain data for water flow for each sub-basin. Only one monitoring station for water chemistry data was used in the model calibration for the Russian part of the catchment. It is situated rather close to the river mouth.

Figure 4. Overview of the Mamonovka river catchment

A general conclusion from this study was that the FyrisNP modelling assessment gave very uncertain results because of insufficient or lacking indata.

More specifically the following problems were noted:

– Data were only available for one station, which had low sampling rate, 4–5 times a year and the monitoring program did not contain tot-N and tot-P.

– Uncertain meteorological, hydrological and hydro-chemical data

– Lack of knowledge of soil properties in the catchment

– No site-specific leaching coefficients for land-use coefficients available.

12

Chubareko,B, Domnin, D., Domnina, A. Gorbunova, J. Karmanov, K. Pillipchuk, O. & Trifanenkova,O.

2012. Testing of nutrient load model (FyrisNP) for the River Mamonovka catchment. BalthazAR II project. Component 2.2 Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pollution load data from different sources for e.g. HELCOM pollution load compilations. Appendix 3b. Russian Academy of

Sciences Atlantic Branch of P.P. Shirshov Institute for Oceanology. Laboratory for Coastal Systems Study,

Kaliningrad.

38

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

The RusNIP II project took note of the results from the BaltHazAR II study and considered that a similar study with the same model would not be useful, especially as no additional data were available.

8.4.3 Instruch river – Kaliningrad area

The Instruch River is a tributary to the Pregolya River in the Kaliningrad. It is a relatively small river and its catchment occupies an area of 1,250 km

2

and the total length is 101 km. The Instruch River was studied within the Harmobalt project using the FyrisNP model to assess nutrient loads and source apportionment

13

. In the RusNIP project a new setup of the FyrisNP model was made for

Instruch River catchment during 2013. This was relatively easy since all indata was well documented in the original report. A few minor errors were detected and corrected. Loads and source apportionment were estimated both for nitrogen and phosphorus. The assessment was relatively successful for nitrogen (efficiency 0.39 out of max 1, 00), while it was low for phosphorus.

The ILLM model was also tested using Instruch data, although the data demands are different compared with FyrisNP. Several indata scenarios were run, since it was difficult to extract the information needed by the ILLM model. Some inconsistencies and data errors were found in the report, especially concerning livestock, which constitutes an important input to the ILLM model, but not to FyrisNP. Using the best available indata for the Instruch catchment the ILRAS model gave unrealistic results, meaning negative loads for both nitrogen and phosphorus. According to the HarmoBalt report no mineral fertilizer was used in the catchment, which might be unrealistic. By using data corresponding to mineral fertilizer rate per hectare similar to Luga river catchment more reasonable figures were achieved, at least for nitrogen.

8.5 Conclusions

• There are many modelling tools for calculating nutrient loads and source apportionment in catchments, both commercial and freely available models. Catchment models should be able to model hydrology, pollution transport and retention in rivers and lakes. It should also be able to handle inputs of both point sources and diffuse sources. The choice of modelling tools should be based on the purpose with the assessment and availability of indata.

• In the RusNIP II project we have collected information about the Swedish

FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model. Both models have earlier been used in the HarmoBalt and BaltHazAR projects and applied in the catchments of Luga, Instruch and Mamonovka rivers.

13

Chubareko, B. & Gorbunova,J. 2009. Final report Instruch river. “Harmonization of methods for monitoring, modelling and assessment of nutrient loads from land to the Baltic Sea and off effects of countermeasures – HarmoBalt” Russian Academy of Sciences, Atlantic Branch of P.P.Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Laboratory for Coastal Systems Study. Kaliningrad.

39

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

• The FyrisNP model is a semi-empirical model that has been applied in all three catchments. The overall conclusion is that it works well for monitored catchments and the indata demand is moderate. Good results can be achieved in both small and large catchments (up to 50,000 km

2

). A studied catchment should be divided in sub-catchments, contain several monitoring stations for at least monthly assessments of water flow and nutrient concentrations over several years. Further, discharges for major point sources and scattered dwellings should be available as well as nutrient loss coefficients for identified land cover/land use categories.

• A documented setup of FyrisNP for Luga River has been performed in the project which can serve as an example and a guideline for other rivers reported as monitored to HELCOM PLC.

• The ILLM model has been applied in the Luga (BaltHazAR) and Instruch river catchments. It is a mass balance model that is relatively simple to use and is openly available: http://www.limno.org.ru/eng/mod.htm#num10.

• The ILLM model is most suitable for use in relatively large catchments.

It is best applied in monitored catchments so the result can be compared with monitoring data from the outlet of the catchment, but it can also be extended to areas without river monitoring, i.e. to unmonitored areas.

The accuracy of the result is much dependent on data from agriculture, notably nutrient inputs from manure, mineral fertilizer and nutrient outputs by crop uptake. In small catchments with poor indata the estimated loads may be very uncertain.

• The experiences from ILRAS model applications show that the model is not suitable for use in small catchments and that it is very sensitive for the balance between nutrient inputs from fertilizer and manure one side and uptake by crops in areas with significant agricultural activity on the other side.

• To carry out computations with the use of any mathematical model it’s necessary to have meteorological and hydrological information (information about water discharge, precipitation, air temperature), information on the sources of anthropogenic impact (information about point sources, information on the animals population, the use of fertilizers and areas covered with different modes of land use), etc. To be able to regularly perform such computations it is necessary to establish a system of regular data collection, as part of the State Monitoring System, and to have access to the State statistics data.

40

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

9 A monitoring and assessment system for producing data compliant with HELCOM requirements

9.1 Main components of the system

According to the project plan the RusNIP II project should prepare a report suggesting an improved organizational and environmental assessment system for producing pollution load assessments for HELCOM PLC and follow up of measures taken to fulfill the BSAP requirements. The assessments should cover the main catchments in the Russian Federation draining into the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper and indirectly via transboundary rivers to Gulf of Riga.

A system for monitoring and assessment should contain the following six main components:

1. An organizational structure ; an organization that clearly defines the responsibilities and resources for each organization in the collection, compilation, assessments and delivery of PLC data to HELCOM .

2. Monitored rivers; A program for monitored rivers, including hydrological and hydrochemical stations at river mouths and identified border stations, guidelines for water sampling and load assessment, chemical analytical capacity for obligatory HELCOM parameters, data storage capacity and sufficient funding. This program will supply data for the

PLC annual reporting to HELCOM and serve as a follow-up system for measures taken according to the National Implementation Plan according to the BSAP.

3. Point sources; a mechanism for collecting, compiling and storing discharge data from major point sources. This should be made annually for coastal point sources and periodically for both coastal and inland point sources. This program will supply data for both annual and periodical

PLC reporting to HELCOM.

4. Unmonitored areas; a program for assessing loads from unmonitored areas in the Leningrad region and Kaliningrad region. This program will supply data for both the annual and periodical PLC reporting to

HELCOM

5. Source apportionment: A program for source apportionment assessments, including modelling tools and an agency with mandate to request point and diffuse source information. It should hold expertise at quantifying losses and loads from minor point sources and diffuse sources. This program will supply data to the PLC periodical reporting.

6. Reporting program. An agency/organization that can handle and compile national PLC data to specific reporting formats and be responsible for delivering it as official data to the HELCOM PLC data manager and to

41

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes respond to any further questions and clarifications from the data manager. When the new PLC database at Baltic NEST Institute, Sweden is in operation the task will also include uploading data to the PLC database via a web application and to act as national data reporter and also maintain a data quality assurance function.

9.2 Organisational structure

The present organization defining the roles and responsibilities for each organization in the collection, compilation, assessments and delivery of PLC data to

HELCOM is described in Chapter 3 and Annex 1. At present MNR of Russia is the only authority responsible for the implementation of the commitments under the Helsinki Convention.

Recommendations

• It is necessary to appoint and authorize a leading organization for collecting, compilation, assessment and submitting data to HELCOM for

Pollution Load Compilations.

• It is necessary to develop and approve, in coordination with competent authorities (institutions), the Monitoring Progamme for the surface waters within the Baltic Sea catchment, including hydrological and hydrochemical monitoring sites in the river mouths and selected transboundary sites, as well as rules for sampling and pollution load assessment. The programme should be designed to make it possible to implement chemical analyses of HELCOM PLC obligatory substances, possible to store data at the authorized organization. Besides sufficient funding should be ensured for this purpose. Implementation of this Programme should make it possible to submit full datasets for PLC purposes. Programme results might be used for supervising the BSAP implementation by Russia.

• It is necessary to define and legally approve the mechanism for collection, compilation and storage of data about pollution loads from point sources and submitting it to the HELCOM with the following periodicity – annually for direct point sources and periodically for inland point sources.

• It is necessary to develop a legal framework and implement a programme for assessment of the pollution load from unmonitored (partly monitored) areas in Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions. As the results of the

Programme implementation it will be possible to submit in HELOCOM data for annual and periodical compilations.

• It is necessary to develop and approve a legal framework and also authorize an organization responsible for implementation of the programme:

“Programme for assessment pollution load (from Russian part of the

Baltic sea catchment ) allocation between sources for submitting this information to the PLC HELCOM”. For implementation of the programme it is necessary assess the status of the used modelling tools (models should be registered by corresponding state bodies). It also necessary

42

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes to authorize an organization (body) for requesting information about point and diffuse pollution sources. This organization should have appropriate expert potential for quantitative assessments of pollution load from small point and diffuse sources. Implementation of this programme will allow Russia to fulfill its obligations within periodical PLC reporting.

• An official request is needed from the head authority to the institution

(organization), which has the authority to collect and compile national

PLC data in accordance with reporting formats and which will be responsible for data submitting to the PLC data manager, including responses to his follow-up comments and questions. When the new PLC data base has been established at Baltic NEST Institute (BNI, Sweden), this organization will be managing the functions related to uploading filled-in reporting formats via a web-interface, national reporting implementation and data quality assurance.

9.3 The monitored rivers program, including transboundary rivers

At present the NW Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring (NW AMEM) performs many of these functions for the rivers

Neva, Luga, Seleznevka and Pregolya. The monitoring activities (according to the approved programmes) should be implemented by order from:

Roshydromet, Administrations of Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions, NLWBA.

These monitoring programs are already in operation and they deliver data into the HELCOM system. The prospects for delivering complete and consistent data sets in the future seem to be acceptable. Historically there have been considerable gaps in reported data, regarding consistency and completeness.

Recommendations

• The presently monitored rivers should be included in the program of annually monitored rivers, namely Neva, Luga, Narva, Seleznevka and

Pregolya. Mamonovka River in Kaliningrad area should also be considered as a monitored river, since it is a transboundary river.

• Total nitrogen and total phosphorus should be included as monitored parameters in all monitored river. Heavy metal parameters missing for individual rivers should be supplemented to comply with the obligatory parameters of the PLC Annual reporting requirements.

• It is necessary to define the principles of load distribution for every trans-

boundary and border river running between Russia and neighboring states. This can be done as part of multilateral agreements on cross-border cooperation, on the protection and rational use of transboundary water bodies and as part of various other projects.

• The hydrochemical observation programs at the points of the state network could be complemented, if necessary with additional parameters

43

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes allowing to fully observe the Russian Federation commitments with regard to submission of load data to HELCOM. Participation of the leading research institutes subordinated to the Hydromet (SHI, HCI) is very important. Appropriate changes should be introduced into the state assignments for FSBI Roshydromet “ North-West AHEM” and FGI

Rosvodrsursy. The increased amount of work associated with the changes in the observation programs will require additional funding from the federal budget.

POINT SOURCES PROGRAM

This program is in operation, and most major point sources seem to deliver discharge data much in line with HELCOM requirements. A problem is that data are delivered in aggregated form due to the fact that information about amount and composition of wastewater is considered confidential according to Russian legislation.

Recommendations

• Coastal point sources, urban areas and major industries seem to have rather complete monitoring programs for discharges of nutrients and several heavy metals. Large point sources should be reported individually to the PLC database, while smaller point sources could be reported in aggregated form.

• The Ministry of Natural Resources should issue a mandate for the relevant Russian agency to collect data for individual point sources to be transferred to the HELCOM database. Priority should be given to coastal point sources, since they are reported annually and the loads from coastal point sources constitute an important indicator on progress in reducing the nutrient pressure on the Baltic Sea.

• There are alternative ways of obtaining information on point sources.

Thus, the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources

(Rosprirodnadzor) performs the functions of control and supervision, including the activities of the users of natural resources. As part of its oversight responsibilities this organization has the right to directly request information on the quality and quantity of discharges from users of natural resources. Since the data collection for HELCOM is conducted as part of an international cooperation the responsible organisation, in this case the Rosprirodnadzor Department of the Northwestern Federal District, needs an order from the MNR, in order to collect the necessary information from the users of natural resources.

• A review should be made of present list of 32 coastal point sources directly to the sea and consider if additional point sources should be added to the list. It is important to include large point sources situated close to the coast, either they are situated in monitored areas or downstream the lowest stations in monitored rivers.

44

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

9.4 Program for unmonitored areas

This program does not exist at present, but it should be established as soon as possible.

Recommendations

• Annual reporting of nutrient inputs from unmonitored areas to the Baltic

Sea is obligatory, so a sufficiently accurate methodology has to be developed and a responsible state organization selected, see Annex 2 chapter 4.

• For unmonitored areas the possibility to calculate the load by rescaling the measured load of nearby monitored rivers (method 1) should be investigated, but otherwise a possibility to use several reference rivers with fewer sampling occasions (method 3) could be used initially, for details see Annex 2. Nutrient loads from unmonitored areas should be calculated and reported annually.

• A temporary monitoring program for one or several minor rivers entering the Gulf or Finland should be run for at least a year. The collected data should be a basis for calculating loads for unmonitored areas, for details see Annex 2.

• In the Kaliningrad area loads from unmonitored areas could be calculated, at least initially by using Pregolya River as a reference river, but the possibility to use data and experiences from the EU BASE project should be considered. Arrangement should be made to facilitate the categorization of assessment products (calculated data), including loads from unmonitored areas, as official data.

9.5 Program for source apportionment

This aim of this program should be to deliver data and information for the periodical reporting. This program does not exist in Russia at present, but it should be established in time for delivering data to PLC 6, which should be reported in 2015.

Recommendations

• A program for source apportionment, including retention in rivers and lakes, should be developed in a way that it contributes to better load data, also for unmonitored areas. The use of numerical models should be supported and introduced as part of the monitoring system.

• The model FyrisNP, or a similar model, should be set up for long-term use in all monitored rivers; Neva (downstream Ladoga), Luga, Narva and

Pregolya. For Narva River this issue must be negotiated with Estonia.

• In the RusNIP II project, a setup of the FyrisNP model has been established for Luga River and it should be used as a model setup for other monitored rivers. A number of persons from Russian state agencies and research institutes have been trained in using this model, both in the

HarmoBalt and RusNIP II projects. A report produced within this project

45

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes includes most of the necessary indata, but there is still a need for supplementing and improving these data and especially for collecting more sitespecific information.

• For source apportionment of unmonitored rivers and coastal areas the ILLM (ILRAS) could also be used, but then the model should be improved according to proposals in section 8 of Annex 2. This model is best applied in monitored catchments where the calculated loads can be calibrated using monitoring data. Thereafter the model can also be used in similar areas without river monitoring, i.e. in unmonitored areas. The accuracy of the result is much dependent on data from agriculture, notably nutrient inputs from manure, mineral fertilizer and uptake by crops.

In small catchments with poor indata the estimated loads may be very uncertain.

• Indicative background leaching coefficients for different land use classes for Sweden is available in Annex 2. These, or other relevant data, should be applied in the Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea if local data are not available.

9.6 Reporting program

At present the SbP PO “Ecology and Business” requests necessary data for reporting from state agencies and coordinates this information through the Department of International Cooperation of the Ministry of Natural

Resources and then submits the data to HELCOM. Employees of Ecology and

Business are also members in relevant HELCOM groups dealing with PLC issues (PRESSURE etc.), as well as projects like PLC5.5, PLC6 and PLUS. This coupling between HELCOM groups and the national reporting organization has been very useful.

Recommendations

• Reporting (annual and periodical) is part of the data supply system, and as stated in section 9.2 concerning the whole organization it is necessary to prepare and approve legal documents by the MNR, which establish obligations for performers at all levels of participation and the provision of information in the framework of the Helsinki Convention on a regular basis.

• The Ministry of Natural Resources should give a mandate to a state agency to acquire official data to be collected and sent to HELCOM. This agency should host the function of quality assurance of the data delivered.

• The responsibility for monitoring and assessment programs (monitored rivers, point sources, unmonitored areas, source apportionment) and a reporting program which can handle and compile national PLC data should be placed in the responsible agency .

• It is necessary to foresee enough funding for complete fulfilment of the

Russian obligations for submitting information to the HELCOM PLC database.

46

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

10 Documents produced by the

RusNIP II Project

The following reports and other documents have been produced within the RusNIP II project. All documents are available at: http://www.helcom.ru/RusNIP/reportsrusnipII

1. Final report (this report); Proposals for a monitoring and assessment system of pollution loads to the Baltic Sea according to HELCOM PLC requirements. (English and Russian)

2. Obstacles Report; Identification and analysis of the precursors underlaying the obstacles associated with the development of reliable data on pollution loads in Russia Annex 1. (English and Russian)

3. Technical report; Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment for HELCOM pollution load compilations –

Proposals for Russia. (English and Russian). Annex 2.

4. Luga River; update of input data and setup of FyrisNP model (English).

5. Indata and result files (EXCEL for Luga River (English)

6. The FyrisNP model – A user´s manual (English and Russian)

7. FyrisNP model – Step by step manual (English and Russian)

8. Lazybones manual – Input data and setup of FyrisNP model for source apportionment (English and Russian).

47

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Annex 1

Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for HELCOM

Pollution Load Compilations

Including data on loads from the Russian Baltic Sea catchment area, the share of responsibilities between authorities at different levels and other stakeholders and lack of funding and/or legal problems

Valentina Varlashina, NW Department of the Roshydromet and

Ekaterina Vorobyeva, Natalia Oblomkova and Alexandra Kapustina,

SPb PO “Ecology & Business”

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

49

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

53

RUSSIAN FEDERATION STATE AUTHORITIES AND THE

INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING

AND SUBMITTING LOAD DATA TO HELCOM FROM THE

RUSSIAN BALTIC SEA CATCHMENT AREA

Ministry of Natural resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation (MNR)

The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring (Roshydromet)

Department of The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and

Environmental Monitoring in the North-West Federal District

(Department of Roshydromet NWFD)

North-West Administration for Hydro-meteorology and

Environmental Monitoring” Federal State Budgetary Institution

(FSBI “North-West AHEM”)

Federal Agency for Water Resources (Rosvodresursy)

Neva Ladoga Water Basin Administration (NLWBA)

Federal state water institutions (FSI) "Baltvodhoz", "Pskovvodhoz",

"Novgorodvodhoz" and others

54

54

55

60

61

62

63

65

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

FULFILLMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS BY THE RUSSIAN

FEDERATION REGARDING DATA SUBMISSION AS PART

OF THE POLLUTION LOADS COMPILATION

Transboundary rivers (Narva, Neman, Daugava (Western Dvina) and Pregolya)

Monitored rivers

Partially monitored rivers

Unmonitored rivers

Unmonitored territories

Point sources discharging directly into the sea

Point sources located in the catchment areas

Diffuse sources

Background load

Load retention

4 CONCLUSIONS

68

APPENDIX 1 Outline map that shows observation stations under the State

Observation System and the point sources that discharge directly into the Gulf of Finland and Vistula Bay, and that are included into the PLC database 80

73

73

74

75

68

70

73

76

77

77

78

51

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

APPENDIX 2 Extract from the “Program of observations, carried out by the State

Observation System, of inland surface water pollution in accordance with hydrological and chemical indicators in the area supervised by the North-West AHEM (St. Petersburg, Leningrad, Novgorod, Pskov,

Kaliningrad Oblast and the Republic of Karelia) for 2013 – 2017 81

APPENDIX 3 Summary report on the State contract № 20/12 - 200 of 11.2012, on the performance of the following services by the Institute of

Limnology RAS: “RESEARCH AND COMPUTATION OF NUTRIENT

LOAD COMING FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TERRITORY

INTO THE BALTIC SEA (I-12-75)” 86

52

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

1 Introduction

To elaborate the environmental protection policy and to assess the efficacy of measures for reducing the nutrients and pollutants effluence from the Russian

Baltic Sea catchment area it is necessary to have reliable data on the inputs from the land-based sources, based on the water quality monitoring results from water bodies (surface water and marine water).

Within the framework of the Helsinki Convention these issues could be addressed by compiling water pollution loads data. In fact, the compilation of water pollution loads is basically a database (database PLC) that contains information about the loads of pollutants released into the Baltic Sea from the

Convention Contracting Parties territories.

Database update is performed as part of the annual and periodic reporting rounds by the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention. The completeness and accuracy of the load data submitted by the Contracting Parties is the key factor for decision-making aimed to reduce anthropogenic loads on the

Baltic Sea and to provide good environmental status of the sea.

As part of the annual reporting round, the Contracting Parties shall submit reports on the total load of nutrients and hazardous substances (Annual indicators reports) to the HELCOM, which include:

• loads entering with monitored rivers;

• loads entering from unmonitored territories and with runoffs from unmonitored rivers;

• loads from point sources discharging directly into the Baltic Sea.

Every six years, the Contracting Parties shall submit more detailed reports to the HELCOM that in addition to the information acquired annually include the following data:

• loads from point sources located in the catchment areas of the rivers;

• loads from diffuse sources located in the catchment areas of the rivers;

• natural background loads (coming with watercourse + from unmonitored territories);

• retention in the catchment area hydrographic network.

The next chapter of this report provides information on the powers of Russian

Federation State Authorities, as well as on the institutions and organizations under various agencies involved in the process of collecting and submitting data to HELCOM, including for the purpose of compiling loads from water pollution in the Russian Baltic Sea catchment area.

53

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

2 Russian Federation State

Authorities and the institutions involved in the process of collecting and submitting load data to HELCOM from the Russian Baltic Sea catchment area

2.1 Ministry of Natural resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation (MNR)

In accordance with the Regulatory legal act, with subsequent amendments and additions, approved by the Russian Federation Government Ordinance N 404 of 29 May 2008, “the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the

Russian Federation (MNR) is a Federal body of executive power, responsible for development of the State Policy and legal and regulatory framework in the area of study, usage, rehabilitation and protection of natural resources, including mineral resources, water bodies…in the area of hydrometeorology and related fields, in the sphere of environmental monitoring and pollution monitoring, including regulation of radiation control and monitoring, and as well with regard of development and implementation of public policy and legal regulations in the area of environmental protection ... including issues relating to waste production and consumption (hereinafter – the waste), to governmental environmental control, to protected areas and State Environmental

Impact Assessment.”

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation coordinates and controls the activities of its subordinated agencies, namely The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring (Roshydromet), The Federal Service for Supervisory Control in the sphere Environmental Management (Rosprirodnadzor), Federal Agency for Water Resources (Rosvodresursy) and Federal Agency for Subsurface

Resources Management (Rosnedra).

With regard to the state monitoring of the water bodies the MNR of the

Russian Federation establishes requirements for environmental and pollution control and observations, for the acqusition, processing, storage and distribution of information about the environment and pollution status, as well as for obtaining information products.

54

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation organizes and, within its competence, ensures the fulfillment of commitments subsequent to the international agreements the Russian

Federation is a party to on issues within the scope of activities of the Ministry.

The MNR is the only official body responsible for providing the Baltic Sea pollution load data to HELCOM.

2.2 The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet)

The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring

(Roshydromet) is a federal executive authority responsible for the state property management and delivering of public services in the field of hydrometeorology and related areas, including environmental and pollution monitoring, in the field of the State supervisory control over active impact on meteorological and other geophysical processes.

Roshydromet operates directly and through its territorial bodies and subordinated organizations in collaboration with other federal executive authorities, federal executive authorities of the regions of the Russian Federation, local authorities, public associations and other organizations. Its competence within the established field of activity includes (among others) the following areas:

• State accounting of surface waters and management of the State Water

Cadasteral register of the surface water bodies in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and (within the scope of its competence);

• Maintenance of the Unified State Data Fund on the status of the environment and pollution (USDF);

• Establishment and maintenance of the National Observation Network, including organization and cessation of stationary and mobile observation points, determination of their location;

• State monitoring of water bodies with regard to the surface water bodies;

• State monitoring of the continental shelf in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation (within the scope of its competence);

• State monitoring of the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation

(within the scope of its competence);

• Ensuring operations at the points of meteorological observations in the

Russian Federation territory and functioning of the system for receiving, collection and dissemination of hydrometeorological information;

• Provision of emergency information releases on natural hazards, on actual and projected sudden weather changes and pollution that could threaten life and health of the population and damage the environment;

• Provision of information for the State authorities, Armed Forces of the

Russian Federation, as well as for the public on actual and projected status of the environment and pollution.

55

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

The Russian Federation Government Ordinance N 477 of June 6, 2013

“About implementation of the State environmental and pollution monitoring” approved the Regulatory act on the State environment and pollution monitoring, as well as the changes introduced into the Regulatory acts of the of the

Russian Federation Government in connection with its (the Regulation) entering into force. This Regulation establishes the procedure for implementation of the state monitoring of the environment and pollution (hereinafter – the

State monitoring), as well as the procedure for developing the State environment observation system (hereinafter – the State Observation System) and the procedure providing operation of the system. The targets of the state monitoring are as follows: atmosphere air, soil, surface waters of the water bodies

(including hydrobiological indicators), the ozone layer, the ionosphere and near-Earth space.

In accordance with the Regulation, “the organization and implementation of the state monitoring are provided by The Federal Service for

Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring with participation of other authorized federal executive bodies and executive bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in accordance with their competence established by the legislation of the Russian Federation. The State monitoring is based on the

State observation system, which incorporates stationary and mobile units for environmental observations”.

The State Observation System incorporates the State Observation Network, the elaboration and functioning of which is provided by The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. The State System comprises as well as the territorial systems of the environmental observations, the formation and maintenance of which is carried out by the executive authorities of the Russian Federation in accordance with the established procedure. When developing the State Observation system it is necessary to take into account the points and systems for environmental observations located in the vicinity of facilities that have a negative impact on the environment, while the owners of those facilities (in accordance with the federal laws) are obliged to carry out environmental and pollution monitoring in the zones exposed to such facilities (hereinafter – the local Observation Systems).

The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring together with other authorized Federal executive bodies and executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the scope of their competence established by the legislation of the Russian

Federation, when implementing the State monitoring exercise the following functions: a) The Service provides environmental and pollution observations, assessment of the changes taking place, as well as analysis of the following weather hazards and factors:

• natural hazards resulted in natural disasters;

• unfavorable natural conditions for specific areas of economic activities;

56

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

• chemical, radioactive and thermal pollution; physical, chemical and biological (for surface water bodies) processes;

• changes in environmental components resulting, among other things, in climate change; b) The Service provides the state authorities of the Russian Federation, bodies of the state power of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-governments with the information (data) about the actual status of the environment, as well as information on the current and projected changes in the environment status; c) The Service provides the federal executive bodies, executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local authorities and organizations within the national system of prevention and liquidation of emergency situations with the latest current and prognostic updated information about the status of environment in order to ensure public safety and security, and to reduce damage to the economy resulted from emergency situations of natural and man-made disasters; d) The Service provides the agencies, authorized to execute the Federal state sanitary and epidemiological supervisory control, with the information about the status of environment in order to meet the challenges of sociohygienic monitoring; e) The Service provides the state agencies of the Russian Federation, that have special authorization in the field of environment, with information for comprehensive analysis and assessment of the environmental status and natural resources; f) The Service provides involved organizations and population with current and emergency information on environmental changes including weather warnings and forecasts of environmental status; g) The Service organizes coordinated operations of the State monitoring network, territorial systems for environmental observations and local surveillance systems to provide the necessary completeness and accuracy of information on the status of the environment, the Service is as well responsible for the comparability of this information throughout the country, it provides optimization of the ground-based, airborne and space-based observation systems; h) The Service coordinate operations of the State Observation System and similar international systems.

The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring keeps the Unified State Data Fund on the status of the environment and pollution (USDF) according to the established procedure and on the basis of documentary data on the status of the environment and pollution acquired by the

State Observation System. Since Roshydromet operates directly and through its regional offices in collaboration with other Federal executive bodies, executive bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local authorities,

57

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations public associations and other organizations, the organizational structure of

USDF consists of two levels – Federal and territorial.

The Territorial level incorporates Administrations for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (AHEM), regional and republic Centers for

Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (CHEM) as components of the Roshydromet structure.

USDF documents are mostly generated in the Observational network organizations, research institute of Roshydromet; the documents also are generated as a result of operations by other stakeholders in the field of hydrometeorology and related fields (organizations are holders of Roshydromet licensees). The collection of these documents is carried out in accordance with the hydrometeorological and monitoring information technological processing cycles. The cycles regulate the timing of collection and processing, document formats and nomenclature of the USDF documents. From the Observation

Network USDF documents are entered into the Center of hydrometeorology and monitoring of the environment and /or into Territorial Administration for Hydrometeorological and Environmental Monitoring (FSI AHEM); from the AHEM the collated and prepared for archiving documents are archived in

AHEM and /or in FSI “RIHMI-WDC” and other specialized research institutes of Roshydromet.

Data received from foreign partners are entered into USDF through international exchange on the basis of bilateral and multilateral agreements.

The responsibility of USDF maintenance, including the depository storage of the observation materials at the Federal level, is assigned to the following

Roshydromet research institutes:

• Hydrological observations are the responsibility of “The State

Hydrological Institute” (SHI) Federal Budget State Institution (FSBI);

• Hydrochemical observations over the quality of the inland surface waters are the responsibility of “Hydrochemical Institute” (HI) Federal Budget

State Institution;

• Hydrobiological observations are the responsibility of the “Institute of

Global Climate and Ecology” FSBI (IGCE);

• The quality monitoring of marine waters is the responsibility of the “State

Oceanographic Institute” FSBI (SOI).

Note: At the present time, a new structural unit – the “Baltic information and analytical center”– focused on activities in the water area of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland and South-Eastern part of the Baltic Sea was set up as part of the “State Oceanographic Institute” FSBI (SOI) by order of Mr. A.V.

Frolov, who is the Head of Hydromet.

58

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, when carrying out the State monitoring, interacts with the following (among others) Federal executive bodies:

• The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian

Federation – with regard to organization and implementation of the state ecological monitoring (the State environmental monitoring) in the territory of the national nature reserves and national parks, as well as when developing and operating the National Fund of the National Ecological

Monitoring Data (State environmental monitoring);

• The Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters with regard to obtaining and using information about the status of the environment during monitoring, laboratory control and forecasting of emergency situations;

• The Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation – with regard to obtaining and using information about the status and pollution of agricultural lands acquired in the course of the State monitoring of agricultural lands;

• The Federal Service for Supervisory Control of Natural Resources – with regard to the use of data of the National accounting of the facilities that have a negative impact on the environment, the results of production control in the field of environment and the State ecological supervisory control, as well as for the establishment and revision of the list of facilities, the owners of which must monitor the atmospheric air;

• The Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastere and Cartography

– with regard to the use of the state topographic maps and information about the status of lands obtained through the state land monitoring

(except agricultural land);

• The Federal Service for Supervisory Control of Consumer Rights

Protection and Human Welfare, Federal Medical and Biological Agency

– with regard to obtaining and using information about the status of the air, surface water, water bodies and soils, generated through socialhygienic monitoring;

• Federal Agency for Water Resources – with regard to the acquisition and use of data on water consumption and water disposal at all water bodies, as well as with regard to the overall evaluation and prediction of changes in the water bodies status, their morphometric specificities, quantitative and qualitative indicators of the status of water resources, acquired through the State monitoring of the water bodies;

• Other involved Federal executive bodies and organizations acting in accordance with international and interagency agreements.

59

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

2.3 Department of The Federal Service for

Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring in the North-West Federal

District (Department of Roshydromet

NWFD)

Department of the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring in the North-West Federal District (Department of Roshydromet in the NWFD) is a territorial body under Roshydromet; it conducts activities in the North-West Federal District of the Russian Federation. The Department of Roshydromet exercises general supervision and control over the work of the Observation Network organizations in the North-West Federal District.

Below the competences of the Department (among others), within the specified field of activities are specified. These competences are executed by the Department on the basis of regulatory legal acts by the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and Roshydromet, including when executing departmental and licensing supervisory control of the activities of the institutions subordinated to Roshydromet (hereinafter – departmental control), also during supervision of the activities of organizations and institutions that are holders of Roshydromet licensees with regard to:

• compliance with the requirements during environment and pollution observations, in the course of collection, processing, storage and dissemination of information about the status of the environment and pollution;

• development and maintenance of the State Observation Network, including organization and termination of the stationary and mobile observation points, and determination of their positioning;

• assessment of the quality of the performance of the State Observation

Network, including awareness-building efforts;

• issuing of emergency information on natural hazards, actual and projected sharp weather fluctuations and on extremely high environmental pollution that may threaten the life and health of the population and damage the environment – to submit the information to the Plenipotentiary

Representative of the President in the North-West Federal District, to

Commander of the Western Military District of the Armed forces of the

Russian Federation and to the territorial bodies of the Federal executive authorities in the North-West Federal District;

• day-to-day management and coordination of the activities of the institutions subordinated to Roshydromet in terms of providing the

Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the North-West Federal District, Commander of the Western Military

District of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and territorial bodies of the Federal executive power in the North-West Federal District with hydrometeorological information and data on the status of the environment and pollution, including emergency information;

60

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

• informing users (consumers) on the composition of the provided information about the environment and pollution, on the formats of the presentation of this information and on organizations that inform the users

(consumers);

• participation, within the scope of its competence, in the implementation of commitments by the Russian Federation under international conventions;

• interaction, in accordance with the established procedure, with the authorities of foreign countries and international organizations in the specified sphere of activity.

2.4 North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring” Federal State Budgetary

Institution (FSBI “North-West AHEM”)

The “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring” Federal State Budgetary Institution (FSBI “North-West AHEM”) is operational and production structure of Roshydromet, and it operates in the territory of St. Petersburg, the Leningrad region, Novgorod region,

Kaliningrad region, Pskov region and Republic of Karelia. FSBI “North-West

AHEM”, it managers the operation of the Observation Network, including the operation of the hydrological network and that of the monitoring network for the status and pollution of water bodies of the Leningrad region and

St. Petersburg; as for the territories of the Pskov region, Novgorod region,

Kaliningrad regions and the Republic of Karelia, the FSBI “North-West

AHEM” operates their through its subsidiaries in the respective constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The territory of the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment is almost confined to the area of the competence of the

Administration.

Objectives of FSBI "Northwest AHEM" are as follows:

• Maintenance and development of the State system of hydrometeorological observation and monitoring of environmental pollution, as well as collection, processing, recording, storage and dissemination of information about the status of the environment;

• Ensuring the state authorities, sectors of economy, Armed Forces of the

Russian Federation and the public with the information on the actual and projected state of the environment and the monitoring data on environmental pollution;

• Ensuring operations of the Operational Warning and Alert systems on the occurrence of natural hazards (hydrometeorological, helio-geophysical) phenomena and extremely high levels of radioactive and chemical contamination of the environment; it also ensures hydrometeorological support for the operations associated with the liquidation of the consequences of accidents, natural disasters and other emergencies.

61

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

• Ensuring specialized meteorological support and special-purpose operations in the area of hydrometeorology and monitoring of environmental pollution on a remuneration basis.

• Participation, in accordance with the established procedure, in the scientific research and developments in the area of hydrometeorology and environment monitoring and pollution.

• Discharge, within the scope of its competence, of international obligations in the area of hydrometeorology and related fields.

• Control, within the scope of its competence, over compliance with the requirements of regulatory documents on hydro-meteorological observations and operations, control over observations of environmental pollution conducted by the structural units subordinated to the Agency.

• Generation of information on the status of the environment and pollution and ensuring that the involved users are provided with the necessary information, in accordance with established procedures, including provision of the information for a fee on a remuneration basis.

• Ensuring maintenance of the state monitoring of water bodies, National accounting of the water and keeping the State Water Cadaster that incorporates quantitative and qualitative indicators (for surface waters).

• Ensuring generation of the Unified State Data Fund on the status of the environment, and pollution within the territory of the activity (territorial level of USDF maintenance).

• Drafting and generation of materials for monthly publications, annuals, newsletters and other synthesis documents that specify the status of the environment and pollution.

2.5 Federal Agency for Water Resources

(Rosvodresursy)

The Federal Agency for Water Resources (Rosvodresursy) is a Federal executive authority responsible for providing public services and management of Federal property in the area of water resources. The Agency for Water

Resources is under the authority of the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Ecology of the Russian Federation. The Agency operates directly or through its regional bodies (including Basin Administrations), and through subordinated organizations in collaboration with other Federal executive bodies, executive bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local authorities, public associations and other organizations.

The Federal Agency for Water Resources exercises (among others), within the established sphere of its activities, the following functions:

• The Agency ensures measures to prevent negative impacts of waters and mitigate the consequences for aquatic facilities of Federal ownership that are confined to two or more constituent entities of the Russian

Federation;

62

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

• The Agency ensures measures to protect water bodies that are entirely confined to the territories of the relevant Russian Federation constituent entities, when water resources of such an entity are used to provide two and more Russian Federation constituent entities with drinking and domestic water supply in accordance with the list of such reservoirs, specified by the Government of the Russian Federation; ensuring measures on protection of the seas or their parts, prevention their pollution, infestation and depletion of water; ensuring measures for mitigating consequences of the above mentioned phenomena;

• The Agency maintains the National water registry, including the State level registration of water use agreements, of decisions on making water bodies available for use, of transfer of rights and obligations under the contracts for water use, as well as of termination of water use contracts;

• The Agency maintains the Hydraulic Structures Register;

• The Agency is responsible for owing, use and disposal of water bodies that belong to the Federal property – in the manner and within the limits defined by the legislation of the Russian Federation;

• The Agency develops and executes schemes, in accordance with the established procedure, for comprehensive use and protection of water bodies;

• The Agency is responsible for the State Monitoring of water bodies and the organization of its implementation;

• The Agency develops automated systems for collection, processing, analysis, storage and delivery of information about the status of water bodies, water resources, mode, quality and water use in the Russian Federation in general, for its individual regions and river basins, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation;

• The Agency is engaged, in accordance with the established procedure, in cooperation with the authorities of foreign countries and international organizations in the specified above sphere of activity.

2.6 Neva Ladoga Water Basin Administration

(NLWBA)

Neva-Ladoga Basin Water Administration (Neva-Ladoga WBA) is a territorial body under the Federal Agency for Water Resources acting at the interregional level. Neva-Ladoga WBA also delivers public services and ensures management of Federal property regarding water resources: the functions are entrusted to the Federal Water Resources Agency with regard to the basins of the rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea: the Neva River, the Narva River and others located in Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad region, as well as in Kaliningrad region, Novgorod and Pskov regions and the Republic of Karelia, where the departments of water resources, which are structural units of the

Administration, are located.

63

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

The main functions of the Administration are as follows:

• The Administration implements measures to prevent adverse impacts of waters and to mitigate the consequences of such impacts for aquatic facilities of Federal ownership that are confined to two or more constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are comprised into the area of the named Administration activities;

• The Administration provides water reservoirs, that are entirely confined to the relevant territories of the Russian Federation constituent entities, when water resources of such entities are used for providing drinking and domestic water supply for two or more constituent entities of the

Russian Federation; the above could refer to some parts of such water reservoirs in accordance with the list of such reservoirs, established by the

Government of the Russian Federation; it also could be referred to allocation the seas or their parts for use – on the basis of water use agreements, or on the basis of decisions on allocation of water bodies for use in the

Administration area of activities;

• The Administration operates water reservoirs and multi-purpose water systems, protective and other hydraulic structures under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Resources Agency, and it ensures their safety and security;

• The Administration develops and implements, in accordance with the established procedure, the scheme for comprehensive usage and protection of water bodies;

• The Administration ensures measures for water reservoirs protection that are entirely confined to the relevant territories of the Russian Federation constituent entities, when water resources of such entities are used for providing drinking and domestic water supply for two or more constituent entities of the Russian Federation in accordance with the list of such reservoirs, established by the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as for the protection of seas or their parts to prevent their pollution and depletion; the functions also include implementation of measures to eliminate the consequences of the above named phenomena within the

Agency area of responsibility;

• The Administration delivers information to the stakeholders interested in the data from the State Water Registry in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation;

• The Administration maintains the State Water Registry, the Russian

Register of Hydraulic Structures; organization and implementation of the

State monitoring of water bodies in accordance with the legislation of the

Russian Federation.

64

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

• Responsibilities of Neva-Ladoga WBA incorporates water and water quality management, and include coordination of various participants of the water bodies monitoring, water users when they are provided with qualitative and quantitative data on the discharged waste waters.

Generalized and verified data presented in the format approved by the state statistical reporting system – “2-TP (vodhoz)” are submitted annually to the Federal Agency for Water Resources and to the bodies of the

Federal Agency for State Statistics.

2.7 Federal state water institutions

(FSI) "Baltvodhoz", "Pskovvodhoz",

"Novgorodvodhoz" and others

These institutions are operating under the authority of the Federal Agency for

Water Resources. Their activities are connected with collection, processing, storage, generalization and analysis of data obtained in the cause of observations over water objects of Federal importance in order to provide relevant information for Rosvodresursy and NLWBA for maintaining the State

Monitoring of facilities.

FSI "Baltvodhoz" and the FSI "Pskovvodhoz" subordinated to

Rosvodresursy also carry out the State monitoring of natural water resources of transboundary water bodies, in particular water bodies in the Narva

River catchment areas. Apart from the Federal Agency for Water Resources, observations are transmitted to FSBI “North-West Administration for

Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring” (NW AHEM) of

Roshydromet with the aim of entering the data on the status of the environment and pollution into the Unified State Data Fund (USDF).

Water users (municipal associations, industrial enterprises, etc.) independently control the composition of their wastewater and water quality of water bodies – water intake structures at control and background stations (local monitoring). Monitoring data are submitted to the territorial body of the

Federal Water Resources Agency (in our case – to NLWBA) and to territorial departments for water resources in accordance with the format for reporting approved by the State statistical system – “2-TP (vodohoz)”1 reporting form.

Figure 1 shows a scheme illustrating interactions between the government of the Russian Federation and the institutions (organizations) subordinated to various agencies involved in the process of collecting and submitting data to

HELCOM, including for the purpose of compiling loads of water pollution in the Russian Baltic Sea catchment area.

65

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment of the Russian Federation

(MNR)

The Federal Service for

Hydrometeorology and

Environmental monitoring

(Roshydromet)

Observation data transfer

The Federal Agency for

Water Resources

(Rosvodresursy)

Department of

Roshydromet within the

North-West Federal

District, Hydromet SRI

(SHI, HCI, SOI, IGCE ...)

Control of data availability and quality of environmental waters monitoring data, data integration

Neva Ladoga Water Basin

Administration (NLWBA);

Rosvodresursy

FSBI “North-West

Administration for

Hydrometeorology and

Environmental Monitoring”

(NW AHEM), organizations which have the licenses from

Roshydromet (Sevmorgeo

LLC)

Collection and transmission of quality of surface inland waters and marine waters observation data within the system of the state monitoring, data collection from point sources of pollutants that discharge into water bodies

FSI “Baltvodohoz”,

FSI “Pskovvodohoz”, etc

Figure 1. The scheme shows interactions between the Government of the Russian Federation and the institutions (organizations) under various agencies involved in the process of collecting and submitting data to HELCOM, including for the purpose of compiling loads of water pollution in the

Russian Baltic Sea catchment area.

66

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

On behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the

Russian Federation (MNR), the SPb PO “Ecology and Business” (Saint-

Petersburg public organization) participates in the procedure of the observations data transmission to HELCOM for the purpose of adding the data to the PLC database. The employees of the “Ecology and Business” are contact persons in the HELCOM working and expert groups (HELCOM PRESSURE and earlier HELCOM LAND and LOAD groups, etc.) In accordance with the decisions taken at the meetings of these groups, the SPb PO “Ecology and

Business” develops reports indicating the data to be submitted to HELCOM; the reports subsequently are forwarded to the MNR Department in charge of International Cooperation. On the basis of these reports submitted by the

“Ecology and Business” the Department of International Cooperation generates queries for particular data to be submitted and forwards the requests to the appropriate agencies. Data, received back by the Department of

International Cooperation from those agencies in retaliation for the queries, after being coordinated, is forwarded to the SPb PO “Ecology and Business” for inclusion in the HELCOM format, and finally the data is forwarded to

HELCOM.

Conclusions and proposals:

1) The MNR of Russia is the only Authority responsible for the implementation of the commitments under the Helsinki Convention, including data communication.

2) In accordance with the above scheme, the procedure of data collection and data transmission to HELCOM is a long and nonlinear one (it includes a large number of the communication stages – from the regional authorities up to the Federal level, and only after that the data is transmitted to

HELCOM).

3) Regulatory documents and / or regulations that would specify the flow of information and timing regarding submission of the data to HELCOM, and that would specify the responsibilities of all levels of performers are lacking.

4) To simplify the procedure and to improve the efficacy of data reporting it is necessary that the MNR of Russia develops and approves legal documents that would establish obligations for executor at all levels with regard to participation and the submission of information withing the framework of the Helsinki Convention on a regular basis.

5) To implement the above specified objectives it is necessary to get additional funding allocated from the Federal budget, it is also necessary changes to be introduced in the legislation of the Russian Federation.

67

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

3 Fulfillment of the obligations by the Russian Federation regarding data submission as part of the pollution loads compilation

This section considers the procedure for collecting and transmitting data to the database on the compilation of pollution loads (hereinafter – the PLC database) by Russia. The PLC database comprises 23 rivers that are confined to the Russian Baltic Sea catchment area.

Appendix 1 shows an outline map of the State Observation System observation stations and point waste water sources discharging directly into the

Gulf of Finland and the Vistula Lagoon.

3.1 Transboundary rivers (Narva, Neman,

Daugava (Western Dvina) and Pregolya)

Russia does not report on the loads entering the Baltic Sea from the Narva,

Neman, Daugava (Western Dvina) and Pregolya rivers. This information is available from Latvia and Lithuania, respectively.

The Narva River is a “boundary” river flowing along the territorial border between Russia and Estonia. In connection with the decision of HELCOM on load sharing regarding the Narva River, Russia also is obliged to provide data on loads, entering the Sea from the Russian part of the catchment basin, to the PLC database. The solution to this problem can be developed by the Joint Russian-Estonian Commission on Protection and Rational Use of

Transboundary Waters. On the Russian side, the Government of the Russian

Federation is responsible for enforcement of the decisions of the above-mentioned Commission. The head of the Rosvodresursy, M.V. Seliverstova, is cochairperson of the Inter-Governmental Commission on the Russian side.

The situation with the Neman River is a more complicated one. The river flows through the territory of Belarus, and as a transboundary river it enters the territory of Lithuania, further on, downstream the river turns into a boundary river between Russia and Lithuania. In the delta – the tributary

Matrosovka branches from the Neman River and runs into the Russian territory; the Matrosovka river water flow accounts for 25% of the Neman River flow. It is necessary to reach an agreement with Lithuania about how the

Neman River loads will be split between Lithuania and Russia to be reported to HELCOM.

The Western Dvina River (the Daugava) is a transboundary river, which heads from the territory of Russia, flows through the territory of Belarus and falls into the Gulf of Riga in Latvia. Under the new scheme for nutrient

68

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations reduction from the HELCOM Contracting Parties Russia also needs to provide the load data for this river.

The Pregolya River is a transboundary river that flows through the territory of Poland and Russia. The mouth of the Pregolya River is located in the territory of Russia. The Russian section of the Pregolya River catchment area accounts for 50% of its length. Until recently, the PLC database has been taking into account the load entering the Baltic Sea with the Pregolya River waters as entirely the load from Russia without specifying the share of the load coming from the territory of Poland. However, under the new scheme on nutrient load from the HELCOM Contracting Parties reduction, Poland is obliged to provide load data for the Polish part of the Pregolya River catchment area.

TRANSBOUNDARY RIVERS THAT ARE NOT LISTED IN THE HELCOM

DATABASE (MAMONOVKA AND VUOKSA)

The load from these rivers into the Baltic Sea is not considered directly within the PLC database (as the load coming with monitored watercourse and partially monitored watercourse). Theoretically, this load is taken into account as part of the load from the unmonitored territories. Until recently,

Russia has not provided data for this type of loads. Given that the Hydromet

Observation Network incorporates the station in the Mamonovka and

Vuoksa rivers it is viable to put forward proposals regarding taking into account the loads coming from these watercourses in the similar way it is done for monitored watercourses.

The Mamonovka River is a transboundary river flowing through the territories of Poland and Russia, it runs into the Vistula Lagoon. As of today, the Mamonovka river is not included into the monitored rivers section of the HELCOM PLC database. However, in the future, it will be necessary to ensure that the Mamonovka River is included into the PLC database. After the river is included into the PLC database, it will be necessary to determine the contribution from the Russian and Polish territories into the load generation. Delineation and coordination of the each party contribution with this regard could be carried out within the framework of the Polish-Russian agreement on transboundary collaboration.

The Vuoksa River is a transboundary river between Finland and Russia.

Vuoksa River flows into the Lake of Ladoga located in the territory of

Russia. Russia has no obligation regarding providing HELCOM with data on the nutrient loads coming with the Vuoksa River waters. However, the Observation Network under FSBI “North-West Administration for

Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring” (NW AHEM) includes a number of stations on the Vuoksa River located near the State border and in the mouth. The share of the load coming from the territory of Finland can be estimated through comparing the load value calculated according to the hydrological and hydro-chemical operations at the border with the value calculated for the estuarine station.

69

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Conclusion and suggestions:

1) It is necessary to define the principles of load distribution for every transboundary and boundary river running between Russia and neighboring states. This can be done as part of multilateral agreements on cross-border cooperation, on the protection and rational use of transboundary water bodies and as part of various other projects.

2) The information necessary for this purpose is presumably generated at the observation points of the Roshydromet network; and in the FSI

Rosvodresursy, to a less degree, in accordance with their tasks, and it is also generated in the responsible territories. However, the transmission of information must be implemented with the appropriate authorization from the competent bodies.

3) The optimal solution, according to Mrs. Valentina Varlashina, Deputy Head of the Informational and Analytical Department of the NW Department of the Roshydromet, would be an administrative and executive document developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources with regard to the procedure of discharge the obligations by Russia in terms of submission of the loads data to HELCOM; the document should comprise Russian contractors, time frames and scope of these work, the recipients of information, etc..

4) The hydrochemical observation programs at the points of the state network could be complemented, if necessary, with additional parameters allowing to fully observe the Russian Federation commitments with regard to submission of load data to HELCOM. Participation of the leading research institutes subordinated to the Hydromet (GGR, HCI) is a must. Appropriate changes should be introduced into the state assignments for FSBI Roshydromet “ North-West AHEM” and FGI

Rosvodresursy. Increase in the amount of work at the points of the State

Observation Network associated with the changers in the observation programs, it will require additional funding from the Federal budget.

3.2 Monitored rivers

Monitored rivers (Russia reports regularly on these rivers):

• The Neva River – Saint-Petersburg and the Leningrad region;

• The Luga river – the Leningrad region;

• The Seleznevka river – the Leningrad region;

• The Narva river– Pskov and the Leningrad regions;

• The Pregolya river – the Kaliningrad region.

70

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Russia should provide the information on the monitored rivers to the PLC database on the following parameters:

Hydrochemical

Biochemical oxygen demand for 5 days (BOD5), Total phosphorous

(Ptot.)*, Phosphate phosphorous (PO4), Total nitrogen (Ntot.)*,

Ammonium nitrogen (N-NH4), Nitrite nitrogen N-NO2, Nitrate nitrogen

(N-NO3), Mercury (Hg), Cadmium (Cd), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Lead

(Pb), Nickel (Ni)**, Chromium (Cr)**

Water flow Hydrological

* – In accordance with HELCOM PLC Guidance it is necessary to control total nitrogen and phos-

phorus, which means determining nitrogen and phosphorous content in the unfiltered sample.

Usually in Russia, by the total, it is means the content of nitrogen and phosphorous in the filtered samples that is determined

** – Reporting on these parameters is not obligatory

The necessary data on the rivers Neva, Luga, Pregolya are to be provided by the branches of the FSBI “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring” (NW AHEM) and its branch in Kaliningrad

– CHEM that are in charge of the state monitoring at the points of the State

Network for Observations in the given watercourses.

The required data on the Seleznevka River are to be provided by FSA

“Baltvodohoz” – a subordinate organization under the Federal Water

Resources Agency (Rosvodresursy).

The analysis of the data on monitored rivers provided by Russia for the PLC database has revealed the following situation:

Monitored river

Neva

Luga

Seleznevka

Pregolya

Data submitted by the Russian Federation to the PLC database

The values for all parameters (except mercury) are provided

The values for all parameters (except mercury) are provided

The data are lacking P tot

, N tot

, Hg, Zn values

The data are lacking N tot

. и P tot

., Cd, Zn, Cu, и Pb

FSBI “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring” (NW AHEM) conducts regular monitoring of the Seleznevka

River at the observation points in the area of Luzhaika station, including determination of Ntot and Ptot content. Further, in the near future the observations data on the Seleznevka River will be requested to be late on transmitted to the PLC database, provided that Roshydromet grants its authorization.

In late 2010 FSBI “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and

Environmental Monitoring” started exploratory observations at the point in the river Seleznevka, that is located near the state border with Finland. The program of observations at this post includes observations over Ntot filtered and Ptot content.

Consequently, it will be possible to fulfill the Russian obligations with regard to providing data, as part of the annual HELCOM reporting, for all monitored rivers of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region. The Pregolya

River in the Kaliningrad region will be an exception.

71

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Starting from 2012, the Kaliningrad CHEM has been conducting the state monitoring of the environmental water quality in the Vistula Lagoon near the mouth of the river Pregolya. The list of the observed parameters include Ntot and Ptot. This information can be submitted to the PLC database. The reason for the incompleteness of data on Pregolya River in previous years is the absence of Ntot and Ptot (as well as Ntot filtered and Ptot filtered) on the list of monitored parameters specified by the system of the state monitoring for this particular watercourse.

Development of the observation program at the points of the State

Observation Network is based on the document number R 52.24.309-2011, which is called “Recommendations. Organization and performance of the routine for inland surface water pollution observations within Roshydromet network.”The developer of this document is FSBI “Hydrochemical Institute”

(HCI), subordinated to Roshydromet. This Institute provides scientific and methodological support for the work of all Roshydromet units in Russia.

When developing a list of indicators for an observation program the mandatory and specific parameters should be taken into account. The list of mandatory parameters does not include Ntot and Ptot.

The need to determine specific parameters depends on the data on the composition of wastewater discharges in the area of an observation point, an indicative list of pollutants typical of a certain type of the source of effect.

In particular, the available list recommends to determine Ntot and Ptot (Ntot filtered and Ptot filtered) for watercourses, where the municipal wastewater treatment plants, farms, etc. are located. Further on, a set of defined parameters is to be specified on the basis of the results of a survey of the water body.

Monitoring programs at the Roshydromet observation points are being developed and approved by HCI for a period of 5 years. Currently the program of inland surface water pollution observations under the State Observation

System (GOS) against hydrochemical indicators is approved to be implemented in the area on the North-West AHEM activities (St. Petersburg, the Leningrad,

Novgorod, Pskov, Kaliningrad Oblast and the Republic of Karelia) for 2013 –

2017.

Extracts from this basic “Program ...” is given in Appendix 2 in this report.

Operational-production departments of Roshydromet can address (and address) to the HCI with proposals to extend / change the list of indicators of the observer program, changes in the composition of the GOS.

HCI annually reviews and coordinates proposals for adjustments to the observation program. In accordance with these proposals, changes are introduced into the state assignments for Roshydromet operational devisions

(in particular, the assignments go to NW AHEM in St. Petersburg and to its branch – Kaliningrad Kaliningrad).The introduced changes are to be approved by Roshydromet. The necessary changes and amendments for the monitoring program could be made on the basis of proposals from the MNR with due regard to international requirements and HELCOM guidelines.

72

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Roshydromet divisions that carry out monitoring do it only on the basis of state assignment or when having a specific contract as a part of a particular project. This divisions are not supposed to develop observation programs based on international requirements – this is beyond the scope of their responsibilities.

3.3 Partially monitored rivers

Partially monitored rivers are Gorokhovka, Karasta, Kovashim Krasnenkaya,

Lebyazhya, Malinovka, Matrosovka, Peschanaya, Sestra, Shingarka, Sista,

Strelka, Chernaya, Chulkovka, Voronka.

Russia does not provide data on these rivers, as in fact they are unmonitored (they have no official monitoring stations). In this account, it is reasonable to consider the loads from these streams as the loads from unmonitored territories.

3.4 Unmonitored rivers

As indicated above, Russia does not provide data on the 16 rivers to the PLC database, which are indicated as partially monitored in the database, but in fact they are unmonitored. Currently, the Institute of Limnology of RAS, on request of NLBWA, completed the work on the nutrient inputs assessment from these 16 rivers. According to the results of this work, Russia got an idea of the amount of pollution coming from sixteen unmonitored rivers, and these preliminary estimates could be submitted to the PLC database.

The summary of the implemented activities is given Appendix 3.

Russia supports the HELCOM proposal on inclusion of these rivers into the category of unmonitored when preparing the next reporting round.

3.5 Unmonitored territories

According to the estimations made by experts within the framework of the

Balthazar Phase II project and presented in a report called «Identifying of obstacles in producing reliable data and collecting the existing data”, the area of unmonitored territories in Russia amounts to 3% of the total area of the

Russian part of the Gulf of Finland catchment area; for the Kaliningrad region

(south-east of the Baltic Sea) the figure is 29%.

Russia does not report on the loads coming from unmonitored territories due to the fact that Russia has no regulatory and methodological framework, and such concept as “unmonitored area” does not exist.

73

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Conclusion and suggestions:

1) To address the issue of development of a set of regulatory, procedural and organizational documents on the determination of the pollution load in the watercourses in the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment it is necessary to have decision from the MNR with the necessary funding for this purpose to be allocated from the federal budget.

2) Particular groundwork in this area has been done. In particular, the above-mentioned work has been done by the Institute of Limnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which in 2013, on request of NLWBA, performed computations of the load coming from unmonitored territories of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland catchment area, and a mathematical model developed by the Institute was used for that job.

3) To carry out computations with the use any mathematical model it’s necessary to have meteorological and hydrological information (information about water discharge, precipitation, air temperature), information on the sources of anthropogenic impact (information about point sources, information on the animals population, the use of fertilizers and areas covered with different modes of land use), etc.

4) To be able to regularly perform such computations it is necessary to establish a system of regular data collection, as part of the State

Monitoring System, and to have access to the State statistics data.

5) The best solution would be to get an administrative regulatory order prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation

(the document could be based on an analytical report prepared by the stakeholders) on how to perform RF obligation regarding reporting data on loads for HELCOM; it would be relevant to specify the Contractors from the Russian side, the timing and scope of the work, the recipients of information, a list of observation points carrying out (under the supervision of a number of various agencies) water quality monitoring, etc.

3.6 Point sources discharging directly into the sea

Data on such point sources are accumulated in NLWBA, subordinated to

Rosvodresursy – a responsible authority for water management.

Russia should regularly provide information to the PLC database on the point sources discharging directly into the Baltic Sea. The indicators should be the same as for monitored rivers.

As of 2006, the PLC database comprises 32 point sources in Russia discharging directly into the Baltic Sea (into the Gulf of Finland and Central

Baltic), of which

– 12 sources are industrial enterprises;

– 20 sources are municipal wastewater treatment plants.

74

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

As of 2010, Russia provided aggregate information on all point sources to

PLC database, i.e. total input of substances from point sources into the Gulf of Finland and Central Baltic (Kaliningrad Oblast).

The reason for the data to be presented in an aggregated form is that according to the Russian law, the information on the composition and the scope of discharges from natural resources users is confidential and can be disclosed only upon the user authorization.

3.7 Point sources located in the catchment areas

Providing information on point sources located in the catchment areas we are facing the problem described in section 3.6, namely since 2008 NLWBA is authorized to provide data only in aggregate form, and the only way to get the information is to request it from natural resources users.

It should be noted that a large number of natural resources users, that discharge directly into the sea, carry out control of Ntot and Ptot discharges (the analysis of PLC data of 2006 showed that only 5 of 12 industrial enterprises failed to submit data on these indicators). The situation with the point sources located in the catchment area of the rivers is somewhat different (analysis of completeness of the reported information is given below).

The PLC database comprises 233 point sources in Russia, located in the catchment areas of rivers, of which 73 sources are industrial enterprises; 160 sources are municipal wastewater treatment plants.

Source type

Industrial enterprises

Municipal wastewater treatment plants

Reporting status to HELCOM

– No data on P tot

, N tot

, for 11 sources

– No information on bulk Hg for all sources

– No data on Cu for 42 sources

– No data on Pb for 69 sources

– No data on Zn for 57 sources

– No data on P tot

, N tot

, for 5 sources

– No data on Cd for 48 sources

– No data on Hg for 45 sources

– No data on Cu for 17 sources

– No data on Pb for 41 sources

– No data on Zn for 21 sources

Lack of information on the content of Ntot, Ptot and heavy metals results from the fact that the users of natural resources do not perform control of these substances in their discharges.

Therefore, Russia cannot provide data on a large number of point sources in the catchment areas of the rivers.

75

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Conclusion and suggestions:

1) The obtain information on discharges from point sources it is necessary to approach each user of natural resources individually.

2) There are alternative ways of obtaining information on point sources.

Thus, The Federal Service for Supervisory control of Natural Resources

(Rosprirodnadzor) performs the functions of control and supervision, including the activities of natural resources users. As part of its supervisory and control activities this agency is authorized to request data on the quality and quantity of discharges from users of natural resources directly. Since the data for the HELCOM is to be acquired within the format of international cooperation, in this case the Rosprirodnadzor

Department in the North-West Federal District, it has to be officially authorized by the Ministry of Natural Resources to collect the necessary information from the natural resources users.

3) In addition, in the case the Aarhus Convention is ratified by the Russian

Federation, the information about the amount of pollutants discharged from point sources will have to become available.

3.8 Diffuse sources

As in the case of unmonitored areas, the Russian Federation lacks the regulatory and procedural framework for providing the assessment of pollution from diffuse sources on a regular basis. Diffuse sources relates to categories like agriculture, forestry, deposition on inland waters, individual households and stormwater overflows.

Data from the Institute of Limnology (ILRAS) and results from phase

II of the RusNIP project concerning nutrient load modelling could be used as a basis for proposing a procedural framework in accordance with the

PLC Guidelines. Before the official authorities responsible for monitoring of the environment can use this methodology it must pass an evaluation by

Hydromet. In order to perform calculations of loads from diffuse sources it is necessary to establish a system of data collection and monitoring within the state, and for this an order from the Ministry of Natural Resources of the

Russian Federation is needed. Elaboration of such a framework can be implemented by producing official regulation documents by MNR. These documents will give guidance on how and by which subordinate body to NMR this data should be produced. This is why these documents should be supported from the MNR side by elaborating the legal basis and corresponding funding from the federal budget.

76

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

3.9 Background load

Russia does not report on the background loads to the Baltic Sea originating from its territory. To analyze the reasons for the lack of data it is necessary to determine the meaning of the “background load” notion.

The leakage from uncultivated lands is taken as a background load in the PLC manual. To assess the “background load”, as it is defined by PLC, a number of scientific research projects were carried out in Russia. According to the results of these studies it was concluded that in Russia there are no catchment areas not subject to anthropogenic influence, so the background load cannot be specified.

However, in the PLC guideline, we can see that a number of countries provide their background load value, so in this respect it is necessary to study the experience of our foreign colleagues.

3.10 Load retention

Russia did not report on retention of loads originating in Russian catchments of the Baltic Sea. As well as in the case of unmonitored territories, in Russia there is no official regulatory and methodological framework for the estimating retention in streams and reservoirs in the territory of the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment.

The Institute of Limnology, as part of scientific projects, conducted studies on load retention in the waterways and water bodies within the territory of the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment area. However, this information is not officially adopted at the state level, and retention assessment is not conducted on a regular basis. Appropriateness of the use of this information needs to be discussed.

77

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

4 Conclusions

Currently, Russia does not in full meet the commitments on reporting data to the PLC database, neither according to annual nor periodical routines.

Below are shown details on fulfillment of obligations by Russia with regard to reporting to HELCOM (the PLC database), as of 2011 in terms of regular reporting, and as of 2006 in terms of periodical reporting.

Annual reporting round for 2011

– monitored rivers

– un monitored territories

The data are reported virtually in full

No data

– point sources (direct discharges to the sea) The data are reported virtually in full

(aggregate form)

Periodical reporting round for 2006

– point sources (located in the catchment areas of the rivers)

– diffuse sources

– background load

– retention

The data are reported virtually in full

No data

No data

No data

Unmonitored territories and rivers (according to the results acquired in previous research projects) contribute with an insignificant load in comparison with other sources. With this regard, one could say that the annual reporting by

Russia gives a general idea of the pollution loads coming from the Russian

Baltic Sea catchment area. The results of investigations performed by the

Institute of Limnology RAS during 2013, allow us to conclude that the load has not changed much.

Gaps regarding the data reporting in the course the periodic reporting round show that Russia, having a general idea of the pollution amount, currently has an underdeveloped tool base (regulatory and methodological) necessary for assessing the distribution of loads on different sources, while the adoption of the correct management decisions aimed at reducing nutrients income into the

Baltic Sea is not supported by adequate information.

According to the experts, the PLC database is primarily designed to assess the extent of pollution and only secondarily promotes the adoption of correct management decisions.

78

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

In order to improve the provision of data to the PLC database it is necessary to make further efforts in order to allow Russia to meet the following challengers:

• Lack of regulatory documents approved by the Ministry of Natural

Recourse that would allow to organize acquisition of official data to be submitted to the PLC database;

• Lack of methodological basis and a responsible authority in charge of computations and estimation of loads from unmonitored territories, diffuse sources, background load and retention load.

• Absence of decisions by bilateral Commissions on transboundary watercourses and transboundary collaboration that should be taken to determine the contribution of each party into the loads generation on transboundary watercourses.

As an initial practical effort for overcoming the above-noted obstacles it would be expedient to prepare a brief draft policy (analytical note) for the

MNR; this policy brief should be based on the information contained in this and other reports. It is recommended to prepare for streamlining the procedure of assessing and compiling data that is to be reported to HELCOM, and to develop further on a set of organizational and administrative documents to ensure the fulfillment by Russian of its obligations.

79

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Appendix 1

Outline map that shows observation stations under the State Observation

System and the point sources that discharge directly into the Gulf of Finland and Vistula Bay, and that are included into the PLC database

80

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Appendix 2

Extract from the “Program of observations, carried out by the State

Observation System, of inland surface water pollution in accordance with hydrological and chemical indicators in the area supervised by the North-

West AHEM (St. Petersburg, Leningrad, Novgorod, Pskov, Kaliningrad Oblast and the Republic of Karelia) for 2013 – 2017

N u t r i e n t s M e t a l s

the town of Sestroretsk, 0,2 km above river

81

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

82

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

83

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

84

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations town of Mamonobo, 0,5 km below hydropost, 6,7 km till

85

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

Appendix 3

Summary report on the State contract № 20/12 - 200 of 11.2012, on the performance of the following services by the Institute of Limnology RAS:

“RESEARCH AND COMPUTATION OF NUTRIENT LOAD COMING FROM

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TERRITORY INTO THE BALTIC SEA (I-12-75)”

In the course of the conducted work inter-seasonal monitoring of nine transboundary water bodies located along the southern border of the Kaliningrad region of Russia was carried out. The following water bodies were studied

– the rivers Ignatyevka, Vitushka, Kornevka, Rezvaya, Stogovka, Zolnaya,

Kasnaya, Kemerovka, lake Vishtynetskoe. Concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus were varying in the course of the observations depending on the hydrological target and hydrological season. The highest nitrogen concentration (4.72 mg N/l) was recorded for the Stogovka river during autumn floods. Maximum total phosphorus content (1.28 mg P/ l-3) was also recorded for the Vitushka river, but it was typical of the winter sampling. The lowest concentrations of nutrients are typical of the Vishtynetskoe lake: here the maximum value of total nitrogen content is 0.99 mg/ l, and gross phosphorus content is 0.049 mg/l.

When estimating the export of nutrients by rivers we can see that the highest amount of the total nitrogen export per annum is observed in the river

Stogovka; according to our estimations it could make 336.3 tons per annum.

The maximum amount of gross phosphorus can be contributed by two rivers:

Stogovka and Krasnaya – 18.8 and 19.3 tons per annum, respectively. The main pattern of the annual distribution of nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations shows that higher contents coincide with the winter and summer low-water periods, while the reduction in the concentrations is typical of the periods when water is diluted by spring and autumn high floods.

Total transfer of nutrients through the stations of the studied transboundary watercourses, according to the measurements of 2013, this year could make

660 tons of total nitrogen and 60 tons of total phosphorus. According to the calculations carried out with the help of ratios of the territories occupied by transboundary catchment areas in Russia and Poland, the total amount of nitrogen compounds exported from Polish territory could reach 408.3 tons in 2013, while the amount of phosphorus compounds could make 22 tons.

The results of field measurements in the 17 tributaries of the Gulf of

Finland (the rivers Peschanaya, Velikaya, Chulkovka, Polevaya, Drema,

Matrosovka, Gorokhovka, Chernaya, Lebyaxhya, Kovashi, Voronka, Sista and Khabolovka) allow to make the following conclusions regarding the nutrient load in the water area in 2013:

• Average concentration of total phosphorus during the summer and autumn periods was 0.12 mg/ l

–1

. This is 1.8 times higher than the values typical of the winter and spring seasons. The highest concentration of total phosphorus was recorded during the summer period in the Karasta and Matrosovka rivers.

86

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

• Average concentration of total nitrogen in the summer and autumn periods was 2.6 mg/l

–1

. It is almost 2 times the values typical of the winter and spring seasons. The highest concentrations of total nitrogen were record-ed in summer in the Strelka and Lebyazhya rivers, while in autumn – in the Sista river.

• Positive correlation between nitrogen concentration and the extent of catchment areas forestation was shown as typical of the north-eastern coast rivers.

• Nutrient load to the Gulf from the 17 small tributaries of the north-eastern and south-eastern coasts, as of 2013, is estimated as 129 t P/ year

–1

and

2,884 t N/ year

–1.

Estimations of the overall load of total phosphorus and total nitrogen to the

Gulf of Finland from the unmonitored part of own catchment area have been made based on a modified version of a mathematical model of the nutrient loads generation. The model was developed at the Institute of Limnology under the Russian Academy of Sciences. These results suggest that in 2013 the loads from unmonitored territories will be roughly estimated as 115 tP/year

–1

and

1,883 tN/year

–1

.

Estimation of the total phosphorus and nitrogen load to the Gulf of

Finland from own catchment area is given in the summary tables 1 and 2.

It can be concluded that in 2013, nutrient load to the Gulf of Finland from the Russian part of own catchment area can be roughly estimated as 322t P/yr

–1

and 5,039 t N/ yr

–1

, respectively.

Table 1. Total load from Ptot (t/year

–1

) to the Gulf of Finland from the Russian territory of a particular geo-graphically delineated catchment area.

North-West Coast South-East coast Total

Results of the measurements in the tributaries 56.8

Results of modeling for unmonitored territories 71.8

28.0

Direct wastewater discharge into the Gulf

(direct point sources)

Total load 156.6

72.1

43.3

50.0

165.4

128.9

115.1

78.0

322.0

Table 2. Total load from Ntot(t/ year

–1

) to the Gulf of Finland from the Russian territory of a particular geo-graphically delineated catchment area.

North-West Coast South-East coast Total

Results of the measurements in the tributaries 1134.5

1749.0

2883.5

Results of modeling for unmonitored territories 1342.0

Direct wastewater discharge into the Gulf

(direct point sources)

90.8

541.0

181.6

1883.0

272.4

Total load 2567.3

2471.6

5038.9

87

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 1 – Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for

HELCOM Pollution Load Compilations

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Annex 2

Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Håkan Staaf

Swedish Environmental Production Agency

SE- 106 48 Stockholm

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

89

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Contents

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.3.1

5.3.2

5.3.3

5.3.4

5.4

6

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.4.1

6.4.2

6.4.3

6.5

7

1 BACKGROUND

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

3

BSAP AND NUTRIENT REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013

HELCOM system for monitoring progress towards targets

Conclusions

3.1

3.2

NUTRIENT INPUT AND DISTANCE TO REDUCTION TARGETS

FOR RUSSIA

Waterborne input

Airborne input

98

98

101

93

94

94

94

96

97

7.1

7.2

MONITORING AND ANNUAL REPORTING TO HELCOM

Reporting requirements

Coastal point sources

Monitored rivers

Unmonitored areas

Conclusions and recommendations

SOURCE APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT

Purpose of source apportionment

Reporting to HELCOM

Methods for source apportionment

Source apportionment of riverine input to the sea

Source apportionment of loads to inland surface waters

Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Background loads

Conclusions and recommendations

MODELLING TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES

General about modelling tools

The FyrisNP model

The ILLM model

Test cases for modelling

Luga river – Leningrad region

Mamonovka river – Kaliningrad region

Instruch river – Kaliningrad area

Conclusions

115

115

116

117

118

118

120

121

122

108

108

108

109

109

110

111

112

114

103

103

103

103

105

107

ASSESSMENT OF NUTRIENT LOADS TO WATER FROM

DIFFERENT SOURCES

124

Atmospheric deposition to inland surface waters and the Baltic Sea 124

Pollution losses from argicultural land to inland waters 125

91

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

7.2.1

7.2.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

Introduction

Leaching coefficients

Pollution losses from non-agricultural managed land

Loads from households in urban and rural areas

Transport of pollutants with storm water

Natural background loads

8 REFERENCES

125

125

129

130

132

133

135

92

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

1 Background

This report contains results and conclusions concerning activity 2a and 2b in the project plan for the project “Capacity for Compliance with the Baltic Sea

Action Plan, RusNIP Phase II”, hereafter named RusNIP II. The objective of

Activity 2 is to elaborate recommendations on effective monitoring and assessment tools as well as administrative routines for re-assessing the current environmental problems and to improve environmental reporting to HELCOM. The project should be carried out in cooperation with the EU projects BaltHazAR and BASE.

Activity 2a of the project deals specifically with monitoring and assessment of loads and source apportionment of nutrients and selected hazardous substances in test cases in Leningrad and Kaliningrad areas. The results and experiences should be evaluated and used as a basis for proposing relevant methods and approaches in line with the requirements of HELCOM PLC

Guidelines.

In Activity 2b of the project suggestions have been developed how to mainstream and coordinate monitoring and evaluation in these areas.

The RusNIP II project has been performed in cooperation with the

EU-BaltHazAR II project, which was carried out during the period 2009–2012.

Since BaltHazAR II had a stricter time-table than RUSNIP II, our project has adjusted its work plans according to the progress of BaltHazAR II. Both projects have been engaged in monitoring activities and source apportionment modelling, and the role of RusNIP has been to supplement and develop results of the BaltHazAR II project. The main focus of RusNIP has been on nutrients, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus, and due to lack of available data hazardous substances have not been studied in detail.

In October 2013 the HELCOM Ministerial meeting decided on further actions and recommendations adding to the 2007 HELCOM Baltic Sea

Action Plan, including new country-allocated nutrient reduction requirements

(CART). Consequences of the new CART for Russia have also been included in this report.

93

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

2 BSAP and nutrient reduction requirements

2.1 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007

Eutrophication was an important issue in Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) that was agreed at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2007.

The eutrophication segment of BSAP contained several initiatives to reduce emissions; primarily new recommendations about wastewater treatment and preliminary nutrient reduction targets for all HELCOM countries (HELCOM,

2007). These targets were expressed as annual amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to be reduced by each HELCOM country as compared with the waterborne load to the Baltic Sea from a country during the period 1997–2003.

The reduction targets for waterborne nutrient input from Russia, as defined in BSAP 2007, were as follows:

– 4,145 ton N/yr. and 1,661 ton P/yr. to Gulf of Finland,

– 114 ton P/yr for Gulf of Riga and

– 2,821 ton N/yr. and 724 ton P/yr. to Baltic Proper.

2.2 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013

At the Ministerial meeting 2013, revised country-allocated nutrient reductions targets (CART) were adopted. The new CART values replaced the preliminary reduction targets from 2007. The new CARTs are given in table 1.

Table 1. New reduction targets for HELCOM countries adopted by HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in October 2013 (ton N or P/yr).

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Russia

Sweden

Nitrogen

2,890

1,800

Phosphorus

38

320

2,430 + 600 330 + 26

7,170 + 500 110 + 60

1,670

8,970

220

1,470

43,610

10,380

9,240

7,480

3,790

530

The figures in table 1 include reduction requirements for inputs originating in the territory of the country, and for some countries an addition is made for waterborne loads stemming from transboundary inputs. For Germany this refers to loads to the river Odra and for Finland loads via river Neva to the Gulf of Finland. The figures for Russia include transboundary loads from

Russia via Daugava River to Latvia and exclude transboundary loads from

94

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Poland via Pregolya River and from Finland via Vuoksa/Neva. For Russia the net effect of correcting for transboundary loads is that the reduction requirements were lowered with 1,254 ton N/yr and 124 ton P/yr. The preliminary nutrient reductions from 2007 did not take into account transboundary loads.

Besides transboundary loads the revised nutrient reduction requirements differ from the old ones for several reasons:

– Eutrophication targets defining good environmental status have been changed in several sub-basins

– The sum of waterborne and airborne inputs from a country to the Baltic

Sea has been used as a basis for allocating reduction targets. Originally only waterborne inputs were used.

– The inputs during the reference period have been changed due to normalisation of nutrient inputs via both air and water.

Reduction targets for nitrogen are expressed as the total reduction target of airborne and waterborne input from a country, while the target for phosphorus only refers to waterborne loads. No targets for atmospheric deposition of phosphorus could be developed, since the sources are unknown and no regular monitoring or modelling of phosphorus deposition exists. Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus to the Baltic Sea was thus considered constant over time and calculated using standard figures.

For some countries the new CART includes reduction targets also in distant sub-basins to which they do not border. These targets can thus only be met by reducing atmospheric emissions. Reduction targets for sub-catchments bordering directly to a country have been divided in an atmospheric part and a waterborne part. However, each country can choose freely between measures to reduce nitrogen from air pollution or water pollution, irrespective of the shares, until the total reduction requirements are met. For Russia, as for other countries that have inputs to several sub-basins, the CART is divided on subbasins (Table 2).

Table 2. Revised nutrient reduction requirements (CART) per sub-basin for Russia, including both airborne and waterborne loads. CART figures are calculated after correcting for transboundary waterborne loads. Figures within parenthesis are targets before correcting for transboundary shares.

Sub-basin

Baltic Proper 2,498 (3,153)

Gulf of Finland 7,879 (8,478)

Gulf of Riga

Kattegat

Total

Airborne / waterborne

Nitrogen

(Ton N/yr)

4 (4)

Phosphorus

Ton P/yr

481 (609)

3,277 (3,303)

30 (30)

10,381 (11,635) 3,788 (3,942)

1,025 (10%)/9,356 (90%) Only waterborne

Transboundary inputs accounted for

From Poland via Pregolya

From Finland via Vuoksa

From Russia via Daugava

(Airborne)

95

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

The Russian CART targets are corrected for transboundary waterborne loads as indicated in the table. This means that Russia now has a target for transboundary load of phosphorus to Gulf of Riga, while targets for phosphorus and nitrogen to Gulf of Finland and Kaliningrad have partly been transferred to Finland and Poland. However, transboundary loads from Lithuania and

Belarus via the Matrosovka Canal are not accounted for in the CART calculations. The Russian target for Kattegat can only be met by reducing nitrogen deposition originating from emissions in Russia.

The transboundary waterborne inputs to the Baltic Sea, both from

HELCOM countries and non-HELCOM countries, that were used in CART are rather uncertain and there is clearly a need to further improve them. This should be done in bilateral (or in some cases trilateral) agreements between countries about monitoring programs for transboundary rivers and how to divide the reduction targets between downstream and upstream countries.

Thus, the upstream and the downstream country has a common responsibility for the reduction of loads entering the Baltic Sea from the downstream country.

2.3 HELCOM system for monitoring progress towards targets

The follow-up of the nutrient reduction targets will be made centrally within

HELCOM (HELCOM PRESSURE) in order to facilitate the use of a harmonized methodology for these assessments. This activity will start in 2014, and it will annually result in a HELCOM Environmental Fact Sheet describing the nutrient load development and how far countries are from their targets.

The report will be based on the following information:

1) Annual PLC reports from countries containing N and P loads from monitored river, unmonitored areas and coastal point sources

2) A report from EMEP on normalized nitrogen deposition to the Baltic Sea, divided per country and sub-basin for the period 1995 to present.

After checking the reported data the assessment starts by flow-normalizing riverine inputs of N and P for the period 1994 – present time. In a second step the normalized waterborne and airborne nitrogen inputs are combined and plotted per country and sub-basin for the whole time period. Thereafter the inputs are compared with the Maximum Allowable Input (MAI), i.e. the input during the reference period subtracted by the nutrient reduction requirement for the relevant sub-basins (figure 1). The assessment also includes statistical analyses for trends and distance to taget.

96

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Figure 1. General relationship between the Maximum Allowable Input (MAI), the reference input and the nutrient reduction requirement.

2.4 Conclusions

• New nutrient reduction requirements (CART) for HELCOM countries were decided at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in October 2013.

• For Russia the new total reduction targets are 10,381 ton N/yr and 3,788 ton P/yr as compared to the normalized average inputs during the reference period 1997–2003. The targets for nitrogen include both airborne and waterborne inputs, while the phosphorus targets only include waterborne loads.

• The progress towards the nutrient reduction targets will be assessed centrally within the HELCOM system and published annually as a Helcom

Environmental Fact Sheet.

97

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

3 Nutrient input and distance to reduction targets for Russia

3.1 Waterborne input

The follow-up of the development of inputs to the sea in relation to CART is facilitated by defining a maximum allowable input (MAI) to each sub-basin.

For a country MAI is then calculated by subtracting the nutrient reduction target from the average normalized input during the reference period 1997–

2003. This gives us an input target, expressed as tons per year, that has to be reached in order to fulfill the nutrient reduction targets. Since the new CART takes into account transboundary loads, which was not the case when calculating the 2007 targets, the process of defining an input target is a rather complicated procedure. Besides, transboundary loads are considered uncertain as well as retention, so at the moment input targets can only be calculated using national input data as they have been reported to HELCOM so far, i.e. without considering transboundary loads. The waterborne input targets for Russia calculated in this way are shown in table 3.

Table 3. Waterborne nutrient input targets for Russia to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland.

Figures not corrected for transboundary loads.

Input to sub-basins (ton N or P/yr)

Baltic Proper Gulf of Finland Gulf of Riga

Nitrogen

–Reference load 97-03

–Reduction requirement

–Waterborne input target

10,950

2,328

8,620

74,006

8,282

65,724

0

0

0

Phosphorus

–Reference load 97-03

–Reduction requirement

–Waterborne input target

960

609

351

6,218

3,303

2,915

0

0

0

The proportion between the airborne and waterborne share of the nitrogen reduction requirements differs between sub-catchments. For Russia the waterborne share is 70 % for Baltic Proper and 98 % for Gulf of Finland

(Gustafsson and Mörth, 2014). The reason for the high proportion in Gulf of

Finland is that this sub-basin receives relatively low amounts of atmospheric nitrogen because of its small size compared with Baltic Proper.

The calculated waterborne input targets in table 3 do not take into account transboundary loads. This means that no input target can be calculated for the Russian input to Gulf of Riga and that the burden for this load is allocated to the down-stream country. This way of calculating MAI will simplify the follow-up of reduction targets as illustrated in table 2, but the burden for reaching the reduction targets will fall on the downstream country alone. In the future, however, all major transboundary inputs to and from Russia should be

98

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment monitored and quantified in order to create a follow-up system related to the new targets in table 2.

The waterborne inputs of total-N and total-P from Russia during the period 1994–2010 for Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland are shown in

Figure 2 A and 2B. The data have been adopted from the PLC5.5 project

(HELCOM, 2013).

Figure 2 shows that the requirements are much stricter for phosphorus than for nitrogen, and the targets are especially high for Baltic Proper, i.e. for the Kaliningrad area. It should be noted that the Russian data annually reported to HELCOM has been partly reconstructed by the PLC5.5 project by filling in data. Thus the graphs may not properly reflect the true load development. For that reason it is difficult to determine the discrepancy between the true inputs from Russia and the indicative targets.

According to figure 2A the nitrogen load from Russia to Gulf of Finland is at present about 70,000 tons per year and it has not changed much during the period 1994 – 2010. The distance to target during 2008–2010 is about 5,000 ton/yr. For phosphorus a considerable reduction has occurred since 2005–2006, corresponding to about 1,500 tons of P/yr or approximatively about half-way to the input target

Figure 2A. Waterborne total phosphorus input from Russia to Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper

1994–2010 (ton N or P/yr) via rivers and coastal point sources. The hatched line indicate the input target.

99

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Figure 2B. Waterborne total nitrogen and phosphorus input from Russia to Gulf of Finland and

Baltic Proper during 1994–2010 (ton N or P/yr) via rivers and coastal point sources. The hatched line indicate the input target.

The main purpose of the gap filling activity in the PLC 5.5 project was to obtain comparable data for the reference period 1997–2003, since these were used for the CART calculations. For Pregolya River and the unmonitored parts of the Kaliningrad area the same input figures were used for all years. Thus, it would be useful for Russia not only to produce good data in the future, but if possible also to improve the whole data set back to 1994.

The revised PLC 5.5 data have been accepted by Russia for use in the CART assessment and in a background report for the Ministerial Meeting 2013, but they are not considered official PLC data and were not entered into the PLC database.

100

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

3.2 Airborne input

Data on emissions and depositions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia in the HELCOM area are provided to HELCOM every year by EMEP (The

European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme). From 2013 onwards also normalized data on deposition of nitrogen to different Baltic Sea sub-basins per country will be made available. In the PLC 5.5 project, EMEP delivered normalized data for the period 1995–2010 (HELCOM 2013, HELCOM

2014), and these data are used here.

Russia has new reduction requirements for nitrogen deposition to Baltic

Proper, Gulf of Finland and Kattegat. According to the development illustrated in Figure 3 the indicative reduction targets (hatched lines) have not been reached for any of these sub-basins. Instead deposition rates have been increased over time. This is probably mainly caused by the fact that EMEP has extended its calculation domain to cover a larger part of Russia from 2007, making the reported emissions from Russia higher. This technical change gives an unfair extra burden on Russia. This is an issue that has to be brought up in

HELCOM groups in order to find a solution for future target revisions.

Figure 3. Normalized atmospheric nitrogen deposition (ton/yr) from Russian sources to three Baltic

Sea sub-basins during the period 1995–2010. The hatched lines indicate the Russian targets for atmospheric deposition to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland.

101

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

CONCLUSIONS

• Maximum allowable inputs (MAI) of waterborne nitrogen and phosphorus to sub-basins from Russia have been calculated in order to estimate the distance to targets and the reduction requirements. MAI could only be calculated without considering transboundary loads, and thus no MAI for Gulf of Riga was established.

• Nitrogen load from Russia to Gulf of Finland is at present about 70,000 tons per year and it has not changed much during the period 1994 –

2010. The distance to target during 2008–2010 is about 5,000 ton/yr.

For phosphorus a considerable reduction has occurred since 2005–2006, corresponding to about 1,500 tons of P/yr or about half-way to the input target. The load development to the Baltic Sea from Kaliningrad area is uncertain due to lack of data.

• The nutrient reduction targets for Russia are especially strict for phosphorus and they require a reduction of inputs by 50–60% as compared to the reference level during 1997–2003. For nitrogen a reduction of 11% is required for Gulf of Finland and 19% for Baltic Proper compared with the input level during 1997–2003.

• I the PLC 5.5 data set on waterborne inputs, compiled for the 2013

Ministerial Meeting, the Russian data has been reconstructed for the period 1994–2010. This data set was considered the best available, but it may not reflect the true development during the period. Thus efforts should be made to update and improve it.

• Nitrogen deposition on Baltic Sea sub-basins has been calculated by

EMEP for the period 1995–2010. Contributions from Russia have increased after 2007, mainly depending on the fact that a larger share of Russia was included in EMEP’s calculation domain from that year.

102

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

4 Monitoring and annual reporting to HELCOM

4.1 Reporting requirements

HELCOM reporting requirements on member states are laid down in the PLC

Guidelines. These are presently under revision and will be finalized during

2014 to be used for PLC6. Annual reporting includes the following parts:

1) Point sources discharging directly to the Baltic Sea, divided on:

– Urban wastewater treatment plants

– Industries

– Fish farms

2) Monitored rivers

3) Unmonitored areas

4) Transboundary loads

The monitored parameters include the following groups: water flow, organic matter, nutrients and heavy metals. Individual parameters are either mandatory or voluntary. Inclusion of some organic pollutants as voluntary parameters is under discussion.

4.2 Coastal point sources

Point sources have not been a primary task of the RusNIP II project, but it has been partly covered by Activity 1a in an analysis of obstacles associated with acquisition of reliable data on pollution loads for reporting to HELCOM

(Annex 1). Almost all major point sources discharging directly into the Baltic

Sea have monitoring programs for tot-N and tot-P and several heavy metals in their discharges (see Appendix 1). Russia has submitted data on discharges from 32 point sources to the HELCOM database; 12 industrial enterprises and 20 municipal wastewater treatment plants. The main remaining problem is that discharges are reported in aggregated form, since information on wastewater is considered confidential according to Russian legislation.

4.3 Monitored rivers

Data for the following five Russian rivers draining to the Baltic Sea has been reported to HELCOM on a regular basis:

Neva – Leningrad region including St Petersburg

Luga – Leningrad region

Seleznevka – Leningrad region

Pregolya – Kaliningrad region

Narva – Border river between Russia and Estonia

103

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

The catchments of the river Neva, including Ladoga catchment, together with

Luga and Narva rivers, cover more than 95% of the Russian part of the area draining into Gulf of Finland. Seleznevka is a very small transboundary river flowing from Finland into the Bay of Vyborg. Data for Seleznevka River were not used in the PLC5.5 project.

Other Russian rivers flowing into the Gulf of Finland and that are listed in the PLC database are: Peschanaya, Polevaya, Sestra, Shingarka, Sista, Strelka,

Tchernaya, Tchulkovka and Voronka. In the PLC 5.5 project these rivers were included in unmonitored areas.

According to an analysis performed within the PLC 5.5 project the following data gaps or other problems concerning nutrient data reported by Russia were identified:

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Pregolya River

1994–2010.

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Seleznevka River

1994–2010,

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Luga River 1994–2000.

– Total nitrogen missing for Neva River1994–1999.

– The monitored phosphorus load from Neva River seems only to include dissolved fractions some years, although reported as total phosphorus, and in other years phosphorus inputs are very high.

For obligatory heavy metals, data are missing for Pregolya. For Neva and

Luga all heavy metals parameters have been reported, except mercury.

The RusNIP II project has not dealt with issues related to practical water sampling and chemical analyses in rivers. Within the BaltHazAR II project, studies on water monitoring were carried out by SYKE and ILRAS (Institute of Limnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. St Petersburg) and other assigned Russian experts. In the final report of the HELCOM assignment

“Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pollution load data from different sources for e.g. HELCOM pollution load compilations” (HELCOM 2012), several recommendations are given based on studies in the test cases Luga, Roshinka, Pregolya, Neva and Narva rivers.

Some conclusions of this report were:

– Reliable estimates of transported nutrients call for intensive and welltimed water sampling, appropriate sampling techniques, accurate chemical analyses and a suitable load calculation method.

– Flow rate should be measured daily.

– Both total-N, total P and inorganic fractions should be monitored.

– At least 12 samplings per year should be performed.

– Proper monitoring programs should be established for large animal farms.

Information collected for the Obstacles report (Annex 1) indicate that many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with successfully and that Russia from now on is able to fulfill HELCOM requirements

104

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-calibration exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM

PLC6 project (Lassen and Larsen, 2013).

4.4 Unmonitored areas

Russia has not yet reported loads from unmonitored areas to the HELCOM

PLC database. In the Russian part of the catchment of Gulf of Finland unmonitored areas include coastal areas on both the northern and southern part of the Gulf, covering about 8,300 km

2

. The PLC5.5 project estimated, mainly based on data from the PRIMER project, that the annual inputs of

N and P from these areas amounted to 2,200 tons and 130 tons respectively, during the period 2008–2010. These loads would correspond to only about

3% of the total waterborne nutrient load from Russia to the Gulf of Finland.

Unmonitored areas cover about 3 % of the whole Russian catchment, and about 5% of the population resides here. These areas contain several large animal production units and industrial plants.

In the Kaliningrad region the unmonitored areas amount to 29%, or about 4,400 km

2

. Here, the relative contribution from areas without regular monitoring should be more significant, relatively seen.

Annual reporting of nutrient inputs from unmonitored areas to the Baltic

Sea is obligatory, so a methodology has to be developed and a responsible state organisation pointed out. Several principles can be used to achieve data for the unmonitored areas, and the main methods are described below:

1) A common method to calculate load from an unmonitored rivers is to rescale the measured load of a nearby monitored river, using the following formula:

m

A n

A m

Ln = load from unmonitored area An;

Lm = known load coming from monitored area Am;

An = area of unmonitored catchment;

Am = area of monitored catchment.

This method is considered very useful when the catchment of the monitored river (reference river) is similar to the unmonitored catchment concerning size, population density, industrial structure and land use.

Since Russia has so few monitored rivers in the Baltic Sea catchment it might be difficult to find proper reference rivers. One possibility is to use

Luga river as a reference for unmonitored areas in the Gulf of Finland catchment, but this river is relatively large compared to the other rivers.

In Kaliningrad, Pregolya river (downstream the border to Poland) could probably be used as a reference to the unmonitored part of the

105

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Kaliningrad area, but new data from the ongoing EU BASE project might be useful .

2) Another method is to establish a temporary monitoring program for a station near the river mouth (reference river), which is representative for the whole or for part of the un-monitored area in question. Water flow, total-N and total-P, as well as nutrient inorganic fractions and heavy metals should be measured at least once a month over a year and the annual inputs at the river mouth calculated as specific load (ton/km

2

catchment area). This load can then be rescaled to the area of the relevant part of the unmonitored area as in method 1. Also this method works well if the reference area has similar characteristics to the whole unmonitored area.

Large costal point sources should preferably be reported separately and not be included in the assessment.

3) This method is similar to method 2, but here several reference rivers are used, but with fewer sampling occasions, e.g. 4 times a year (once per season). Data for 19 small rivers entering Gulf of Finland were collected within the PRIMER project (SYKE, 2009) (Figure 4) and also in the Balthazar II project (Roshchinka river). At present monitoring data are also collected for several small rivers entering into the Vistula and

Curonian lagoons in Kaliningrad area within the BASE project.

4) Annual loads can also be calculated using a numerical model, like the

ILLM model developed by the Institute of Limnology, Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. This model can be applied without calibration using monitoring data if local indata are available, but in order to get reliable results the analyses may have to be modified to fit data from one or several monitored rivers in the area.

Figure 4. Monitoring stations in rivers used in the baseline study of the PRIMER project.

106

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

All methods have disadvantages, since they build on some extrapolation or indirect assessment. The main pros and cons are summarized in the table below:

Method No.

Advantages

1

2

3

A relatively simple method. The result considers annual changes in runoff and anthropogenic activities in the catchment

Several reference areas can be selected within the unmonitored areas.

Same as in 2.

4 Changes in runoff and activities can be considered if the analysis is repeated every year.

Disadvantages

It can be difficult to find suitable reference areas.

Annual runoff and changes in the catchment are not considered.

Monitoring only over one year.

Same as in 2. High uncertainty in load estimates of reference area(s).

Rather data-demanding and expensive if repeated every year. Results uncertain if not compared with monitoring data.

4.5 Conclusions and recommendations

• Russia does not yet (2010) fulfill the HELCOM requirements for annual reporting of PLC data. The main gaps are:

– Loads from point sources are given in aggregated form

– Not all obligatory parameters are measured in monitored river

– Unmonitored areas are not reported

• Coastal point sources, urban areas and major industries have rather complete monitoring programs for discharges of nutrients and several heavy metals

• Nutrient loads from unmonitored areas in Russia are not estimated or reported to HELCOM. In the Russian part of the catchment to Gulf of

Finland unmonitored areas cover only about 3 % of the area, while in the

Kaliningrad area they cover a much larger share, about 30%.

• Several methods for estimating pollution loads from unmonitored areas are available. Most of them are based on rescaling loads from monitored catchments with similar characteristics. Another principle is to use numerical models.

107

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

5 Source apportionment assessment

5.1 Purpose of source apportionment

Periodic Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs) of waterborne loads within

HELCOM are made every sixth year. The main purpose of periodical PLCs is to quantify dis charges from point sources and losses from non-point pollution sources as well as from natu ral background losses into inland surface waters within the catchment area of the Baltic Sea located within the borders of the

Contracting Parties. The latest PLC periodical was PLC5 (HELCOM, 2011) that used 2006 as a reference year. PLC 6 should then use 2012 as a reference year, but because of work with PLC 5.5 and other projects for the HELCOM

Ministerial Meeting 2013 the reference period has been shifted to 2014.

Other PLC objectives are to:

• follow up the long-term changes in the pollution load from various sources by normalizing data and making trend analysis with standardized methodologies;

• determine the priority order of different sources of pollutants for the pollution of the Bal tic Sea;

• assess overall the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce the pollution load in the Baltic Sea catchment area; and

• provide information for assessment of long-term changes and the state of the marine en vironment in the open sea and the coastal zones.

• The national objectives for PLC are generally the same as those of

HELCOM, but a country may e.g. have specific objectives or targets for individual sectors of society that could be analyzed at the same time.

5.2 Reporting to HELCOM

The PLC guidelines are presently under revision and the section concerning periodical reporting has not yet been finalized. Traditionally, the source apportionment for nutrients has been performed using two main methodologies:

A. The load approach. Here the starting point is the monitored annual load to the sea (net load) which is divided in four main categories:

– Point sources (coastal and inland)

– Diffuse sources (inland)

– Background losses (inland)

– Transboundary loads

A. The source approach. In this approach the focus is on the load to inland surface waters in the river catchments (gross load) which should be divided on the three main categories as in approach A. Each of these categories could then be divided in sub-categories like:

108

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Point sources: industries, MWWTPs and fish farms.

Diffuse sources: agricultural land, forestry, scattered dwellings, peatland, mountain areas, storm water, atmospheric deposition on inland waters,

Background losses; forest land, peatland, mountain areas and part of the agricultural land and atmospheric deposition can be considered natural background losses.

Probably these two approaches will still be included in the new Guidelines, but the main focus will be on the source apportionment of net loads to the Sea.

In the PLC 5 assessment (HELCOM, 2011) most countries reported their inputs to the Baltic Sea as divided on point sources, diffuse load, natural background load, and transboundary load. Russia however only reported direct point sources and unspecified riverine load. Most countries also reported source apportioned nutrient losses and discharges to inland surface waters, although only a few countries reported sub-categories.

5.3 Methods for source apportionment

5.3.1 Source apportionment of riverine input to the sea

The PLC Guidelines suggest a relatively simple method for this assessment.

It starts out by expressing the riverine net load to the sea (L river formula:

) in the following

L river

=D

P

+LO

D

+LO

B

–R p

–R d

–R

B

(1)

Where,

Dp is discharges from point sources in the catchment (t/yr)

LO

D

LO

B

R p

is losses from anthropogenic diffuse sources in the catchment (t/yr)

is losses from natural background in the catchment (t/yr)

, R

D and R

B is retention for point sources, diffuse sources and background load, respectively (t/yr)

Equation (2) can be used for calculating nitrogen and phosphorus losses from diffuse sources (LO

D

) as follows:

LO

D

= L river

–D

P

–LO

B

+R p

+R d

+R b

(2)

Anthropogenic diffuse losses in equation (2) also include losses from scattered dwellings. The total retention in the river catchment (R) is the sum of retention (ton/yr) for each source category, expressed as:

R = R p

+ R

D

+ R

B

(3)

It can be difficult to achieve retention figures for the different sources in equation (3). If so, it has to be assumed that retention is proportional to the total

109

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment load of each source category and that the retained fraction is the same for all sources. In reality this is often not true and adds a significant uncertainty to the source apportionment. More details about retention can be found in section 5.3.3.

In practice, source apportionment can be calculated according to the equations 1–3 above only for monitored rivers. First the load from point sources has to be calculated and then background load, using specific nutrient losses for forest land (kgN and P/km

2

) applying it to the total catchment area (see section 5.3.4). The nutrient load from diffuse sources can then be calculated as;

Load from diffuse sources = Total load at river mouth – net load from point sources – net load from background sources.

An alternative to this method is to use a numerical computer models.

During the last decades many models have been developed that can simultaneously calculate retention and source apportionment both in the catchment

(gross load) and at the river mouth (net load), see also section 5.3.3.

5.3.2 Source apportionment of loads to inland surface waters

A large amount of data is generally needed in order to produce a complete nutrient source apportionment and the work can be simplified by using a numerical model. There are several tools available, both commercial and free of charge, that can perform source apportionment assessments. In this project we have used two models; the Swedish FyrisNP model (Widén-Nilsson et al., 2012a; Widén-Nilsson et al., 2012b) and the Russian ILLM model

(Kondratyev, 2007).

The following indata are needed for the FyrisNP model

– Areas of the catchment and sub-catchments

– Land cover information

– Runoff and monitored concentrations at several monitoring stations

– Loads from major point sources

– Loads from small point sources and scattered dwellings

– Atmospheric deposition

– Water temperature

– Leaching concentrations (land use type specific concentrations)

For a large catchment with many sources a first step is to divide the catchment in sub-catchments as a basis for organizing information on land-use, hydrological conditions, point sources and leaching coefficients. In this project, a report describing the methodology and the indata needed for the FyrisNP model, using Luga River as an example (Orback and Djodjic, 2014). The modelling results are described further in Chapter 6.

110

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

5.3.3 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Retention is a mechanism that removes substances from the water body of rivers and lakes by biological and physical processes, e.g. denitrification and sedimentation. The simplest way of calculating total retention in a catchment is to make a mass balance for the whole river system by calculating retention as the difference between the sum of all inputs at source (gross load) and the load at the river mouth (net load). This approach gives the total retention figure for the whole river system over a defined period, often one year.

However, retention may differ between sources due to their geographical location in the catchment, and this is a fact that must be taken into account when making a source apportionment of the load at the coast. For small rivers this may be less important.

When applying the mass balance approach to a large river catchment the calculations become very complicated and using a numerical model may be necessary. Both the FyrisNP model and the ILLM model can calculate retention, but the amount of indata needed is considerable, especially for the

FyrisNP model.

In the EU RECOCA project, nutrient retention in surface water (rivers and lakes) was also calculated for practically all major river catchments around the Baltic Sea, using the MESAW model (Stålnacke et al., 2011). MESAW is a statistical model with flexible data needs, based on statistical data on land use and point sources (Grimvall and Stålnacke, 1996).

Retention data for some major Russian rivers as well as retention in selected lakes are given in table 4. The indicated lake retention data were used in the RusNIP I project when estimating retention of nutrient of discharges from major point sources in the catchments (SEPA, 2010). It was assumed that most of the retention from point sources to the Gulf of Finland occurs in lakes.

Table 4. Total retention of selected rivers and lakes in the the Russin catchment of the Baltic

Sea. The catchment size refers to the assessed area and may differ somewhat from the total catchment size.

Rivers Reference

Daugava

Luga

Narva

Neman

Neva

Pregolya

Nitrogen retention

0.38

0.26

0.56

0.30

0.74

0.25

Phosphorus retention

0.39

0.35

0.37

0.40

0.57

Catchment size

(km

2

)

84,600

12,100

58,100

95,900

279,600

84,600

*

**

*

*

*

*

Lakes

Lake Onega

Lake Ladoga

Lake Ilmen

Lake Peipsi

(Chudskoye)

0.3

0.76

0.76

0.53

0.56

***

***

***

***

*Stålnacke et al. 2011, ** Orback and Djodjic 2014, *** Kondratyev 2007, 2008 Kondratyev and

Ignatieva 2007 , Kondratyev and Trumbull 2012.

111

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Retention is also needed when calculating the input to the sea from transboundary load. When estimating retention in the CART assessment for the 2013 Ministerial Meeting retention, data from the RECOCA was used

(Gustafsson and Mörth, 2014). Figures for Russia are shown in table 5.

Table 5. Transboundary riverine loads from and to Russia and retention used in the CART calculations for the 2014 ministerial meeting. Loads from Russia to Latvia are already compensated for retention in Belarus. The Finnish loads via Russia were supplied from Finland already with retention taken into account. (Gustafsson and Mörth, 2014).

From Via To sub-basin

Finland Russia Gulf of Finland

Poland Russia Baltic Proper

Russia Latvia Gulf of Riga

Load at border

(ton/year)

Tot-N Tot-P

4,400

2,681

320

316

Retention

(fraction)

N P

Load to Baltic

Sea (ton/year)

Tot-N Tot-P

5,353 49

0.3

0.37

3,080 202

0.27

0.32

1,957 215

5.3.4 Background loads

Natural background loads to surface waters are defined as losses from land areas unaffected by human activities, such as losses from unmanaged land.

Also losses from managed land has a background component, that would occur irrespective of anthropogenic activities (like agriculture and forestry).

Generally, nutrient losses from unmanaged land can be used as an approximation for natural background losses. Unmanaged land areas include:

• unmanaged forest and woodlands;

• unmanaged heathland;

• shrub land;

• unmanaged bogs, wet meadows and wetlands;

• abandoned agricultural land.

Natural background losses can be estimated using different approaches or a combination of approaches. The most common ones are:

A. Monitoring of small unmanaged catchment areas lacking point sources;

B. Monitoring of concentrations of pollutants in soil water or groundwater unaffected by human activity;

C. Use of calibrated nutrient pollution models.

Examples of natural background losses and flow-weighted concentrations of nutrients as reported by HELCOM countries are given in table 6. The variation is considerable and it is difficult to recommend a specific value for an area without monitoring data or detailed information about climate, soils and land cover. Forest areas can generally be considered as unmanaged land even if some forestry activities take place. Normally, nutrient losses from managed forests do not differ significantly from pristine forests in the same area, and water monitoring data from small forested catchments can thus be used as a basis for estimating background loads.

112

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

It is important to realize that also nutrient losses from agricultural land contain a background component. Since arable land generally covers the more fertile soils in a region, the background losses from agricultural land should be higher than from forested areas.

Table 6. Examples of annual natural background losses and flow-weighted concentrations of nutrients as reported by HELCOM countries: Source: Fifth Pollution Load Compilation. Baltic

Sea Environment Proceedings No 128. 2011.

Country

Denmark

Finland

Estonia

Germany

Lithuania

Poland

Sweden

Total nitrogen

(kg/ha yr )

2.6

0.5–2.0

3.0–3.2

0.2–1.6

0.1–9.0

0.5–4.8

Total nitrogen

(mg/l)

2.6

0.5–2.0

3.0–3.2

0.2–1.6

0.1–9.0

0.5–4.8

Total phosphorus

(kg/ha yr)

0.09

0.02 – 0.06

0.11

0.02–0.07

0.01–0.28

0.01–0.18

Total phosphorus

(mg/l)

0.05

0.04

0.25

0.01–0.04

0.04

0.01–0.06

In Sweden, forest land (excluding clear-cuts), peatlands, mountain areas and phosphorus deposition on inland waters are considered as background loads.

Values used in the Swedish PLC5 assessment are given in table 7. These values are representative for Southern Sweden but could also be used for rough estimates in the Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea. Figures for agricultural land are averages for all soils and crops, and the coefficients vary considerably with the soil texture (see, figure 12)

Table 7. Background load coefficients for SE Sweden used in the Swedish PLC5 assessment

(Brandt et al., 2009). Nutrient loads per surface area from forest, peatland and open areas have been calculated assuming an annual mean runoff of 300 mm/yr. Data for agricultural soils have been recalculated from Johnsson et al. 2008.

Source Part of Sweden

Forest

Peatland

Open areas

Atmospheric deposition

Agricultural land

Nitrogen mg/l

0.52

0.96

1.5

kg/km

2

yr

160

290

450

1.5

450

Phosphorus mg/l kg/km

2

yr

0.008

2.4

0.008

2.4

0.05

15

4.0

0.07

20

Southern

Southern

All country

All country

South-East

113

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

5.4 Conclusions and recommendations

• Russia has not delivered data on source apportionment to HELCOM

PLC, neither for riverine nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea or for loads to inland surface waters.

• PLC Guidelines offer a relatively simple method for dividing monitored riverine nutrient inputs to the sea into the categories; point sources, diffuse sources and background loads. This simple method can be replaced by a modelling approach to make assessments of source apportionment both in the catchment (gross load) and of the load entering the Baltic Sea

(net load).

• Information about retention is needed both for source apportionment of riverine inputs to the sea and for transboundary loads. Several numerical catchment models can be used to calculate retention, e.g. FyrisNP and

ILLM.

• Background loads can be determined by monitoring concentrations or loads at the outlet of small forested catchment areas. Background loads from agricultural areas can be estimated by measuring nutrient losses from unfertilized grasslands.

• Indicative background leaching coefficients for different land use classes are shown in table 7. These might be applied in the Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea if local data are not available.

114

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

6 Modelling tools and activities

6.1 General about modelling tools

When modeling diffuse loads there is a fundamental need to first organize input data in a geographic referenced database with respect to the river catchments. Geographic Information System tools are fundamental to delineate water catchments and to build up flow networks. All input data for modeling of diffuse load using an available modeling tool need to be geographically connected to the catchments through the database and GIS tool. Once input data have been organized with a catchment a modeling tool can be applied.

Figure 5. Illustration of basic tool boxes in load assessments and pressure analysis.

Common for all modelling tools is that the load calculation process is performed in the same order, which starts with hydrology by determining the runoff from the catchment figure 5). The runoff can be determined by either; a) flow monitoring, b) calculated runoff calibrated against monitoring data or by c) modelling of the runoff from climate and catchment conditions. The method to determine the runoff has an impact on the model output since it determines the temporal and geographical scale of the load calculation.

Having determined the runoff, the diffuse load is calculated from the catchment statistics on land cover in combination with data on soils and climate, leaching coefficients of the land cover combined with GIS area, runoff data and atmospheric deposition. Point source load is normally a list of loads from individual facilities (annual average or temporally distributed) geographically connected to the catchment.

There are many ways to categorize the modeling tools used for assessing nutrient loads from point and diffuse sources in a catchment. A common feature of most models is that runoff from the modeled area has to be described by measurement data or by calibrating the model against measured time series. If no measurements are available the runoff can be modeled by using climate data and catchment characteristics.

115

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Catchment models should be able to model both the hydrology of the area, i.e. water flow dynamics over time, and pollution transport. A model intended for calculating load and retention of pollutants and simulate the effects of measures should be deterministic, distributed or semi-distributed and nonstationary. A deterministic model always produces the same result for a given indata set, as opposed to a stochastic model. A model with distributed param-

eters solves the model equations for spatially defined points in the model domain and a non-stationary model allows the water flow to vary over time.

The big difference between conceptual and physically based models for the river catchment scale is the amount of input data in order to perform a simulation. Many of the parameter values needed for a physically based model are sometimes not available for a new region, and therefore one must apply parameter values based on experience or use literature data. When working with a conceptual model, it is easier to find leaching coefficients at catchment scale, but the results are more difficult to interpret because of a simplified description of both transport processes and effects of measures.

6.2 The FyrisNP model

The FyrisNP model is a dynamic semi-empirical model that has been developed at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, Sweden

(Widén et al., 2012 A; Widén et al., 2012 B). The model calculates source apportioned gross and net transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in rivers and lake. Its main scope is to assess the effects of different nutrient reduction measures on the catchment scale. The time step for the model is in the majority of applications one month and the spatial resolution is on the subcatchment level. Retention, i.e. losses of nutrients in rivers and lakes through sedimentation, up-take by plants and denitrification, is calculated as a function of water temperature, nutrients concentrations, water flow, lake surface area and stream surface area. The model is calibrated against time series of measured nitrogen or phosphorus concentrations by adjusting two parameters. The general structure of the model is shown in figure 6.

Data used for calibrating and running the model can be divided into time dependent data, e.g. time-series on observed nitrogen and phosphorus concentration, water temperature, runoff and point source discharges, and time independent data, e.g. land-use information, lake area and stream length and width. One additional benefit of modelling efforts is also systematization of data collection and storage, as it can be seen in figure 6. The indata file for

FyrisNP is an EXCEL file containing several sheets with spatially distributed data (sub-catchments, land use distribution, etc) time series (runoff, temperature, loads from point sources and water quality parameters) as well as type specific concentrations.

The model has been used since the middle of the 1990ies and applied to catchments with a size of up to 50,000 km

2

(Göta River in Sweden).

116

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Figure 6. The general structure of the FyrisNP model.

6.3 The ILLM model

The ILLM model is a tool for estimating annual nutrient loads on water bodies, developed by the Institute of Limnology, Academy of Sciences in

St. Petersburg (Kondratyev, 2007). ILLM is a semi-empirical model based on mass balances, assuming that the catchment is a homogeneous storage tank and that the processes are in a steady state on an annual basis. All nutrient sources (point and diffuse) located in the catchment adds nutrients to this storage tank, which then releases nutrients to water via soil or directly to water. Part of the nutrient load is removed with crop yield. The remaining nutrients are partly retained in the hydrographic network (retention in rivers and lakes) while the remaining amount form a load on the receiving water body (Fig. 7).

The total loads of P tot

and N tot

on a catchment are calculated on a yearly basis and constitutes of discharges from point sources, inputs from the different types of land cover (emissions from soil), input from mineral fertilizers, input from manure (animal husbandry), atmospheric deposition (mass exchange with atmosphere), flow of nutrients from neighboring catchments

(external input). Removal of nutrients from the catchment takes place via crop uptake. Retention (retained fraction) in rivers and lakes is calculated as a function of hydraulic load, including two empirical calibration parameters.

117

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Figure 7. Overview structure of the ILLM model.

6.4 Test cases for modelling

According to the project plan two modelling test cases should be used, Luga river in Leningrad region and Mamonovka river in Kaliningrad region. Besides this, some assessments has been performed on the Instruch river catchment in Kaliningrad region. According to the project plan the modelling activities should be performed in cooperation with the BaltHazAR II project as far as possible. This has been done by complementary studies and avoiding double work.

6.4.1 Luga river – Leningrad region

Luga river is besides Neva (including areas upstream lake Ladoga) the largest river in the Russian part of the catchment of Gulf of Finland. A first assessment of loads and a source apportionment using the FyrisNP model was made during 2007–2009 within the Harmobalt project (Andreev et al., 2009). Luga is a relatively large river (13,600 km

2

) and the input data need is considerable.

The analysis was based on data for 17 sub-catchments and only results for nitrogen was published. The results for phosphorus were considered unsatisfactory.

In the BaltHazar II project the ILLM model was applied to the Luga river catchment (Kondratyev et al., 2012), using data for the period 2001–2007.

The estimated average annual load of nitrogen and phosphorus for the catchment upstream Kingisepp station was 5,240 tons of nitrogen and 312 tons of phosphorus which fits well with monitoring data. The major nutrient source was losses from manure. In the mentioned report some recommendations are given for improvement of the model, e.g. to estimate specific coefficients for different soil types and land use categorize and to improve the assessment of the nutrient uptake by crops.

118

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

In the RusNIP project the FyrisNP model has been set up for the Luga catchment, using a new delineation of sub-catchments (Orback and Djodjic, 2014).

The catchment has been divided into 45 sub-catchments (figure 8). The new delineation has been created in a way that:

• all measurement points are located in an outlet of a sub-catchment.

• the following model requirements are fullfilled:

– lakes are close to the outlet

– major point sources are high up in an sub catchment

– the flow network is optimized.

Luga River

0

1

25

2

3

13

4

5

6

11

10

9

12

7

8

14

15

16

19

17

20

50 100 Kilometers

18

21

44

41

43

25

22

35

26

23

27

31

32

24

28

29

30

36

34

40

42

33

39

37

38

45

Figure 8. The new delineation of sub-catchment of the Luga river catchment.

Land use information has been recalculated per sub-catchment using the

Global Land use Cover 2000 which contains 23 different land use classes

(http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php). Land use classes have been grouped to fit the land use classes used in FyrisNP. Most other indata were adopted from the original HarmoBalt report (Andreev et al., 2009), but for phosphorus the report has several gaps which complicated the assessment. Phosphorus data on minor point sources, i.e. households and small industries, are missing as well as information on type-specific concentrations from different land use classes (arable, pasture, forest, clear-cuts, mire, open and urban). The emissions from minor point sources were set to zero.

Swedish land use leaching coefficients from PLC5 calculations were used, as

Russian data were not available. Loads of nitrogen and phosphorus have also been calculated for each sub-catchment as well as their contribution to the total load at the river mouth.

The purpose of this study was to create a hydrologically sound setup of the FyrisNP model that can be used as an example for future modelling work on monitored rivers in Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea. Indata quality has to be improved further, especially for scattered settlements and agricultural statistics. More recent monitoring data could also be used.

119

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

6.4.2 Mamonovka river – Kaliningrad region

Mamonovka is a small river with a cross-border catchment of 350 km

2

. The river rises in Poland and enters into the Baltic Sea via the Vistula lagoon in the south-western part of Kaliningrad region. About 60% of the catchment is situated in Poland (figure 9).

Figure 9. Overview of the Mamonovka river catchment.

A study on Mamonovka river catchment using the FyrisNP model was performed within the BaltHazar II project (Chubarenko et al., 2012). Land use data and discharges from settlements were collected from both the Russian and Polish side. Leaching coefficients from south-east Sweden were used for the different land cover categories. The catchment was divided in 10 subcatchments and the hydrological model HYPE was used to obtain data for water flow for each sub-basin. Only one monitoring station for water chemistry data was used in the model calibration for the Russian part of the catchment. It is situated rather close to the river mouth.

A general conclusion from this study was that the FyrisNP modelling assessment gave very uncertain results because of insufficient or lacking indata. More specifically the following problems were noted:

– Data were only available for one station, which had low sampling rate,

4–5 times a year, and the monitoring program did not contain tot-N and tot-P.

– Uncertain meteorological, hydrological and hydro-chemical data

– Lack of knowledge of soil properties in the catchment

– No site-specific leaching coefficients for land-use coefficients available.

120

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

The RusNIP II project took note of the results from the BaltHazAR II study and considered that a similar study with the same model would not be useful, especially as no additional data were available. A possible alternative was to analyze only the Russian part of the river catchment since the tributary

Vitushka largely covers this part. To prepare for this the following actions were made:

– Additional water sampling in Vitushka near its junction with the main river was made

– A soil textural map was produced and additional information prepared by the Kaliningrad State Technical University (Kondratenko et al., 2012.)

From these efforts it was further clarified that Russian part of the

Mamonovka catchment had about 20% agricultural land with low agricultural activity and no livestock. Large areas were cowered with fallow land and forest. Another conclusion is that it is possible to produce useful textural maps (figure 10) based on existing information in the Kaliningrad area.

However, in spite of this new information it was not considered useful to make a new FyrisNP assessment for only the Russian part of the Mamonovka catchment, since monitoring data was still incomplete.

Figure 10. Map of the Russian part of the Mamonovka River catchment and distribution of soil types and its soil texture class.

6.4.3 Instruch river – Kaliningrad area

The Instruch river is a tributary to the Pregolya river in the Kaliningrad. It is a relatively small river and its catchment occupies an area of 1,250 km

2

and the total length is 101 km. Instruch river was studied within the Harmobalt project, using the FyrisNP model to assess nutrient loads and source apportionment (Chubarenko et al., 2009). In the RusNIP project a new FyrisNP setup was made for the Instruch river catchment during 2013. This was relatively easy, since all indata were well documented in the original report. A few minor errors were detected and corrected. Loads and source apportionment were estimated both for nitrogen and phosphorus. The assessment was relatively

121

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment successful for nitrogen (efficiency 0.39 out of max 1.00), while it was low for phosphorus.

The ILLM model was also tested using Instruch data, although the data demands are different compared with FyrisNP. Several indata scenarios were run, since it was difficult to extract the information needed by the ILLM model. Some inconsistencies and data errors were found in the report, especially concerning livestock, which constitutes an important input to the ILLM model, but not to FyrisNP. Using the best available indata for the Instruch catchment the ILRAS model gave unrealistic results, meaning negative loads for both nitrogen and phosphorus. According to the HarmoBalt report no mineral fertilizer was used in the catchment, which might be unrealistic. By using data corresponding to mineral fertilizer rate per hectare similar to Luga river catchment more reasonable figures were achieved, at least for nitrogen.

The experiences from ILRAS model applications show that the model is not suitable for use in small catchments and that it is very sensitive for the balance between nutrient inputs from fertilizer and manure one side and uptake by crops in areas with significant agricultural activity on the other side.

6.5 Conclusions

• There a many modelling tools for calculating nutrient loads and assessing source apportionment in catchments, both commercial and freely available models. In order to be useful, catchment models should be able to model both hydrology, pollution transport and retention in rivers and lakes.

It should also be able to handle inputs of both point sources and diffuse sources. The choice of modelling tools should be based on the purpose with the assessment and availability of indata.

• In RusNIP II we have collected information about the Swedish FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model. Both models have earlier been used in the HarmoBalt and BaltHazAR projects and applied in the catchments of Luga, Instruch and Mamonovka rivers.

• The FyrisNP model is a semi-empirica lmodel that has been applied in all three catchments. The overall conclusion is that it works well for monitored catchments and the indata demand is moderate. Good results can be achieve in both small and large catchments (up to 50,000 km

2

). A studied catchment should be divided in sub-catchments, contain several monitoring stations for at least monthly assessments of water flow and nutrient concentrations over several years. Further, discharges for major point sources and scattered dwellings should be available as well as nutrient loss coefficients for identified land cover/land use categories. A documented setup of FyrisNP for Luga river has been performed in the project which can serve as an example and a guidance for other rivers reported as monitored to HELCOM PLC.

122

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

• The ILLM model has been applied in the Luga (BaltHazAR) and Instruch

River catchments. It is a mass balance model that is relatively simple to use and is openly available: http://www.limno.org.ru/eng/mod.htm#num10.

• The ILLM model is most suitable for use in relatively large catchments.

It is best applied in monitored catchments so the result can be compared with monitoring data from the outlet of the catchment, but it can also be extended to areas without river monitoring, i.e. to unmonitored areas.

The accuracy of the result is much dependent on data from agriculture, notably nutrient inputs from manure, mineral fertilizer and nutrient outputs by crop uptake. In small catchments with poor indata the estimated loads may be very unreliable.

123

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

7 Assessment of nutrient loads to water from different sources

7.1 Atmospheric deposition to inland surface waters and the Baltic Sea

Direct atmospheric deposition of pollutants on inland surface waters may represent an important input and should be quantified, especially for areas with many large lakes. In areas with no lakes and only minor rivers, very small inputs can be expected and this contribution might be neglected. Atmospheric deposition to land areas eventually enters surface waters via percolation through soil and via groundwater, but this supply is generally handled as an integrated part of the input from the land environment.

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals and organic pollutants can be obtained by monitoring wet and dry deposition over open land. Deposition from local point sources can be estimated by monitoring emissions to air and apply local-scale dispersion models. In order to assess the total deposition over a catchment area appropriate wet and dry deposition rates should be multiplied by the area of inland surface waters (e.g. rivers, lakes, reservoirs) in the catchment.

EMEP (www.emep.int) can provide regional and national nitrogen deposition rates for specific years in 50x50 km grids, based on national monitoring results (emission and deposition) combined with a unified modeling approach for Europe and the North Atlantic. Quantification of phosphorus deposition is not part of the EMEP programme.

EMEP can provide deposition maps and data for the following pollutants;

– nitrogen, NHy and NOx

– metals (Cd, Hg, Pb)

– particulate matter

– some persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

At present the following POPs have been modeled by EMEP:

PCDD/Fs, B[a]P, HCB. Development is in progress for several others substances.

Atmospheric deposition to the Baltic Sea and its sub-basins of nitrogen, heavy metals and dioxins/furans is annually reported by EMEP. The results are presented at the EMEP website (publications HELCOM) and in three

HELCOM Environment Fact Sheets (www.helcom.fi):

Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals on the Baltic Sea – HELCOM

Atmospheric deposition of PCDD/Fs on the Baltic Sea – HELCOM

In the RusNIP Project, deposition data has been updated for Instruch

River catchment in Kaliningrad region.

124

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

7.2 Pollution losses from argicultural land to inland waters

7.2.1 Introduction

Many factors influence losses of nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as other pollutants, from agricultural land to inland surface waters. A multitude of processes and pathways are involved. Arable land is especially complicated, since cultivation and management varies considerably between regions and also from year to year. Pastures on the other hand represent a more stable land use characterized by long-term or permanent grass-cover.

Quantification of nutrient loss from agricultural land can be based on water monitoring at different scales, but models are often used either to quantify losses or to calculate leaching coefficients. A large number of models have been developed to quantify nutrient losses from arable land.

It is important to recognize that losses of nutrients and metals from agricultural land is composed of both an anthropogenic and a natural background component Organic pollutants like pesticides are anthropogenic in origin.

7.2.2 Leaching coefficients

Leaching coefficients can be expressed in two different ways: a) Specific loss rates, given as amount per surface area (e.g kg/ha yr) b) Land use coefficients (type specific concentrations), given as concentration

(e.g mg/l) in runoff water from a field or from a small catchment dominated by arable land. To estimate the actual losses per unit of time from a defined area, concentrations should be multiplied with the amount of runoff water during the selected time period.

Leaching coefficients for agricultural land vary with the climatic situation as well as with soil characteristics, but also crop type, land management and the slope of the fields near streams are important factors. All these characteristics vary within an agricultural landscape, and in order to estimate the total input of pollutants to water a whole set of leaching coefficients are required. This is a challenging task, and generally it is necessary to concentrate on the most important factors, e.g. soil texture and crop type.

There are several ways of assessing the required leaching coefficients. The most common ones, namely controlled experiments/plots and the small catchment approach, are described below.

7.2.2.1 CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS

The first approach is to derive leaching coefficients from experimental field plots with a single crop and controlled management. Concentrations in soil water or in the drainage system are measured. In order to cover all combinations of crops, fertilization regimes, soil types and climatic conditions, a large number of experiments are needed. Generally only the most common combinations can be studied.

125

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Soil water can be sampled by lysimeters installed in the soil. These can be classified as tension lysimeters or zero-tension lysimeters. Tension lysimeters extract soil water samples by applying a suction at a specified soil depth, normally just below the rooting zone. The samples can then be brought to the laboratory and analyzed for its chemical compounds (figure 11). Zero-tension lysimeters only collects freely draining water (soil water potential near zero), e.g. in groundwater or water in soil drainage systems.

Figure 11. Installation of suction cup lysimeters. Suction is achieved by a pump.

(Source: Lital & Tattari, 2012).

An experimental set-up should contain at least three replicate plots to monitor the impact of selected treatments like fertilization rates or different crops.

These plots should be established on land with similar soil texture. Untreated plots should be used for comparison in all experiments.

7.2.2.2 SMALL CATCHMENT APPROACH

In this approach, long-term monitoring of small catchments are applied. The selected catchments should be dominated by agricultural land and without larger settlements. The data collected will give an estimate of the integrated losses from a whole agricultural landscape. Generally, there are also other pollution sources within a catchment, e.g. discharge from households, roads or forest management. Estimates should be made in order to determine the influence of these additional sources, the influence of which might be compensated for. Small sources can be neglected. The selection of the small monitoring watersheds should be done by a GIS analysis based on shape files of:

• Digital Elevation Model (DEM),

• Land use,

• soil map,

• climate map,

• farming practice representation (best possible crop map using table data and community shape file and fields/pasture land use map),

• point source locations,

• urban wastewater sewage coordinates

126

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

The following selection criteria should be used:

• Watershed areas should represent the variation in climate, soils and overall farming practice (types of crops as vegetables, corn or potatoes, or energy crops, intensive or extensive farming, pasture or grown fields etc).

• The land use in the watershed should be dominated by the concerned land use; at least 50% for arable land, or >70–80 % for forest land.

• The watersheds should be reasonable small (about 10 – 50 km

2

) to be able to do a future inventory of the applied farming practices with reasonable efforts.

• The watersheds should have no or small contributions from point sources such as industries or wastewater.

• There should be suitable monitoring sites in the stream to monitor the water level and/or flow.

7.2.2.3 MODELLING APPROACH

In some Swedish applications with FyrisNP, leaching coefficients have been derived from other models, e.g. two supporting models used for reporting to to HELCOM PLC (Brandt et al., 2009. One of these models is the SOILNDB model (Johnsson et al., 2002), which is used for calculating type-specific concentration of nitrogen leaching from agricultural land. For calculating the type-specific concentration of phosphorus in runoff from agricultural land the

ICECREAMDB model (Larsson et al. 2007) has been used. Together these two models constitute the NLeCCS modelling system, which generate the type-specific concentrations for tot- N and tot-P as an annual average concentration normalized for climatic conditions. It can calculate concentrations for many combinations of crop and soil types.

For calculation of leaching coefficients, agricultural land in Sweden was divided into 22 leaching regions. The basis for the division was Statistics

Sweden’s set of 18 agricultural production areas for reporting of farming statistics, such as yields and fertilizer/manure applications.

7.2.2.4 CALCULATION OF POLLUTION LOSSES

Calculations can be made manually or with a numerical modeling tool. The general principle is to multiply the leaching coefficient (Leach Conc) with the corresponding land area. Depending on how the leaching coefficient is expressed the loss of a pollutant is calculated as:

1) Area (km

2

) x Areaspecific Lcoeff (kg//km

2

yr) = Annual loss (kg/yr)

2) Area (km

2

) x LeachConc (mg/l) x runoff (l/s km

2

) x 0.365 x 86.4 =

Annual loss (kg/yr)

Applying area-specific coefficients is technically easier than to use concentrations, since they can be applied without information about runoff. However, this type of coefficient does not take into account temporal variations in runoff, and in years with extreme weather conditions they will not produce

127

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

12

8

4

0

20

16 reliable results. Typically, there is a correlation between concentration and runoff, and thus leaching coefficients should not be applied in areas with hydrological conditions that are very different from the area where they were derived.

Soil characteristic, crops and soil management may have a profound influence on the leaching coefficients for nutrients. It is difficult to cover all combinations of these factors occurring over a large catchment. If there is a choice, soil texture should be considered in the first place and thereafter crop type.

Figure 12 illustrates the importance of soil texture on nitrogen and phosphorus leaching coefficient for spring barley.

Spring barley, PR 2a

N mg/l

P mg/l

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0

Figure 12. Effects of soil texture on leaching coefficients of nitrogen (N, red triangles) and phosphorus (P, black circles) for spring barley in southern Sweden; production region 2a.

(Johnsson et al. 2008).

For heavy metals, concentrations in soil may be an important factor. Lead is e.g. strongly bound to organic matter in soil and leaching can be low even if the soil pool is relatively large. However, if concentrations in soil reach very high level the leaching may considerable.

A detailed soil map is an important tool for selecting proper leaching coefficients. In areas described by scattered (not systematic) soil sampling the results has to be interpolated to describe the spatial variation of soil properties over the study area. For organic pollutants such as pesticides, crop distribution is important since the pesticide substances applied on the fields are specific for different crops. Effects of organic pollutants depend to large extent on the physico-chemical properties of the substance, which determine degradation rates, affinity for air, water or soil and transport of the substance to surface and ground water.

Relevant leaching coefficients for agricultural land may be difficult to find, and in Russia no site-specific coefficients are available. Literature data may be used in the short term but it is very important to collect information that reflects the real situation in Russian catchments.

128

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Table 8 contains leaching concentrations used in modelling the nutrient loads from agriculture in Luga river catchment (Orback & Djodjic, 2014). The values were derived from data calculated for SE Sweden. These concentrations could be used as a starting point also in the Russian Baltic Sea catchment until better information is available.

Table 8. Leaching concentrations for nitrogen and phosphorus for different soil types and crops types used in assessment of nutrient loads in the Luga river catchment (see chapter 6.4 in the main report).

Nutrient

Soil type

Loam

LoamySand

SandyLoam

SiltLoam

Loam

LoamySand

SandyLoam

SiltLoam

Nitrogen

Nitrogen

Nitrogen

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Phosphorus

Phosphorus

Phosphorus

Crops

Spring Barley

(mg/l)

10.2

11.7

10.8

10.3

0.33

0.04

0.06

0.41

Ley

(mg/l)

3.1

6.8

3.8

2.3

0.24

0.04

0.04

0.35

Potato

(mg/l)

10.6

12.3

11.3

10.7

0.33

0.04

0.06

0.41

Green fallow

(mg/l)

1.8

2.9

1.8

1.1

0.26

0.04

0.05

0.35

7.3 Pollution losses from non-agricultural managed land

Non-agricultural managed land includes:

• managed forest;

• managed heathland;

• other land-use categories not included as agricultural land or unmanaged land.

A forest or a heathland is considered managed if regulated by human activity.

If at least one of the following activities are present in the area it could be classified as managed.

• planting, harvesting, or burning;

• application of fertilizer and/or manure;

• major soil activities (ploughing, new tiles or ditches etc.);

• animal grazing.

In principle, the quantification of nutrient losses from non-agricultural managed land is the same as for agricultural land, including appropriate monitoring and/or modeling approaches.

There are no leaching coefficients available for this land cover categories in Russia, but table 9 contains some provisional figures. In Sweden, a nitrogen coefficient of about 1 mg/l is used for clear-cuts which is added to the background leaching of 0.5 mg/l. For phosphorus the losses from clear-cuts are calculated using the factor 1.6 times a background loss of ca 0.01 mg/l. Forests in NW Russia are relatively similar to those in Sweden and the .

129

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Nutrient leaching from managed wetlands and heathlands is difficult to assess and may be considered as background loads (see section 6). The management is normally grazing and peat extraction.

Table 9. Preliminary leaching coefficients for the Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea (mg/l).

Land category

Forest land

(unmanaged)

Clearcuts

Tot - N

(mg/l)

1.5

2.5

Tot-P

(mg/l)

0.015 ?

Data origin

0.05 – 0.1

Estimate for Luga

(Andreev et al. 2009)

Estimate for Luga

(Andreev et al. 2009)

7.4 Loads from households in urban and rural areas

Households not connected to public sewerage systems are considered as diffuse sources. The main pollutants entering water bodies from these sources are nutrients, mainly phosphorus, but also nitrogen, pathogens, organic matter

(Biological Oxygen Demand, BOD), household-related chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Technical solutions for treatment of wastewater from households not connected to sewage systems are highly variable and both the efficiency of the treatment facility and the distance to surface waters will influence the quantity of pollutants reaching surface waters.

Households in urban areas connected to collection systems are considered point sources as the pollutants are normally led by pipes directly into water bodies. In networks without treatment plants no retention can be accounted for. Wastewater treatment plants with biological treatment (secondary treatment) can remove about 90 % of the incoming organic matter but only 30 % of the nitrogen and up to 80% of the phosphorus. Higher levels of phosphorus removal require supplementary chemical treatment.

The quantification of losses of BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies should be based on average specific loss coefficients, taking into account the level of water consumption, treatment methods, pathways of discharge, and distance to the water bodies.

The assessment of loads from unconnected households could be made on the basis of local, regional or national statistics. Ideally, registers, databases or maps should be established providing information on:

– the number of households not connected to sewerage systems

– the number of people living in the households, taking into account the

“part of the year inhabitants” (e.g. offices, shops, hotels, tourist accommodations and secondary houses)

– the wastewater treatment technology

– location of the households in relation to watercourses (if available) and soil conditions (which influences the fraction of the load that actually reaches the surface waters).

130

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

The annual amount of nutrients, BOD and chemicals ending up in the sewerage system as a result of excretion, dish-washing, food preparations and other activities in an average household is the starting point for the calculations.

Table 10 shows standard values used in Sweden referring to the 2010 situation and households with water-flushed toilets. In addition, values used by the

OSPAR Commission are given.

Table 10. Standard values for annual amount of BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus added to wastewater per person in Sweden (kg per person and year). The OSPAR value refers to flushed toilets with no specific external treatment (Source: Ek et al. 2011, OSPAR 2004).

Type of detergent

Sweden; P – containing

Sweden; P – free

OSPAR

BOD

7

(kg/p/yr)

27

27

N-tot (kg/p/yr)

5.4

5.4

3.1

P-tot (kg/p/yr)

0.77

0.62

0.43

The amounts given for Sweden would be typical for an average grown-up person staying permanently at home. In reality, most persons periodically stay out of home for work, school or vacation. Thus, the values should be reduced accordingly. An average figure for a community population is to spend

60–65% of their time in their home, which makes losses close to those given by OSPAR.

The actual load from a household depends on what kind of wastewater treatment is available, use of P-free detergents, etc. For a whole population, standard values taking into account as many site-specific factors as possible should be used. Examples of treatment efficiency is given in table 11.

Table 11. Standard values for treatment efficiency (% removal) with different treatment technology

(Ek et al. 2011).

Treatment

Open septic tank

% removal % removal % removal

20 ± 10 10 ± 5 15 ± 10

Septic tank + infiltration 85 ± 10

Advanced treatment 90 ± 5

30 ± 10

40 ± 20

50 ± 30

80 ± 10

The load of nitrogen and phosphorus from households not connected to sewerage systems may be validated by monitoring in streams receiving nitrogen and phosphorus from many households, provided that all other main nutrient sources are known. The share coming from scattered dwellings can then be derived as a difference.

A more explicit approach would be to test existing treatment facilities by

in situ sampling. This is more resource-demanding. It should be noted that the functioning of individual treatment facilities may vary depending on its age, construction and management.

131

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

7.5 Transport of pollutants with storm water

Storm water is derived as precipitation runoff from hard surfaces like streets, roads, buildings, parking lots, etc. This runoff will carry a range of pollutants to rivers and lakes and cause flooding if the capacity of the storm water collection system is exceeded. Storm water contains nutrients, metals and organic pollutants and concentrations are especially high after periods of extended droughts and during runoff at the start of a rain. Pollutants in storm water generally originate from atmospheric deposition, car fuel exhaust, leaching from surfaces as well as from mechanical erosion of roads, tires and brakes.

Water and air pollution due to salting and sanding of roads is a large issue in areas where temperature below the freezing point is common. The pollution level is dependent on traffic intensity, temperature, road moisture, use of metal dub tires, sand and salt application.

The transport to a receiving water body can be estimated with reference to land use, precipitation, surface runoff coefficients for various land uses and the proportion of the storm water entering the recipient. In order to estimate the load, runoff should be multiplied by concentration estimates for different land uses. Load calculations should relate only to pollutants in surface runoff, and should not include the load from basic runoff such as drainage water and groundwater.

The assessment of surface areas in urban and rural environments is made by specific inventories or by generally available digital land cover maps like the European CORINE (2006). Many countries have also developed more detailed digital maps. Runoff can be estimated from precipitation data or by models. One such model is StormTac (http;//stormtac.com), which calculates water flow from precipitation data and land use specific runoff coefficients and areas. Pollution load rate (kg/year) is quantified from calculated flow and from standard concentrations.

The StormTac model contains standard concentrations of storm water and base flow for 33 priority substances, estimated empirically from a large set of flow proportional field sampling data in Sweden. These are tabled as standard, minimum and maximum values and can be downloaded from the website.

Concentrations are mainly derived from monitoring programs in urban areas and those related to other land use categories should be used with more care.

Applications in other countries than Sweden should consider geographic difference in long-range transported air pollution on water as well as differences in use of chemical substances which could affect the presence of pollutants in recipient waters.

Storm water in urban areas are often led to sewerage networks and are thus included in the measured load from an agglomeration. In newly built areas, local systems for storm water treatment are more common. This implies that storm water should be considered a separate source in built-up areas if loads in wastewater are calculated using standard values based on population.

In cases where the loads are measured in sewerage systems, the storm water is already included.

132

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

7.6 Natural background loads

Natural background loads to water bodies refer to losses from land areas that are unaffected, or only slightly influenced, by human activities. They include leaching from unmanaged land as well as the part of the losses from managed land that would occur irrespective of anthropogenic activities (e.g. agriculture).

In many cases nutrient losses from unmanaged land can be used as an approximation for natural background losses. Unmanaged land areas include:

• unmanaged forest and woodlands;

• unmanaged heathland;

• shrubland;

• unmanaged bogs, wet meadows and wetlands;

• abandoned agricultural land.

Natural background losses can be estimated using different approaches or a combination of approaches. The most common approaches are:

A. Monitoring of small unmanaged catchment areas lacking point sources;

B. Monitoring of concentrations of pollutants in soil water or groundwater unaffected by human activity;

C. Use of calibrated nutrient pollution models.

D. Sediment-water relationships providing historic data from sediment cores.

Nutrient losses from forest land are generally considered to be near background load. Studies in Sweden indicate that the difference is small between managed and unmanaged forest land and that the effect of clear-cuts are small if they cover less than 10% of the catchment area.

Data in table 12 indicates that nutrient losses from forest land in Sweden and Finland are very similar and the forest cover in the studied catchment was almost 100 %. Especially phosphorous losses from acid coniferous forest soils are very low, and higher losses can be expected from more fertile deciduous forest land. A recent Polish study show considerably higher values. In the

Polish study the selected catchments were covered to > 70% by forest and semi-natural areas, so it is reasonable to expect somewhat higher leaching losses. Based on these data, rough estimates of background loads of nitrogen and phosphorus from forest land and wetlands in Russia were made. These coefficients should be validated by Russian studies.

It is important to realize that also arable land has background loads that would occur irrespective of agricultural activities. Generally, agricultural soils are naturally more fertile than forest soil and the background load would thus be higher. Generalised background leaching concentrations from arable land with a mixture of soil types are also given in table 12.

133

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Table 12. Background nutrient leaching concentrations from studies in Sweden, Finland and

Poland and provisional leaching concentrations for the Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea.

Land category Data origin

Forest land

Tot - N

(mg/l)

0.5

(0.2 – 0.7)

Tot-P

(mg/l)

0.01

(0.005 – 0.02)

Wetland/mire

Forest Finland

Forest Poland

Forest Russia

Wetland Russia

Arable land

0.8

0.1–1.4

1.0 –1.9

0.8 –1.5

1.5

1.3 –2.1

0.01

0.003 – 0.03

0.04 – 0.12

0.04 – 0.08

0.01

0.06–0.10

S. Sweden

(Uggla & Westling, 2003; Fröberg and Löfgren, 2014)

S. Sweden

Finland

(Kortelainen et al. 2006)

Poland

(Instytut Meteorologii i

Gospodarki Wodnej, Katowice

Estimate Luga

(Andreev et al. 2009)

Estimate Luga

(Andreev et al. 2009)

Calculated for Sweden

In Sweden background losses of nitrogen from arable land are calculated by the SOILNDB model to represent leaching concentrations in grass-covered land that is not fertilized or harvested over a 20-year period. The corresponding concentrations for phosphorus is calculated using the ICECREAM model representing unfertilized and harvested sown fallow with a low P-HCL class

(P-Class I). I a recent study (Djodjic Faruk and Elin Widén-Nilsson, 2013) calculations of background losses of phosphorus from arable soils was made using P-concentrations in the subsoil, and this gave somewhat lower P leaching concentrations.

134

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

8 References

Andreev, Pavel; Zagrebina,Tatiana; Muratova, N.A; Tsepelev, V.Y and

Shumkova, P.N. (2009). Report within the framework of the contract

“Harmonisation of methods for monitoring and assessment of nutrient loads from land to the Baltic Sea and effects of countermeasures – HarmoBalt.

St Petersburg Regional Center for Hydrometeorology and Environmental

Monitoring. St. Petersburg.

Bartnicki, Jerzy; Gusev, Alexey; Aas, Wenche, Valiyaveetil, Semeena and Nyiri,

Agnes (2013). Atmospheric supply of nitrogen, lead, Cadmium, Mercury and dioxins/furans to the Baltic Sea in 2013. EMEP/MSC-W Technical Report

2/2013

Brandt, Maja; Ejhed, Helene and Rapp, Lars (2009). Nutrient loads to the

Swedish marine environment in 2006. Stockholm. Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency, ISBN 978-91-620-5995-8.

Chubareko, Boris and Gorbunova, Julia. (2009). Harmonization of methods for monitoring, modelling and assessment of nutrient loads from land to the Baltic Sea and off effects of countermeasures – HarmoBalt. Russian

Academy of Sciences, Atlantic Branch of P.P.Shirshov Institute of Oceanology,

Laboratory for Coastal Systems Study. Kaliningrad.

Domnin, Dmitry and Chubareko, Boris (2012). Testing of nutrient load model (FyrisNP) for the River Mamonovka catchment. BalthazAR II project.

Component 2.2 Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pollution load data from different sources for e.g. HELCOM pollution load compilations. Appendix 3b. Russian Academy of Sciences Atlantic Branch of

P.P. Shirshov Institute for Oceanology. Laboratory for Coastal Systems Study,

Kaliningrad.

Djodjic, Faruk and Widén-Nilsson, Elin (2013). Review of the calculation method for background losses of phosphorus from arable soil.

SvenskaMiljöEmmissionsData. SMED Report No. 138. ISSN: 1653-8102.

(In Swedish with English summary).

Ek, Mats; Junestedt, Christian; Larsson, Cajsa; Olshammar, Mikael and Ericsson, Marianne (2011). Teknikenkät – enskilda avlopp 2009.

SvenskaMiljöEmmissionsData. SMED Rapport Nr 44. ISSN: 1653-8102

(In Swedish).

Fröberg, Mats and Löfgren,Stefan (2014). Improved assessments of leaching concentrations of N and P from forest land and mires in Southern Sweden to be used in PLC6. SvenskaMiljöEmmissionsData. SMED Report 141. ISSN:

1653-8102 (In Swedish with English summary).

Grimvall, Anders and Stålnacke, Per (1996). Statistical model for source apportionment of riverine loads of pollutants. Environmentrics 7, 201-213.

135

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Gustafsson, Bo and Mörth, Carl-Magnus (in prep) Revision of the Maximum

Allowable Inputs and Country Allocation Scheme of the Baltic Sea Action

Plan. Baltic Nest Institute, Stockholm University.

HELCOM 2007. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Helsinki Commission.

HELCOM 2011. Fifth Pollution Load Compilation. Baltic Sea Environment

Proceedings No 128. Helsinki Commission.

HELCOM 2012. BaltHaZAR Project. Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pollution load data from different sources for e.g.

HELCOM pollution load compilations http. Summary report prepared by the Finnish Environment and Institute of Limnology , Russian Academy of

Sciences. Helsinki Commission ://www.helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/projects/ completed-projects/balthazar/

HELCOM 2013. Review of the fifth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation for the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting. Helsinki Commission. Baltic Sea

Environmental Proceedings No.141.

Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej, Katowice. 2013. Unpublished

Johnsson, Holger; Larsson, Martin and Mårtensson, K. & Hoffmann, Markus

(2002). SOILNDB: a decision support tool for assessing nitrogen leaching losses from arable land. Environmental Modelling and Software 17, 505-517.

Johnsson, Holger; Larsson, Martin; Lindsjö, Anders; Mårtensson, Kristina.

Persson and Torstensson, Gunnar. 2008. Nutrient losses from arable land in

Sweden (In Swedish). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5823.

Kondratyev, Sergey (2007). Formation of external loading on water bodies; problems of modelling (in Russian). Nauka. St Petersburg, 255 pp.

Kondratyev, Sergey (2008). The influence of catchment land covers on phosphorus balance for large freshwater system – In Use of landscape sciences for the assessment of environmental security .Eds Petrosillo I et al. Springer

Verlag, p 225-235.

Kondratyev, Sergey and Ignatieva, Natalia 2007. An assessment of the nutrient load on the Russian part of the catchment of the Gulf of Finland and nutrient budget for Lake Ladoga. Finnish Environment 15, 22-25.

Kondratyev, Sergey and Trumbull, Nathaniel (2012). Nutrient loading on the

Eastern Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) from the Russian catchment area. Journal

Hydrol. Hydromech., 60(3), 145–151.

Kondratyev, Sergey; Tattari, Sirkka and Ekholm, Petri (2012). Testing the nutrient load model for the River Luga catchment. BalthazAR II project.

Component 2.2 Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pollution load data from different sources for e.g. HELCOM pollution load compilations. SYKE, Helsinki and Institute of Limnology, Academy of

Sciences. St Petersburg.

136

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Kortelainen, Pirkko; Mattsson, Tuija; Finér, Leena, Ahtiainen,Marketta;

Saukkonen,Sari and Sallantaus, Tapani (2006). Controls on the export of C,

N, P and Fe from undisturbed boreal catchments, Finland. Aquatic Sciences

68, 453–468.

Larsson, M.H., Persson, K., Ulén, B., Lindsjö, A. and N.J. Jarvis, 2007.

A dual porosity model to quantify phosphorus losses from macroporous soils.

– Ecological Modelling 205, 123-134.

Lassen, P. & Larsen, M.M. 2013. Report on the HELCOM PLC6 intercalibration. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy,

114 pp. Technical Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and

Energy No. 27

Larsson, M.H., Persson, K., Ulén, B., Lindsjö, A. and N.J. Jarvis, 2007.

A dual porosity model to quantify phosphorus losses from macroporous soils.

– Ecological Modelling 205, 123-134.

Lital, Arvo and Tattari, Sirkka: (2012), Guidelines for surface and drainage water quality monitoring in agriculture dominated areas. The Finnish

Environment 6, 2012. ISBN 978-952-11-3985-7

OSPAR (2004). OSPAR HARP-NUT Guideline 5: Quantification and reporting of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from households not connected to public sewerage. OSPAR Commission ref nr 2004-2-E

Orback, Caroline and Djodjic, Faruk (2014). Luga River; update of input

data and setup of FyrisNP model. Uppsala. Swedish University of Agricultural

Sciences; Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Implementation of the

Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, Point sources. Results from the RusNIP project. Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency. ISBN 978-91-6206368-9.

SYKE (2009).Identification of priority measures to reduce eutrophication from North-West Russia into the Gulf of Finland. PRIMER. Baseline Study.

Finnish Environment Institute.

Stålnacke, Per; Pengerud, Annelene; Vassiljev, Anatoli; Smedberg, Erik;

Mörth, Carl-Magnus; Eriksson Hägg, Hanna; Humborg, Cristoph and

Andersen, Hans Estrup (2011). Nutrient surface water retention on the

Baltic Sea drainage basin. Bioforsk Ås. RECOCA project Deliverable 6.2.

Widén-Nilsson, Elin; Hansson Klas; Wallin Mats; Djodjic, Faruk and

Orback, Caroline (2012 a). The FyrisNP model Version 3.2. – A user´s manual. Uppsala. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Environmental Assessment. Report 2012:8.

137

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REPORT 6645

Annex 2 – Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source apportionment

Widén-Nilsson, Elin; Hansson, Klas; Wallin, Mats; Djodjic Faruk and

Lindgren, Georg (2012 b). The FyrisNP model Version 3.2. –Technical description. Uppsala. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,

Department of Environmental Assessment. Report 2012:9.

Uggla, Eva and Westling, Olle (2003). Leaching of phosphorus from managed forest land. IVL Report B 1549. (In Swedish)

138

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the

Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

RusNIP II. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan

(BSAP) in the Russian Federation

REPORT 6645

SWEDISH EPA

ISBN 978-91-620-6645-1

ISSN 0282-7298

RusNIP II is the second part of a bilateral Russian-

Swedish cooperation project, with an aim to strengthen the capacity of responsible Russian authorities in implementing the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), established in 2007. RusNIP II started in 2012 and has concentrated on monitoring and assessment activities relating to waterborne pollution, partly in cooperation with the EU-funded projects BaltHazAR and BASE.

In this final report it is concluded that Russia does not yet fulfil the requirements of HELCOM for producing data on waterborne pollution loads from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment.

The report contains recommendations on changes in organisation, legislation and funding of the present assessment system to better comply with HELCOM guidelines.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Swedish EPA SE-106 48 Stockholm. Visiting address: Stockholm - Valhallavägen 195, Östersund - Forskarens väg 5 hus Ub, .

Tel: +46 10 698 10 00, fax: +46 10 698 10 99, e-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.swedishepa.se Orders Ordertel: +46 8 505 933 40, orderfax: +46 8 505 933 99, e-mail: [email protected] Address: Arkitektkopia AB, Box 110 93, SE-161 11 Bromma. Internet: www.swedishepa.se/publications

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Related manuals

Download PDF

advertisement

Table of contents