12th july 2018 - european commission a3 annex xii... · london office 11 belgrave road ieep...

12th July 2018

Annex XII Application of the bottom-up multicriteria methodology in eight European River Basin District The Helge River RBD Task A3 of the BLUE 2 project “Study on EU integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non- implementation” By: Agnes Forsberg Mattias von Brömssen In collaboration with

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiMkJqXub7aAhWFXBQKHSMKCJkQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https://www.justdial.com/Hyderabad/Ramboll-India-Pvt-Ltd-Gutla-Begumpet-Madhapur/040PXX40-XX40-110103152216-R3G5_BZDET/photos&psig=AOvVaw1WI4BKYaYAZ2BCbuOHTSdd&ust=1523956139404259

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi1m8G2ub7aAhUHXRQKHTt8BtgQjRx6BAgAEAU&url=http://www.ecorys.com.tr/Areas-of-Expertise&psig=AOvVaw0cb14UBuLXr3vBO_zz2M4l&ust=1523956200681846

Disclaimer: The arguments expressed in this report are solely those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinion of any other party. The report should be cited as follows: Forsberg and von Brömssen (2018). Annex XII. Application of the bottom-up multicriteria methodology in eight European River Basin Districts – The Helge River RBD. Deliverable to Task A3 of the BLUE 2 project “Study on EU integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non- implementation”. Report to DG ENV. Client: Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission. Ramboll Group A/S Hannemanns Allé 53 DK-2300 Copenhagen S Denmark Tel: +45 5161 1000 Fax: +45 5161 1001

Institute for European Environmental Policy London Office 11 Belgrave Road IEEP Offices, Floor 3 London, SW1V 1RB Tel: +44 (0) 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7799 2600 Brussels Office Rue Joseph II 36-38, 1000 Bruxelles Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482 Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 3

Preface ............................................................................................................................. 5

1 Description of the Helge River Basin District .............................................................. 6

2 The Second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the related Programme of Measure (PoM) ................................................................................................................ 8

3 The measures included in the BAU level of effort ...................................................... 9

4 Description of the measures included in the BAU level of effort (a quarter of a page per measure) ........................................................................................................................ 12

5 The measures included in the HI level of effort (1-2 pages) ...................................... 20

6 Description of the measures included in the HI level of effort .................................. 23

7 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort ........................................ 27

8 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort ........................................... 31

9 Outcomes of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort ...................... 35

10 Benefits of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort ......................... 42

11 Biodiversity improvements of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort 51

12 Comparison of the costs and benefits in the two levels of effort .............................. 52

13 Challenges and recommendations to improve the methodology .............................. 59

List of Tables Table 1 Characterisation of the River Basin District Helge å ..................................................... 7

Table 2 Measures in the BAU level of effort ............................................................................ 11

Table 3 Measures in the HI level of effort ............................................................................... 22

Table 4 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – total funding ................ 30

Table 5 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort – total funding .................... 34

Table 6 Expected outcomes – BAU level of effort ................................................................... 38

Table 7 Expected outcomes – HI level of effort ....................................................................... 40

Table 8 Expected benefits – BAU level of effort ...................................................................... 45

Table 9 Expected benefits – HI level of effort.......................................................................... 48

Table 10 Expected biodiversity improvements – BAU level of effort ...................................... 51

Table 11 Expected biodiversity improvements – HI level of effort ......................................... 51

Table 12 Summary of the costs in the two levels of effort ...................................................... 53

Table 13 Summary of the outcomes in the two levels of effort .............................................. 54

Table 14 Summary of the benefits in the two levels of effort ................................................. 56

Table 15 Summary of the biodiversity improvements in the two levels of effort .................. 58

List of Figures Figure 1 Overview of the BLUE2 study ...................................................................................... 5

Figure 2 The Helge å River Basin District ................................................................................... 7

Figure 3. Improvement needs in the River basin of Helge å (VISS, 2018). ................................. 8

Figure 4. Number of measures in the PoM in each category ..................................................... 9

Figure 5. Distribution of measures in the PoM by cost ............................................................ 10

Figure 6. Lake Femlingen, blue outline, is located east of Älmhult ......................................... 12

Figure 7. Araslövs lake north west of Kristianstad. .................................................................. 14

Figure 8. Location of Osby lake and the stretch of Helge river called Killingaån river. ........... 15

Figure 9. Location of Lillån river in Helge river RB. .................................................................. 18

Figure 10. Measures categorized as Possible in PoM distributed by quantity. ....................... 20

Figure 11. Measures categorized as Possible in PoM distributed by costs. ............................. 21

Preface

This annex report is one product of the “Study on European Union (EU) integrated policy assessment for the freshwater and marine environment, on the economic benefits of EU water policy and on the costs of its non-implementation” (BLUE2) commissioned by the European Commission (EC).

The overall aim of the BLUE2 study is to support the Commission in building up its analytical capacity and understanding of the economics and effectiveness of the EU water acquis.

BLUE2 is comprised of two parts, as shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1 Overview of the BLUE2 study

The overall objective of Part A of BLUE2 is to increase the understanding of the full (economic) value that water, and water services generate and how water resources contribute to economic development and citizens' well-being. The findings of BLUE2 will further assist in quantifying how the EU water acquis contributes to this value generation, using the most appropriate valuation techniques.

The overall objective of Part B of BLUE2 is to develop a method for the integrated socio-economic assessment of policies affecting the quality of the freshwater and marine environment, to be applied in connection with the water and marine modelling framework held by the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). The method and accompanying tools will be used to support policy development. In particular, Part B aims to establish an EU pressures inventory and measures database. Additionally, Part B will increase the understanding of the cost-effectiveness of measures and the benefits arising from a reduction of pressures on the freshwater and marine environment through the application of two online modelling tools. A Scenario Generation Tool for defining and generating policy scenarios for JRC modelling and an Evaluation Tool for cost-benefit assessment of the created scenarios.

Task A3 of BLUE2 developed a bottom-up multicriteria methodology to compare costs and benefits of water policy at the River Basin District level. This annex summarises the results of the application of the methodology developed in Task A3 to the Helge River RBD.

1 Description of the Helge River Basin District

Helge å River basin is located in the south of Sweden and has a length of 90 km. It occupies a total area of 4724

km2 and is thereby one of the larger river basins in Sweden. The river Helge å discharges into the southern part

of the Baltic Sea at Kristianstad. The Helge River basin has in total 176 water bodies: 29 lakes, 81 rivers and 66

groundwater aquifers. Its larger lakes are Hammarsjön, Möckeln and Finjasjön. Its management is based upon

a cooperation agreement between the 13 municipalities that have a share in the Helge å river basin. Around

half of the water bodies, both in terms of size and number, in Helge å river basin suffer from acidification and

eutrophication and do not reach good status within these classifications.

One of Sweden’s largest groundwater resources is located in sedimentary bedrock partly within Helge å river

basin. The current status of the groundwater resource is good, and measures are included in the PoM to

preserve the high quality and secure a future sustainable drinking water source. Agriculture, forestry and

contaminated sites are pressures that threaten the valuable groundwaterbody.

The agricultural and forest sectors are important for the local economy. The largest private employers in the

river basin are in the food industry such as HK Scan, a manufacturer of meat foods and products. A large

number of the population is also employed by the furniture or wood industry such as IKEA of Sweden AB,

which was founded in the third largest city in the river basin, Älmhult.

One of the main pressures in the river basin is hydropower, due to its impact on the environment and water

quality. The need to maintain free flows and protect aquatic species conflicts with the need to produce

electricity. When constructing many of the hydropower plants the role of ecosystem services and aquatic

resources were highly neglected. Measures to update dams in river Helge to reduce the impact on aquatic

resources are included in the PoM. Moreover, the establishment of dikes to allow for agricultural and forest

sectors to develop had an indirect impact on the physical changes of the river, as wetlands and peatland have

been drained.

There is an ongoing conflict between the forest and environmental sectors. The historical dikes and associated

forest drainage is one of the key challenges for the river basin. The historical legacy to promote and expand

the forest sector is now an important part of the society in the area. Despite the environmental challenges

connected to the forest sector there have increasingly been efforts to identify possible solutions to reduce the

environmental impact connected to the sector. A measure applied in the area includes cleaning of dikes. Many

techniques currently employed in the forest sector have a negative impact on water quality.

Brownification of water bodies is another pressure in the river basin

(http://helgeamodelforest.se/brunifiering-av-vatten/), and it has increased in the RBD since the 1970s.

According to the Water Authority brownification cannot prevent waterbodies from reaching good ecological

water status, but the issue of brownification is however an issue of great importance in the basin because it

has an impact on drinking water, tourism, biodiversity, fishery and other water users. The decrease visibility

has had an impact on fishery, birds and other aquatic species.

http://helgeamodelforest.se/brunifiering-av-vatten/

Table 1 Characterisation of the River Basin District Helge å

Name of the RBD

Country Sweden

Population (number of inhabitants) 131 000

Total area (km2) 4724

Population density (inhabitants/km2) 28

GDP per capita (€) 34 700 (Kristianstad)

Unemployment rate 7,6 (Kristianstad)

Total surface of inland waters (km2) 166

Main cities and their population (number of inhabitants)

Kristianstad (40 150) Hässleholm (18 700) Osby (7 660) Älmhult (9 900) Åhus (9 950)

Water bodies in high status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)

<1

Water bodies in good status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)

11

Water bodies in moderate status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)

66

Water bodies in poor status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)

11

Water bodies in bad status (%, in terms of surface area, not number)

11

Name of the main Protected Areas, their size (ha) and their main biota(s)

Helge å Ramsar area, wetland biota, 8 000 ha

Percentage of agricultural surface out of total river basin surface (%)

22

Figure 2 The Helge å River Basin District

2 The Second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the related Programme of Measure (PoM)

To implement the WFD, a new regional level for water management was introduced by the establishment of a

Water Authority in each of the five River Basin Districts (RBDs) in Sweden. The five regional water authorities

are exclusively responsible for developing River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and Programmes of

Measures (PoM).

In the PoM, the total reported budget for Helge å river basin is about EUR20 million for 395 planned measures

for the entire programming period. The additional possible measures have a total budget of EUR100 million for

243 measures. The water authority estimates that the cost for authorities and municipalities for the measures

included in the previous 2nd RBMP was 70 - 130 million EUR per year until the end of 2015.

According to the RBMP, the most urgent pressures in the larger River Basin District are related to

eutrophication, drinking water supply, contaminated areas and physical impact, but there are challenges in

other areas as well.

When analysing the number of measures included in the PoM of the river basin of Helge å, most of them

address eutrophication from nutrient load, contaminants and acidification. The most important pressures

according to the 2nd RBMP are the same ones, plus brownification, climate change and contamination of

groundwater.

The RBD’s most important pressures and/or priorities according to the VISS database:

• Eutrophication from nutrient load • Connectivity changes

• Contaminants • Morphological changes

• Acidification • Groundwater

• Changes in flow (fish aspect) • Chloride/Sulphate

Figure 3. Improvement needs in the River basin of Helge å (VISS, 2018).

Eutrophication from nutrient load

15%

Contaminants10%

Acidification18%

Changes in flow3%

Connectivity changes

12%

Morphological changes

37%

Groundwater 1%

Chloride/Sulphate4%

Improvement needs, percentage of quantity

3 The measures included in the BAU level of effort

The data used in this report is derived from the VISS Database, a Swedish website where the Water Districts

(and other authorities) include information about all water bodies in Sweden.

In the Programme of Measures for Helge å river basin, a large number of measures are under the category

Planned. In order to choose which measures to include in the BAU level of effort, the number of measures in

the category Planned for each type of measure was calculated (see Figure 4). Liming from air was the most

common type of measure (55% of the total number of measures) and liming in general constituted about 99%

of the number of planned measures

Figure 4. Number of measures in the PoM in each category

However, liming from air constituted only 2% of the entire cost of the planned measures, while remediation of

contaminated soils made up one third of it (see Figure 5).

Remediation contaminated soils

1%

Liming from boat20%

Liming from doser24%

Liming from air55%

Other - Guidance documents, sewer

systems0%

Planned measures, percentage of quantity

Figure 5. Distribution of measures in the PoM by cost

In other words, the most important measures in terms of number and costs fall under only two types of KTMs,

KTM 4 and KTM 25.

In order to include more KTMs in the BAU and HI levels of effort, we decide to include 25% of the measures

categorized as Possible in the BAU level of effort. This is because it is not likely that the municipalities within

the river basin focus only on liming in the coming years. In this way, many of the identified pressures in the

river basin are included in the BAU level of effort.

Using this approach, the KTMs included in the BAU level of effort are the following (see Table 2):

KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants KTM2 – Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture KTM4 – Remediation of contaminated sites KTM5 – Improving longitudinal continuity KTM13 – Drinking water protection measures KTM25 – Measures to counteract acidification

Remediation contaminated soils

33%

Liming from boat2%

Liming from doser62%

Liming from air2%

Other - Guidance documents, sewer

systems1%

Planned measures, percentage of costs

Table 2 Measures in the BAU level of effort

Code (1st number: KTM; 2nd number: basic measure

Name of the Individual basic measure

Location Does the measure target a river, a lake or groundwater?

1;1 Increase phosphorus separation in wastewater treatment plant (unspecified)

Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Lake

1;2 Update single house hold waste water treatment from poor to normal standard


1;3 Update single house hold waste water treatment from normal to high standard


2;1 Structural liming in soil Kristianstad Lake

4; 1 Remediation of contaminated site. Dry cleaner

Kristianstad River, groundwater

5;1 Establishing fish pass bypassing power plant in use

Osby River

13;1 Revision of water protection area

Kristianstad Groundwater

13;2 Establish of water protection area


25; 1 Liming with doser

South of Ljungby River

25; 2 Liming from boat

South of Ljungby Lake

25; 3 Liming from air South of Ljungby River

4 Description of the measures included in the BAU level of effort (a quarter of a page per measure)

KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants The adressed waterbody for this KTM is the lake Femlingen. Femlingen lake is a spring lake with good fishing possibilities. Pike, European perch, bream, roach and eel are found here. Measured phosphorus content is average 28.2 μg / l (+ -4.1 with 95% confidence interval). The reference value for the lake is calculated to 14.8 μg / l, which is the one that would be observed if if the lake were unaffected by anthropogenic pressures. The boundary between Good / Moderate status is the double reference value. Reliability of the classification is assessed as poor (Class D) as the confidence interval overlaps the class boundary between Moderate and Good status, which makes the assessment of status uncertain. Since the distribution of the analytical result is so scattered, it is uncertain whether the status should be Good or Moderate. For this reason, Femlingen’s status is set to Moderate.

Figure 6. Lake Femlingen, blue outline, is located east of Älmhult

KTM1;1. Increase phosphorus separation in wastewater treatment plant (unspecified) Related KTM: 2, 13, 16, 19 Location: Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Addressed water body: Femlingen Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load from waste water treatment plant to adjacent lake Femlingen by 95 % Overall budget: 95 300 EUR Addressed pressures: Phosphorus load and eutrophication. List of expected outcomes: Reduced eutrophication in Femlingen Expected life time: 30 years Brief description of the measure: Usage of precipitation agent that reduces nutrient effluent by 95%. Other relevant information:

KTM1;2. Update singlehouse hold wastewater treatment from poor to normal standard Related KTM: 2, 13, 16, 19 Location: Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Addressed water body: Femlingen Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load from single house hold wastewater treatment plant to adjacent lake Femlingen Overall budget: 220 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Phosphorus load and eutrophication from many small sources. List of expected outcomes: Reduced eutrophication in Femlingen

Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Install or update modern small scale wastewater treatment for single households with 70 % reduction of phosphorous. Other relevant information:

Code KTM1;3. Update single household wastewater treatment from normal to high standard Related KTM: 2, 13, 16, 19 Location: Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Addressed water body: Femlingen Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load from single house hold wastewater treatment plant to adjacent lake Femlingen Overall budget: 42500 EUR Addressed pressures: Phosphorus load and eutrophication from many small sources. List of expected outcomes: Reduced eutrophication in Femlingen Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Install or update modern small scale wastewater treatment for single households with 90 % reduction of phosphorous Other relevant information:

KTM 2 – Reduce nutrient load from agriculture

The addressed waterbody for this KTM is the Araslövs lake. Araslövs lake is a large shallow lake with

fast turnover. Natural fluctuations in the water level provide regular floods of natural floodplains that

consists of alder forest and grazed meadows. In the area there are extensive leafy areas with

important breeding, rest and hibernate areas for birds. Breeding sites for several red-listed bird and

bat species. Rich in fish species (9 species). Several red-listed plants grow within the lake area.

Analysis from Vinneå river drainage point into the lake shows Poor status with respect to

eutrophication. The overall staus is Moderate. Phosphorus concentrations must decrease significantly,

with at least 41.4 μg / L if a good status is to be achieved. Even nitrogen levels must be significantly

reduced. The sampling method complies with Swedish standards and the data base is good. The

average value for total phosphorus has a confidence interval (95%) from the class boundaries, and the

status classification is therefore assessed to have very good reliability (Class A).

Figure 7. Araslövs lake north west of Kristianstad.

KTM2;1 Structural liming of agricultural land Related KTM: 12, 13 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Araslöv lake Main objectives: Reduce particle bound phosphorus leaching from agriculture Overall budget: 110 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Eutrophication from phosphorous load List of expected outcomes: Reduced nutrient load in water bodies Expected life time: 15 years Brief description of the measure: Liming of arable land is primarily a measure to reduce phosphorus losses from agricultural land. The measure is applicable to clay soils. It can also lead to a decrease in sediment transport, thus improving the turbidity in lakes and reducing the leaching of particulate bound pesticide residues. Other relevant information:

KTM 4 – Remediation of contaminated sites The addressed water body is both the Kristianstad plain groundwater aquifer (see KTM 13 for more detailed information about this waterbody) and Helge river.

KTM 4;1. Remediation of contaminated site, a former dry cleaner Related KTM: 13, 21, 15 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Helge river Main objectives: To prevent hazardous substances to reach surrounding environment, groundwater and population. Overall budget: 3 000 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Point source of environmentally hazardous substance from former industry. List of expected outcomes: Reduced risk of contamination of surrounding environment and groundwater. Expected life time: 40 years (50 years in the original data) Brief description of the measure: Remediation of the site to accepted levels. Other relevant information: An environmental survey showed that both ground and groundwater

within the property is heavily contaminated by chlorinated solvents from a former dry cleaner. These pollutants are considered to be very hazardous and relatively low concentrations can contaminate large amounts of water. There is also a risk that the groundwater gradient in the area is downward due to the many groundwater bore holes in the area. The sensitivity of groundwater in the area is assessed as very high.

KTM 5 – Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) The addressed water body is Osby lake and Killingaån river (this is how river Helge is named in this locality). About 0.16% of the national hydro power originates from hydro power plants in Helge river. There are several small power plants in the river and the majority of the plants lack permits. The permits available are old, without modern environmental requirements. In total, the hydroelectric power in Skåne has a big negative impact on the environment per kWh. (http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/vatten-och-vattenanvandning/vatmarker-restaurera/restaurera/dammen/paverkan-vattenkraft/Pages/default.aspx).

Figure 8. Location of Osby lake and the stretch of Helge river called Killingaån river.

Most national studies of hydro power impact on fish have been carried out in large watercourses. In Kävlingeån adjacent to Helge river, however, relatively small hydropower plants and their impacted on downstream migratory fish have been monitored. In Kävlingeån, decreases in fish population were measured, on average 10 percent for trout and 5 percent for eels in three power plants. The overall impact from the fish passage of several hydroelectric plants is extensive. In Skåne, salmon is excluded from large parts of its former spawning and growing areas in Helge river, as a result of lacking fish passes. Prior to the expansion of hydro power in Helge river the salmon could migrate into Kronoberg County. The acute endangered eel is another species that has been severely affected by hydro power expansion. In Sweden's eel management plan, it is estimated that 70 percent of the eels die in each power plant they have to pass in their migration to the sea. When passing four power stations, less than one percent of the eels survive. Studies show, however, that the impact on fish varies widely between different power plants, and that measures can be

http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/vatten-och-vattenanvandning/vatmarker-restaurera/restaurera/dammen/paverkan-vattenkraft/Pages/default.aspx


implemented that allow all fish to pass both upstream and downstream (http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/vatten-och-vattenanvandning/vatmarker-restaurera/restaurera/dammen/paverkan-vattenkraft/Pages/default.aspx).

The current status in this stretch of Helge river is Moderate, the biological quality factor of plant algae and diatom is judged to be high, and the general physical-chemical conditions are considered to have a good status, but the waterbody is estimated to be affected by three migration obstacles; Genastorp, Östanå and Njura leaving the overall assessment at Moderate ecological status.

KTM 5;1. Establishing fish pass bypassing power plant in use Related KTM: 19 Location: Osby Addressed water body: Helge å/Osby lake Main objectives: To facilitate fish migration Overall budget: 1 750 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Obstacles for fish migration List of expected outcomes: Natural fish migration, larger populations of fish species Expected life time: 30 years Brief description of the measure: Refers to all measures aimed at enabling migration of aquatic organisms beyond an obstacle. It may be a matter of tearing out dams or constructing different types of fish passes such as fish ladders. According to current practice, you should always demolish an existing barrier if possible. If it is not possible, choose a natural-style fish pass, and lastly a technical fish pass. Other relevant information:

KTM 13 – Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishmentof safeguard zones The addressed waterbody is Kristianstad plain groundwater aquifer. The aquifer is about 1 000 km2 in sedimentary bedrock from the Krita era. The Geological survey of Sweden has identified the aquifer as a nationally important aquifer (SGU, 2004).

The water quality as of today is categorized as Good status. But there is a risk identified that the quality might be reduced due to anthropogenic pressures, such as PFAS from fire drill areas, nitrates and pesticides from agriculture and chloride from de-icing agents on roads.



The aquifer is at risk of not achieving “Good chemical status” in 2021, as there are problems with pesticides and increased nitrates, chloride and sulphate levels.Conductivity and ammonium concentration are at levels at which measure need to be set in to reverse the trend. According to the National Impact Assessment of Groundwater carried out in 2013, the potential overall pollution load to the aquifer is estimated to be moderate but probably the load can be high locally whithin the aquifer, with local environmental effects. Within the aquifer there are many urban areas, where Kristianstad is the largest, due to its several major roads, contaminated areas, single household waste water treatment plants, agriculture, etc. This poses a risk of negative impact on groundwater quality. The aquifer is also expected to be at risk of not achieving good chemical status in 2021 with respect to per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (11). In the aquatic environment, PFAS have been analyzed in four waterworks, the Central Waterworks in Kristianstad, Everöd, Näsby and Åhus. Only in Åhus perfluorinated substances were found in two of three trial events in 2015, and they were exceedeing local guidelines. The water supply in Åhus is very close to a fire training site from which the PFAS is thought to be derived. The water plant in Åhus has been closed and drinking water taken from another plant. Since the Kristianstad plain aquifer is very large and the pollution has been found in the outer edge of the aquifer, the water body is deemed to achieve good status but is classified as "at risk" of not achieving Good status by 2021 (http://viss.lansstyrelsen.se/Waters.aspx?waterEUID=SE620811-140088).

Code KTM 13;1. Revision of water protection area Related KTM: 21, 22 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Kristianstad plain groundwater aquifer Main objectives: To secure the quality of the valuable drinking water supply. Overall budget: 275 000 EUR Addressed pressures: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas List of expected outcomes: Expected life time: 40 years Brief description of the measure: Update of water protection areas and protection regulation. Other relevant information: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas.

Code KTM 13;2. Establish new water protection areas Related KTM: 21, 22 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Kristianstad plain groundwater aquifer Main objectives: To secure the quality of the valuable drinking water supply. Overall budget: 70 000 EUR Addressed pressures: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas List of expected outcomes: Expected life time: 40 years Brief description of the measure: Update of water protection areas and protection regulation. Other relevant information: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas.

KTM 25 – Measures to counteract acidification Adressed water body is Lillån river. Lillån has several local names and flows through several lakes before draining into Helge river. Liming has been performed here for several years.

Figure 9. Location of Lillån river in Helge river RB.

KTM 25; 1. Liming with doser Related KTM: KTM 21, 22 Location: South of Ljungby Addressed water body: Lillån Main objectives: To increase pH to natural conditions, pH 6 Overall budget: 6 110 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Atmospheric deposition from combustion processes, forestry, industries List of expected outcomes: Increased pH, Species sensitive to acidification will benefit Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Lime is applied to the water body through a doser. Either wet or dry lime is used. Other relevant information: - The investment cost of a doser is approximately 200,000 EUR and the life expectancy is calculated to 20 years. In 2015, each doser spread 131 tonnes. This means that the investment cost would be 76,3 EUR / ton for dosers. Relating the investment cost to tons of scattered lime is difficult and the standard value can be considered at most approximate. - Liming as a way to counteract acidification is a common measure in Sweden. A vast majority of the planned measures are within liming. Measures included in the BAU level target the stream Lillån. The water body has obtained moderate acidification status using the MAGIC model. The modelling is done without regard to acidification measures such as liming. Also, the acidity index ACID parameter shows Moderate status. Liming serves as artificial respiration and maintains the ecological status. Acidification of our lakes and streams is due to atmospheric deposition, which is a continuous problem

KTM 25; 2. Liming from boat Related KTM: KTM 21, 22 Location: South of Ljungby Addressed water body: Lillån Main objectives: To increase pH to natural conditions Overall budget: 26 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Atmospheric deposition from combustion processes, forestry, industries List of expected outcomes: Increased pH, Species sensitive to acidification will benefit Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Lime is applied to the lake through from a boat. Either wet or dry

lime is used. Other relevant information: Liming as a way to counteract acidification is a common measure in Sweden. A vast majority of the planned measures are within liming. Measures included in the BAU level target the stream Lillån. The water body has obtained moderate acidification status using the MAGIC model. The modelling is done without regard to acidification measures such as liming. Also, the acidity index ACID parameter shows Moderate status. Liming serves as artificial respiration and maintains the ecological status. Acidification of our lakes and streams is due to atmospheric deposition, which is a continuous problem.

KTM 25; 2. Liming from air Related KTM: KTM 21, 22 Location: South of Ljungby Addressed water body: Lillån Main objectives: To increase pH to natural conditions Overall budget: 2 500 EUR Addressed pressures: Atmospheric deposition from combustion processes, forestry, industries List of expected outcomes: Increased pH, Species sensitive to acidification will benefit Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Lime is applied to remote lakes from the air. Other relevant information: Liming as a way to counteract acidification is a common measure in Sweden. A vast majority of the planned measures are within liming. Measures included in the BAU level target the stream Lillån. The water body has obtained moderate acidification status using the MAGIC model. The modelling is done without regard to acidification measures such as liming. Also, the acidity index ACID parameter shows Moderate status. Liming serves as artificial respiration and maintains the ecological status. Acidification of our lakes and streams is due to atmospheric deposition, which is a continuous problem.

5 The measures included in the HI level of effort (1-2 pages)

Possible measures from the PoM and possible measures not included in the PoM are included in the HI level of

effort. The measures included in the HI level of effort address the same pressures as in the BAU level of effort.

For measures concerning liming and contaminated sites, only planned measures were included in the BAU

scenario. The majority of the measures categorized as Possible are included in the HI level of effort.

The following two graphs show the distribution of measures suggested in the PoM both by quantity and by

cost of the measures. They show that a big effort is put into fish migration aid when it comes to number of

measures (44 %), but the same measures only stand for about 8% of the total costs predicted for measures in

the river basin. Single household seweage systems and measures to counteract eutrophication are measures

with the higher budget (together 61 %) but they only constitute about 11% of the total measures. Both these

aspects, cost and quantity, have been important factors when selecting measures to include in BAU and HI

level of effort. As a large majority of planned measures in the PoM included liming, the selection of KTMs had

to be broadend to include a larger variety of pressures and measures (see below).

Figure 10. Measures categorized as Possible in PoM distributed by quantity.

Single household sewage systems

12%

Water protection areas11%Fish migration aid

44%

Stormwater0%

Remediation of contaminated soils

2%

Eutrophication9%

Ecologically functional riverbanks

15%

Water extraction planning

4%

Pesticides0%

Groundwater protection measures

3%

Possible measures, percentage of quantity

Figure 11. Measures categorized as Possible in PoM distributed by costs.

Single household sewage systems

38%

Water protection areas

3%Fish migration aid 8%Stormwater

0%

Remediation of contaminated soils

15%

Eutrophication23%

Ecologically functional riverbanks

2%

Water extraction planning

0%

Pesticides2%

Groundwater protection measures

9%

Possible measures, percentage of costs

Table 3 Measures in the HI level of effort

Code (1st number: KTM; 2nd number: basic measure

Name of the Individual basic measure

Location Does the measure target a river, a lake or groundwater?

KTM1;4. Update single house hold wastewater treatment from normal to high standard


KTM1;5. Update single house hold wastewater treatment from poor to normal standard


KTM1;6. Increase phosphorus separation in wastewater treatment plant (unspecified)


KTM 2;2 Establish new wetland Kristianstad Lake

KTM 2;3 Structural liming Kristianstad

KTM 4;2. Remediation of contaminated site, a former dry cleaner

Osby River, groundwater

KTM 4;3. Remediation of contaminated site, a former steel industry

Osby River, groundwater

KTM 4;4. Remediation of contaminated site, a former junk yard

Kristanstad River, groundwater

KTM 5;2. Establishing fish pass bypassing power plant in use

Osby River

KTM 13;3 Revision of water protection area


KTM 13;4 Establish new water protection areas


KTM 25; 4. Liming with doser South of Ljungby River

6 Description of the measures included in the HI level of effort

For a description of the local pressures in the adressed waterbodies, see section 4.

KTM1;4. Increase phosphorus separation in wastewater treatment plant (unspecified) Related KTM: 2, 13, 16, 19 Location: Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Addressed water body: Femlingen Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load from waste water treatment plant to adjacent lake Femlingen by 95 % Overall budget: 277 500 EUR Addressed pressures: Phosphorus load and eutrophication. List of expected outcomes: Reduced eutrophication in Femlingen Expected life time: 30 years Brief description of the measure: Usage of precipitation agent that reduces nutrient effluent by 95%. Other relevant information:

KTM1;5. Update single house hold wastewater treatment from normal to high standard Related KTM: 2, 13, 16, 19 Location: Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Addressed water body: Femlingen Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load from single house hold waste water treatment plant to adjacent lake Femlingen Overall budget: 127 500 EUR Addressed pressures: Phosphorus load and eutrophication from many small sources List of expected outcomes: Reduced eutrophication in Femlingen Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Install or update modern small scale waste water treatment for single households with 90 % reduction of phosphorous Other relevant information:

KTM1;6. Update single house hold wastewater treatment from poor to normal standard Related KTM: 2, 13, 16, 19 Location: Häradsbäck, east of Älmhult Addressed water body: Femlingen Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load from single house hold wastewater treatment plant to adjacent lake Femlingen Overall budget: 660 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Phosphorus load and eutrophication from many small sources. List of expected outcomes: Reduced eutrophication in Femlingen Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Install or update modern small scale wastewater treatment for single households with 70 % reduction of phosphorous. Other relevant information:

KTM 2;2 Establish new wetland Related KTM: 12, 13 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Araslöv lake Main objectives: Reduce phosphorus load Overall budget: 210 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Eutrophication List of expected outcomes: Reduced phosphorus load Expected life time: 30 years Brief description of the measure: Phosphorus ponds (sedimentation ponds) are small ponds that are located on or adjacent to farmland for the retention of phosphorus (and nitrogen).

Other relevant information: The pond area should be between 0.1 and 1 percent of the catchment area. Most relevant, it is to establish ponds on areas with large losses of particulate phosphorus and in areas with high soil phosphorus levels.

KTM 2;3 Structural liming of agricultural land Related KTM: 12, 13 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Araslöv lake Main objectives: Reduce particle bound phosphorus leaching from acrigulture Overall budget: 330 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Eutrophication from phosphorous load List of expected outcomes: Reduced nutrient load in water bodies Expected life time: 15 years Brief description of the measure: Liming of arable land is primarily a measure to reduce phosphorus losses from agricultural land. The measure is applicable to clay soils. It can also lead to a decrease in sediment transport, thus improving the turbidity in lakes and reducing the leaching of particulate bound pesticide residues. Other relevant information:

KTM 4;2. Remediation of contaminated site, a former dry cleaner Related KTM: 13, 21, 15 Location: Osby Addressed water body: Helge river Main objectives: To prevent hazardous substances to reach surrounding environment, groundwater and population. Overall budget: 3 000 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Point source of environmentally hazardous substance from former industry. List of expected outcomes: Reduced risk of contamination of surrounding environment and groundwater. Expected life time: 40 years (50 years in the original data) Brief description of the measure: Remediation of the site to accepted level. Other relevant information: The contaminated site is classified after the national classification system for contaminated sites in the highest risk class.

KTM 4;3. Remediation of contaminated site, a former steel industry Related KTM: 13, 21, 15 Location: Osby Addressed water body: Helge river Main objectives: To prevent hazardous substances to reach surrounding environment, groundwater and population. Overall budget: 3 000 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Point source of environmentally hazardous substance from former industry. List of expected outcomes: Reduced risk of contamination of surrounding environment and groundwater. Expected life time: 40 years (50 years in the original data) Brief description of the measure: Remediation of the site to accepted level. Other relevant information: A mechanical workshop that manufactured steel furniture for about 20 years. A large quantity of highly hazardous chemicals has been handled on site for about 10 years.

KTM 4;4. Remediation of contaminated site, a former junk yard Related KTM: 13, 21, 15 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Helge river Main objectives: To prevent hazardous substances to reach surrounding environment, groundwater and population. Overall budget: 3 000 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Point source of environmentally hazardous substance from former industry.

List of expected outcomes: Reduced risk of contamination of surrounding environment and groundwater. Expected life time: 40 years (50 years in the original data) Brief description of the measure: Remediation of the site to accepted level. Other relevant information: A land survey conducted on the property shows that the levels of lead, cadmium and carcinogenic PAH are identified as very serious (according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's assessment bases). Copper, mercury, zinc and other PAHs are referred to as moderately severe (according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's assessment bases). This means that the land is heavily contaminated. The property lies within a water protection area.

KTM 5;2. Establishing fish pass bypassing power plant in use Related KTM: 19 Location: Osby Addressed water body: Helge å/Osby lake Main objectives: To facilitate fish migration Overall budget: 3 020 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Obstacles for fish migration List of expected outcomes: Natural fish migration Expected life time: 30 years Brief description of the measure: Refers to all measures aimed at enabling migration of aquatic organisms beyond an obstacle. It may be a matter of tearing out dams or constructing different types of fish passes such as fish ladders. According to current practice, you should always demolish an existing barrier if possible. If it is not possible, choose a natural-style fish pass, and lastly a technical fish pass. Other relevant information: Dam with electric turbine.

KTM 13;3. Revision of water protection area Related KTM: 21, 22 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Kristianstad plain groundwater aquifer Main objectives: To secure the quality of the valuable drinking water supply. Overall budget: 825 000 EUR Addressed pressures: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas List of expected outcomes: Expected life time: 40 years Brief description of the measure: Update of water protection areas and protection regulation. Other relevant information: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas.

KTM 13;4. Establish new water protection areas Related KTM: 21, 22 Location: Kristianstad Addressed water body: Kristianstad plain groundwater aquifer Main objectives: To secure the quality of the valuable drinking water supply. Overall budget: 70 000 EUR Addressed pressures: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas List of expected outcomes: Expected life time: 40 years Brief description of the measure: Update of water protection areas and protection regulation. Other relevant information: There is significant influence from forestry, contaminated sites, transport sector, agriculture and urban areas.

25; 4. Liming with doser Related KTM: KTM 21, 22

Location: South of Ljungby Addressed water body: Lillån Main objectives: To increase pH to natural conditions, pH 6 Overall budget: 3 550 000 EUR Addressed pressures: Atmospheric deposition from combustion processes, forestry, industries List of expected outcomes: Increased pH, Species sensitive to acidification will benefit Expected life time: 20 years Brief description of the measure: Lime is applied to the water body through a doser. Either wet or dry lime is used. Other relevant information: - The investment cost of a doser is approximately 200,000 EUR and the life expectancy is calculated to 20 years. In 2015, each doser spread 131 tonnes. This means that the investment cost would be 76,3 EUR / ton for dosers. Relating the investment cost to tons of scattered lime is difficult and the standard value can be considered at most approximate. - Liming as a way to counteract acidification is a common measure in Sweden. A vast majority of the planned measures are within liming. Measures included in the BAU level target the stream Lillån. The water body has obtained moderate acidification status using the MAGIC model. The modelling is done without regard to acidification measures such as liming. Also, the acidity index ACID parameter shows Moderate status. Liming serves as artificial respiration and maintains the ecological status. Acidification of our lakes and streams is due to atmospheric deposition, which is a continuous problem

7 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort

All of the assessed costs are derived from the VISS database (see Chapter 3). All costs of measures concerning

eutrophication, from waste water or agriculture, are based on a report written as a guidance document for

municipalities (and others) to plan measures to be included in the PoM (Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län,

2016). Costs for measures counteracting eutrophication in the VISS database are therefore based on this

report.

KTM 1;1 Increase phosphorus separation in wastewater treatment plant (unspecified)

Capital Costs: 22 000 EUR

Operation and Management Costs: 73 300 EUR

From report: Measures to counteract eutrophication to achieve good ecological status – A guidance document

for water authorities' action programs, Gyllström m.fl (Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län, 2016).

KTM 1;2 Update single house hold waste water treatment from poor to normal standard


Operation and Management Costs:


for water authorities' action programs, 2016 Gyllström m.fl.

KTM 1;3 Update single house hold waste water treatment from normal to high standard





KTM 2;1 Structural liming in soil



20 EUR / ha

Cost: 587 EUR / ha (with 15 years of life, it gives an annual cost of approximately 53 EUR)

Revenue: 367 EUR (33 EUR per year) predicted in increased harvest

KTM 4; 1 Remediation of contaminated site. Dry cleaner

Capital Costs: 3 000 000 EUR


This figure is based on an average cost of an EBH item with risk class 1. Based on the Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency's report NV 00336-13 Appendix 1.

KTM 5;1 Establishing fish pass bypassing power plant in use

Capital Costs: 1 750 000


51 000 EUR / m investment cost and measure investigation / adm

1 700 EUR / m (= 100 * 17,29203) which is the present value of current costs over 30 years and 4% interest.

The template is based on a fish path dimensioned for a flow of 1 m3 / s.

KTM 13 – Drinking water protection measures Total budget 2 898 000 EUR for RB, both new and to update water protection areas. KTM 13;1 Revision of water protection area



60 000 EUR investigation / adm charges per water protection area and 8 700 EUR which is the present value of

current costs for 20 years and 4% interest.

The figures represent an average water protection area. Both the cost of the review and for managing can vary

considerably. Review of existing water protection areas 20 000 – 100 000 EUR for the review. The majority are

consultancy fees. The administration, e.g. handling of incoming permits and dispensers, is estimated to cost

one working day per year for an average water protection area. In some cases, the cost may be significantly

higher.

KTM 13;2 Establish of water protection area









higher.

KTM 25 – Measures to counteract acidification In general, liming of acidified lakes and streams is a cost-effective measure that creates greater socio-economic benefits than the cost of the measure. This does not mean that all acidified water bodies are suitable for liming. Based on expected or achieved benefits, an assessment is made whether the liming is motivated in relation to estimated costs. The costs consist of negative effects of liming and the economic effort (https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.304994b6159ebdae8ba84ac3/1485956088365/handbok-for-kalkning-av-sjoar-och-vattendrag-isbn-978-91-620-0165-0.pdf). During the period 1983-2008 approximately EUR 400 million in state funds have been used to mitigate effects of atmospheric deposition in a selection of lakes and streams throughout Sweden. This makes liming one of the major Swedish environmental protection initiatives. Liming continues to be important for biodiversity and a precondition for a sustainable usage of resources such as fish, in lakes and streams. Costs for liming in Lillån amounts to EUR 9 662 526 (BAU 6 112 526 + HI 3 550 000) in the PoM. This is about 45% of the total budget for planned liming measures in the Helge river RBD. The expected expenses for liming are based on templates from VISS and can be lower due to existing liming infrastructure already in place.

KTM Code 25; 1 Liming with doser



The investment cost of a doser is approximately 200,000 EUR and the life expectancy is calculated to 20 years.

In 2015, each doser spread 131 tonnes. This means that the investment cost would be 76 EUR / ton for dosers.

Relating the investment cost to tons of scattered lime is difficult and the standard value can be considered at

most approximate.

KTM 25; 2 Liming from boat



95 EUR/tonne, from The Swedish national liming database. Based on costs in 2016.

http://www.kalkdatabasen.se/Sv/Pages/default.aspx

KTM 25; 3 Liming from air



160 EUR/tonne, from The Swedish national liming database. Based on costs in 2016.

http://www.kalkdatabasen.se/Sv/Pages/default.aspx

Table 4 Costs of the measures included in the BAU level of effort – total funding

Code of the measure

Capital Costs in year 0

(thousand €)

CCs in following years (in actual

prices) (thousand €)

Year in which the CCs take

place (thousand €)

Total CCs (in actual prices) (thousand €)

CCs per year (in actual prices) (thousand €)

Operation & Management Costs per year (thousand €)

Total OMCs (in actual prices) (thousand €)

Total costs per year (in actual


1;1 95 300

1;2 220 000

1;3 42 500

2;1 110 000

4; 1 3 000 000

5;1 1 750 000

13;1 275 000

13;2 70 000

25; 1 6 110 000

25; 2 26 000

25; 3 2 500

TOTAL 11 701 300

8 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort

All assessed costs are derived from the VISS database (see Chapter 3). All costs of measures concerning eutrophication, from waste water or agriculture, are based on a report written as a guidance document for municipalities (and others) to plan measures to be included in the PoM (Länsstyrelsen Västmanlands län, 2016). Costs for measures counteracting eutrophication in the VISS database are therefore based on this report. KTM 1;4 Increase phosphorus separation in wastewater treatment plant (unspecified)





1;5 Update single house hold waste water treatment from poor to normal standard





1;6 Update single house hold waste water treatment from normal to high standard





Code KTM 2;2 Establish new wetland


Operation and Management Costs:63 500 EUR

60 000 EUR investment cost plus 25 400 EUR (per ha) which is the present value of current costs and production

loss for 30 years and 4% interest

KTM 2;3 Structural liming in soil



20 EUR / ha

Cost: 587 EUR / ha (with 15 years of life, it gives an annual cost of approximately 53 EUR)

Revenue: 367 EUR (33 EUR per year) predicted in increased harvest

4; 2 Remediation of contaminated site. Dry cleaner





4;3 Remediation of contaminated site. Steel industry





4;4 Remediation of contaminated site. A former junk yard





Relating the investment cost to tons of scattered lime is difficult and the standard value can be considered at

5;2 Establishing fish pass bypassing power plant in use



VISS database: 51 000 EUR / m investment cost and measure investigation / adm plus 1 700 EUR / m and year

which is the present value of current costs over 30 years and 4% interest.

The standard is based on a fish path dimensioned for a flow of 1 m3 / s.

13;3 Revision of water protection area









higher.

13;4 Establish of water protection area









higher.

Code 25; 4 Liming with doser

Capital Costs: 3 550 000


The investment cost of a doser is approximately 200,000 EUR and the life expectancy is calculated to 20 years.

In 2015, each doser spread 131 tonnes. This means that the investment cost would be 76 EUR / ton for dosers.

Table 5 Costs of the measures included in the HI level of effort – total funding

Code of the measure

Capital Costs in year 0

CCs in following years (in actual

prices)

Year in which the CCs take

place

All CCs (in actual prices)

CCs per year (in actual prices)

Operation & Management Costs per year

Total OMCs (in actual prices)


prices)

KTM1;4. 277 500

KTM1;5. 127 500

KTM1;6. 660 000

KTM 2;2 210 000

KTM 2;3 330 000

KTM 4;2. 3 000 000

KTM 4;3. 3 000 000

KTM 4;4. 3 000 000

KTM 5;2. 3 020 000

KTM 13;3 825 000

KTM 13;4 70 000

KTM 25; 4. 3 550 000

TOTAL 14 520 000

9 Outcomes of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

All the assessed outcomes are derived from the VISS database (see Chapter 3). All outcomes of measures

concerning eutrophication, from waste water or agriculture, are based on a report written as a guidance

document for municipalities on measures to counteract eutrophication, and others were calculated by the

river basin managing authorities? when creating and budgeting for measures for the PoM, (Länsstyrelsen

Västmanlands län, 2016).

In the following section the outcomes are differentiated by each measures contribution.

O2 Reduction of nitrogen

The leaching of nitrogen to the Baltic sea from the entire Helge river RBD is estimated at 2.6 million kg/year.

The measures included in the PoM could at the most reduce the total leaching of nitrogen by 0,4%.

Actual situation: XXX

BAU Level of Effort: 177.25 kg/year:

KTM 1;2 2.25 kg/year

KTM 1;3 175 kg/year

HI Level of Effort: 1,269.25 kg/year:



KTM 2;2 1,000 kg/year

O3 Reduction of phosphorus

The leaching of phosphorous from the entire Helge river RBD is measured to 591 000 kg/year.

BAU Level of Effort: 592.75 kg/year

KTM 1;1 520 kg/year


KTM 1;3 1 kg/year

HI Level of Effort: 958.25 kg/year

KTM 1;4 520 kg/year


KTM 1;6 3 kg/year

KTM 2;2 220 kg/year

KTM 2;3 195 kg/year

O7 Reduced contaminated sites or abandoned industrial sites affecting the achievement of objectives

BAU Level of Effort: 1 number:

KTM 4;1 1 no

HI Level of Effort: 3 number

KTM 4;2 1 no

KTM 4;3 1 no

KTM 4;4 1 no

O8 Reduced number of dams, barriers and locks for hydropower purposes, flood protection, drinking water,

irrigation, recreation, industry, navigation and other purposes not compatible with achievement of GES or

GEP

BAU Level of Effort: 4 number

KTM 5;1 4

HI Level of Effort: 12 number

KTM 5;2 12

O18 Reduced acidity of surface waters (pH)

Expected outcome is to keep the pH at the desired level of pH 5,5 – 6 for different parts of the river. In past years liming did not have the desired effect when it comes to biota and fish, but it meets the desired value for pH in the waterbody. http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/SiteCollectionDocuments/Sv/miljo-och-klimat/vatten-och-vattenanvandning/kalkning/%C3%A5tg%C3%A4rdsomr%C3%A5den%20kalkning/11_Lill%C3%A5n_%C3%85O.pdf

Figur 1. Water quality in three diffrent location in Lillån, 2005- 2010

Estimated pH-value without liming is pH 4,61 for Lillån.

BAU Level of Effort: 0.5 pH

KTM 25;1 0.5 pH

KTM 25;2 0.5 pH

KTM 25;3 0.5 pH

HI Level of Effort: 0.5 pH

KTM 25;4 0.5 pH

Table 6 Expected outcomes – BAU level of effort

Indicator Unit of measurement

Actual situation

Expected value

Improvement (%)

The related pressure is key for the RBD (Y/N)

Related measures (codes)

O1 Reduction of BOD mg/l

O2 Reduction of nitrogen Kg/year

O3 Reduction of phosphorus Kg/year

O4 Decrease in the urban areas with sewage overflows

ha

O5 Reduced concentration of pesticides in water

mg/l

O6

Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances)

mg/l


number 1

O8

Reduced number of dams, barriers and locks for hydropower purposes, flood protection, drinking water, irrigation, recreation, industry, navigation and other purposes not compatible with achievement of GES or GEP

Number 4

O9

Reduced water bodies affected by alterations for flood protection, agriculture, navigation and other purposes

Number

O10 Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, public water supply, industry, cooling

m3

water, hydropower, fish farms or others

O11 Reduced hydropeaking Number of occurrences per year

O12 Increase in the number of rivers meeting environmental flows

% of total river length

O13 Improved groundwater levels

% of the number of GW water bodies where abstraction does not exceed recharge

O14 Reduced concentrations of substances controlled by GWD

mg/l

O15 Reduction of sediments Kg/m3

O16

Reduced water bodies where the exploitation/removal of plants/animals is preventing the achievement of GES and GEP

number

O17 Reduced microbial contamination of surface and GWs

mg/l


pH 4,8-6,6 6,0-6,5

O19 Reduced area subject to flooding ha

O999 Number of water protection areas 5

Table 7 Expected outcomes – HI level of effort


Actual situation

Expected value

Improvement (%)

The related pressure is key for the RBD (Y/N)

Related measures (codes)


O2 Reduction of nitrogen Kg/year

O3 Reduction of phosphorus Kg/year

O4 Decrease in the urban areas with sewage overflows

ha

O5 Reduced concentration of pesticides in water

mg/l

O6

Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances)

mg/l


number 3

O8


Number 12

O9

Reduced water bodies affected by alterations for flood protection, agriculture, navigation and other purposes

Number

O10 Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, public water supply, industry, cooling

m3

water, hydropower, fish farms or others





% of the number of GW water bodies where abstraction does not exceed recharge


mg/l


O16

Reduced water bodies where the exploitation/removal of plants/animals is preventing the achievement of GES and GEP

number

O17 Reduced microbial contamination of surface and GWs

mg/l


pH 4,8-6,6 6,0-6,5



10 Benefits of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

The assessment of benefits is so far limited to connecting benefits with the measures. The magnitude of the

benefit is as of yet not assessed.

KTM1 – Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants Direct benefits are primarily: B3 - Reduced health risks from exposure to microbial contaminants, nitrates, pesticides and other contaminants including priority hazardous substances. 175,000 cases of illness (gastrointestinal disease) from drinking water (both private wells and public water plants) nationally in Sweden (National food agency, 2016). It has been found that 5 to 6 days after a larger rain event the reports of gastrointestinal disease increase(National food agency, 2016). The pathogens then reach either small scale drinking water wells or larger treatment plants. It is not established what share of the pathogens comes from from small scale waste water treatment plants but a better standard and enhanced treatment in small scale plants addessing pathogens is likely to reduce the number of reported cases of gastrointestinal disease each year. Helge river RBD constitutes about 1,3 % of the Swedish population. Extrapolating this figure, we can assume that 2,246 persons get sick in the RBD every year because of gastrointestinal diseases coming from wells or wastewater treatment plants. The population of the Femlingen lake is about 2,200 people (0,02% of national population) (this is calculated by multiplying the population density by the area). Assuming that the number of gastrointestinal diseases due to contaminated water is shared equally across the WB, we can extrapolate that 50 people get sick drinking contaminated water in the Femlingen lake BD. However, this is a rough estimation, as it is difficult to assess how many cases that can be avoided by updating single household wastewater treatment. B5 – Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers Eutrophication can affect ecosystems in streams and lakes. About 3% of the total nitrogen load in the Baltic Sea is estimated to come from small scale waste water treatment plants (https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1146594/FULLTEXT01.pdf). About 10-20 % of the phosphorous load comes from private sewers. Improving the private sewers can decrease eutrophication in Femlingen anf thereby creating a better environment for fish Indirect benefits can include: B6 – Improved recreational experience (not fishers) The Swedish EPA has described the event chain that can improve the recreational experience related to visits to Swedish water bodies Development in environmental impacts -> Development in load from these activities -> Impact on indicators describing environmental status -> Impact on ecosystem services that contribute to recreational values -> Impact on recreational activities (http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6690-1.pdf?pid=15998) As the chain consists of severeal steps it can be difficult to assess the impact of recreational activities due to updates in private sewers. When decreasing the eutrophication in lake Femlingen, activities directly associated with water can increase, e.g. swimming and diving. There is a public beach in the lake. All selected KTMs can in some direct or indirect way improve the recreational experience in the RBD of Helge river. In the adjacent RBD of Emå river recreation is valued at about €2.7 million (Länsstyrelsen Kalmar län, 2016). To assess this value only investments from the public means addressed to maintain the recreational standard of today was included in the report published by Länsstyrelsen in Kalmar. No links between the recreational experience and reduced need for health care was made when assessing the value of recreation because of the complex nature of the samband. Costs for recreational activities by the consumer and funds used for remediation of contaminated sites constituted the main part of the value.

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1146594/FULLTEXT01.pdf

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1146594/FULLTEXT01.pdf

B1 – Reduced need for drinking water treatment This benefit is complicated to assess. The cost of water in Älmhult municipality is 3 EUR/m3, KTM 2 – Reduce nutrient load from agriculture Direct benefits are primarily: B5 – Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers The location of the measure is an area that is especially valuable for fishing. Delimitation of the area is from the south part of Helge river including Hammarsjön, Araslövssjön up to Torsebro power plant. Vramsån and Mjö rivers are pointed out as especially valuable in the area and they both drain into the southern part of Helge river. Red Listed / Threatened Species: Freshwater pearl mussel, European crayfish, Wels catfish, European river lamprey and sea lamprey, Eels, Thick shelled river mussel. Protected species: Sea migrating brown trout, reintroduced salmon Protected rare species: Zope/Blue bream Leisure fishing opportunity: 5-10,000 fishing days / year Leisure fishing: Pike, European perch, brown trout, Cyprinids For a recreational fisher or angler, the cost for expenditures each year is approximately EUR 270 per year. In Emå RBD EUR 500 000 per year was assessed as the value of recreational fishing, this includes fishing permits, guest nights, boat rental and different social events. In this part of the Helge river basin it is not certain if recreational fishing is as popular as in the adjacent Emå river. B6 - Improved recreational experience (not fishers) The Swedish EPA has described an event chain how to reach improved recreational experience. Development in environmental impacts -> Development in load from these activities -> Impact on indicators describing environmental status -> Impact on ecosystem services that contribute to recreational values -> Impact on recreational activities (http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6690-1.pdf?pid=15998) As it consists of severeal steps it can be difficult to assess the impact of recreational activities due to reduced nutrient load from agriculture. B13 – Reduced expenditures due to fertilizers and or pesticides Structural liming improves the soil structure resulting in less leaching of particulate phosphorus. Less fertilizer containing phosphorous is therefore needed. B14 – Increased yields From VISS database: The increased yield is assumed to be 4% (5000 kg*0,15 EUR/kg): 30 EUR/ha Decrease in expenses (3 EUR /ha) due to decreased need for tillage. Increase in standard yield value 33 EUR/ha/year Area 2000 ha Result 2000 ha * 33 EUR/ha/year = 66 000 EUR/year Indirect benefits can include: B1 – Reduced need for drinking water treatment KTM 4 – Remediation of contaminated sites Direct benefits are primarily: B1 – Reduced need for drinking water treatment The water protection areas will create a long term reduction of the risk for contamination of the groundwater resource.

Indirect benefits can include: B5 – Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers See KTM 5 for explanation on this benefit. KTM 5 – Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams) Direct benefits are primarily: B5 – Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers As the ecological status in the addressed waterbody Osby lake and the stretch of Helge river downstream the lake is Moderate due to hydromorphological reasons (read more in section 4) the benefit of creating fish passes is evident. The cost of performing these measures included in BAU and HI livel of effort can be directly linked to a change in status from Moderate to Good. For a recreational fisher or angler, the cost for expenditures each year is approximately EUR 270 per year. In Emå RBD EUR 500 000 per year was assessed as the value of recreational fishing, this includes fishing permits, guest nights, boat rental and different social events. In this part of the Helge river basin it is not certain if recreational fishing is as popular as in the adjacent Emå river. KTM 13 – Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishmentof safeguard zones) Direct benefits are primarily: B1 – Reduced need for drinking water treatment This benefit has been complicated to assess. Indirect benefits can include: B5 – Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers See KTM 5 for explanation on this benefit. KTM 25 – Measures to counteract acidification Direct benefits are primarily: B5 - Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for professional fishers EUR 270 per year for expenditures for a recreational fisherman or angler. In Emå RBD EUR 500 000 per year was assessed as the value of recreational fishing. (gäller fiskekort, gästnätter, båtuthyrning och fiskeevenemang). In this part of the B6 - Improved recreational experience (not fishers) All of the selected KTMs can in some direct or indirect way improve the recreational experience in the RBD of Helge river. According to a study of possible recreational benefits from water quality enhancing measures are primarily benefits where the user is in or very close to the water e.g. swimming or diving https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6690-1.pdf?pid=15998. Several small community beaches are located in the lakes along Lillån (Storesjö, Bräkentorpasjön, Römningen, Väglasjön) where recreational experience can be enhanced by liming. In the adjacent RBD of Emå river recreation is valued to about €2.7 million (Länsstyrelsen Kalmar län, 2016). To assess this value only investments from the public means addressed to maintain the recreational standard of today was included in the report published by Länsstyrelsen in Kalmar. No links between the recreational experience and reduced need for health care was made when assessing the value of recreation because of the complex nature of the samband. Costs for recreational activities by the consumer and funds used for remediation of contaminated sites constituted the main part of the value. Indirect benefits B1 – Reduced need for drinking water treatment

Benefit Bx. Name of the benefit

BAU Level of Effort: Value of the benefit Unit of measurement:

HI Level of Effort: Value of the benefit Unit of measurement:

Table 8 Expected benefits – BAU level of effort

N. Indicator

Category of related

ecosystem services

Methodology Unit of

measurement Actual

situation Expected

value Improvement

(%) Beneficiaries

Duration of the benefits

(years)

Related outcomes

(codes)

B1 Reduced need for drinking water treatment

Regulating Avoided costs Thousand €

B2 Reduced need for waste water treatment


B3

Reduced health risks from exposure to microbial contaminants, nitrates, pesticides, and other contaminants including priority hazardous substances

Regulating

Number of people that may experience health problems related to contaminated water

Number of people

B4 Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for professional fishers

Provisioning

Increased added value or turnover of the fishery/aquaculture sector

Thousand €

B5 Improved availability of fish in rivers/lakes for recreational fishers

Cultural

Increased expenditures related to recreational activities (e.g. hotels, restaurants, tourist

Thousand €

operators, lettings)

Cultural Improvement in recreational experience

Qualitative scoring (scale: 0-5)

B6 Improved recreational experience (not fishers)

Cultural

Increased expenditures related to recreational activities (e.g. hotels, restaurants, tourist operators, lettings)

Thousand €



B7 Protection against floods

Regulating

Avoided costs and/or change in the property value

Thousand €

B8 Increased navigation opportunities

Multiple

Added value of the navigation sector

Thousand €

B9 Reduced need for dredging and


maintenance works to improve bank stability

B10

Improved hydropower generation

Provisioning

Increase in the generated electricity

MW

B11

Improved water availability for water users, e.g. navigation, power sector, water utilities, bottled water sector, agriculture

Multiple Reduced water abstraction

m3

B12

Reduced expenditures due to water use for industry, water utilities/domestic users, agriculture

Multiple Avoided costs Thousand €

B13

Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers and/or pesticides

Provisioning

Avoided costs Thousand €

B14

Increased yields Provisioning

Annual increase in revenue

%

Table 9 Expected benefits – HI level of effort

N. Indicator

Category of related

ecosystem services

Methodology Unit of

measurement Actual

situation Expected

value Improvement

(%) Beneficiaries

Duration of the benefits

(years)

Related outcomes

(codes)





B3


Regulating


Number of people


Provisioning


Thousand €


Cultural

Increased expenditures related to recreational activities (e.g. hotels, restaurants, tourist

Thousand €

operators, lettings)




Cultural


Thousand €



B7 Protection against floods

Regulating

Avoided costs and/or change in the property value

Thousand €


Multiple


Thousand €

B9 Reduced need for dredging and


maintenance works to improve bank stability

B10

Improved hydropower generation

Provisioning


MW

B11


Multiple Reduced water abstraction

m3

B12


Multiple Avoided costs Thousand €

B13

Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers and/or pesticides

Provisioning


B14

Increased yields Provisioning

Annual increase in revenue

%

11 Biodiversity improvements of the measures included in the BAU and HI level of effort

Table 10 Expected biodiversity improvements – BAU level of effort

N. Indicator Methodology Unit of measurement

Biodiversity improvement BAU level of effort

BI1 Improvement in the populations of fish

Expert judgement

%

BI2 Improvement in the populations of benthic invertebrates

Expert judgement

%

BI3 Improvement in the populations of macrophytes

Expert judgement

%

Table 11 Expected biodiversity improvements – HI level of effort


Biodiversity improvement HI level of effort


Expert judgement

%

BI2 Improvement in the population of benthic invertebrates

Expert judgement

%

BI3 Improvement in the population of macrophytes

Expert judgement

%

Biodiversity Improvement BIx. Name of the biodiversity improvement

BAU Level of Effort: Value of the biodiversity improvement Unit of measurement:

HI Level of Effort: Value of the biodiversity improvement Unit of measurement:

12 Comparison of the costs and benefits in the two levels of effort

Table 12 Summary of the costs in the two levels of effort

Capital Costs in

year 0 (thousand €)

Capital Costs in following years

(in actual prices) (thousand €)

All CCs (in actual prices)

(thousand €)

CCs per year (in actual prices) (thousand €)

Operation & Management Costs per year (thousand €)

Total OMCs (in actual prices) (thousand €)



BAU LEVEL OF EFFORT

11 701 300

HI LEVEL OF EFFORT

14 520 000

DIFFERENCE 2 818 700

Table 13 Summary of the outcomes in the two levels of effort


Actual situation

Expected value BAU level of effort

Improvement BAU level of effort (%)

Expected value HI level of effort

Improvement HI level of effort (%)

Difference in the improvement between BAU and HI level of effort


O2 Reduction of nitrogen mg/l

O3 Reduction of phosphorus mg/l

O4 Decrease in the urban areas with sewage overflows ha

O5 Reduced concentration of pesticides in water mg/l

O6 Reduced concentration of priority substances (PS) or river basin specific pollutants (RBSP) (of most problematic substances)

mg/l


number 4

O8


Number 16

O9 Reduced water bodies affected by alterations for flood protection, agriculture, navigation and other purposes

Number

O10 Reduced water abstraction or flow diversion for agriculture, public water supply, industry, cooling water, hydropower, fish farms or others

m3





% of the number of GW water bodies where

abstraction does not exceed recharge


mg/l


O16 Reduced water bodies where the exploitation/removal of plants/animals is preventing the achievement of GES and GEP

number

O17 Reduced microbial contamination of surface and GWs mg/l

O18 Reduced acidity of surface waters (pH) pH 6.0-6.5



Table 14 Summary of the benefits in the two levels of effort


Actual situation

Expected value - BAU level of effort

Improvement - BAU level of effort (%)

Expected value HI level of effort

Improvement HI level of effort (%)

Difference in the improvement between BAU and HI level of effort





B3



Number of people



Thousand €



Thousand €

Improvement in recreational experience




Thousand €

Improvement in recreational experience


B7 Protection against floods Avoided costs and/or change in the property value

Thousand €



Thousand €

B9 Reduced need for dredging and maintenance works to improve bank stability


B10 Improved hydropower generation


MW

B11


Reduced water abstraction

m3

B12



B13 Reduced expenditures due to fertilisers and/or pesticides


B14 Increased yields Annual increase in revenue

%

Table 15 Summary of the biodiversity improvements in the two levels of effort


Biodiversity improvement BAU level of effort

Biodiversity improvement HI level of effort

Difference in the biodiversity improvement between BAU and HI level of effort


Expert judgement

%

BI2 Improvement in the populations of benthic invertebrates

Expert judgement

%

BI3 Improvement in the populations of macrophytes

Expert judgement

%

13 Challenges and recommendations to improve the methodology