DRAFT Eutrophication Good Practice Guide

February
2011
Good Practice Guide Series
Local Authorities International

Environmental Organisation
Mitigating Eutrophication:
A Manual for Municipalities
Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

The role of municipalities tackling eutrophication
The problems of eutrophication pose a serious threat to natural and human environments. International
conventions, European directives and national strategies have been drawn up over the past several decades
to mitigate its eects. The prospects for marine environments aected by eutrophication are positive with
increasing awareness of the need for action. Most strategies focus on large-scale, setting targets to reduce
nutrient discharges by restricting outputs from industry, limiting the use of harmful agricultural products
and improving centralised wastewater treatment plants.
There is scope for municipalities to take action at the local level and contribute towards these higher-level
eorts. This manual provides a background to eutrophication and areas that municipalities can influence.
It supports a checklist that can be used as a practical guide for adopting a mitigation project; it is available
from the KIMO secretariat at the address at the bottom of this page.
Research and action on the potential of small-scale wastewater treatment, riparian buers, and wetland
restoration to achieve nutrient reductions have produced a wealth of knowledge to help understand how
to combat eutrophication, this oers valuable insight on the scope for municipalities to take action.
The research that underpins this manual involved an extensive literature review on eutrophication, smallscale wastewater treatments and other mitigation measures; it identified over 60 experts and invited them
to oer comments insight and guidance in their particular area of expertise. The information gathered was
compiled into a manual and checklist for use by municipalities.
The information contained in this document, to the best of our knowledge was
correct at the time of publication. This manual is meant only as an aide memoire
and KIMO assume no responsibility for any omission or any situation that may
arise as a result of using this guide
A Checklist has been produced to accompany this manual that is available from KIMO
electronically
For more information contact:
Craig Baxter or John Mouat
KIMO Secretariat
Environmental Liaison
C/o Shetland Islands Council, Infrastructure Services, Grantfield, Lerwick, Shetland, ZE1 0NT
info@kimo.shetland.org
Mitigating Eutrophication
A Manual for Municipalities
Craig Baxter
MA (Hons), MSc
Published by:
Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljorganisasjon (KIMO),
c/o Shetland Islands Council, Infrastructure Services, Grantfield, Lerwick, Shetland ZE1 0NT
ii

Executive summary
Eutrophication is an environmental problem that aects surface waters across the globe. Marine and aquatic
environments and their ecosystems are threatened by the over-loading of nutrients from human sources.
There are various streams that contribute to the problem including surface water run o, discharges into
ground water and deposition from the atmosphere.
There are both point and diuse inputs of nutrients, with the latter more challenging to manage. The eects of
eutrophication are well understood and the international community are engaged in a number of mitigation
activities.
International, regional and national governance have brought about various legislative changes to limit
harmful activities that discharge nutrients. The threats posed by eutrophication and the challenges
in addressing it are issues for everyone. Whilst top tiers of government are seeking to bring about
positive change through policy, there is scope for small-scale localised projects to contribute.
Wastewater discharges are understood to make a significant contribution to the problems
of eutrophication. There has been considerable research and innovation into improving the
eectiveness of on-site and small-scale treatment systems, particularly in Nordic countries.
Modern package plants, innovative technologies and improved conventional systems now
oer scope to achieve considerable reductions for homes and settlements not connected
to centralised treatment plants.
There are also a number of good methods that demonstrate the potential of riparian and
wetland management to reduce inputs from diuse sources. Municipalities can address
eutrophication by carrying out such projects on land they own or are responsible for.
Riparian buers and natural wetlands oer more benefits than just potential to absorb
nutrients, they can increase biodiversity, stabilise riverbanks and enhance landscape
amenity.
These measures have real potential for improving the state of the worlds eutrophic
surface waters. In order to deliver an eective project, it is important that a coherent
and structured approach is adopted that involves all concerned parties, ensures best
available technology is used and that projects are fit for purpose.
Aims
Objectives
To provide practical guidance for

municipalities to reduce the impacts of
eutrophication.
To consolidate information about

eutrophication into an accessible
format.
To highlight the scope for

wastewater treatment and
riparian zone improvements to limit the
discharge of nutrients.
To summarise examples of best

practice projects and initiatives for
installing and upgrading
small-scale wastewater treatments
and an up to date review of
small-scale treatment systems.
To equip municipalities with the

necessary knowledge and skills to
undertake a eutrophication mitigation
project.
Highlight the scope for achieving

nutrient reductions with riparian
and wetland projects to motivate
municipalities to take action.
iii
Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYI
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
2.0 EUTROPHICATION
2
2.1 What is eutrophication? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.1 An Increase in primary production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1.2 Algal blooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.3 Increased turbidity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.4 Oxygen depletion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.5 A complex process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 How does eutrophication aect the environment?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Ecological impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Social impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Economic impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Nutrient sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1 Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2 Municipal Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.3 Industrial land-based sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.4 Transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1 Case Study: The Gulf of Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.2 Case Study: The Gulf of Riga. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.0 POLICY CONTEXT
11
3.1 International agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.1 The Nitrogen Oxide Protocol (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.2 The Gothenburg Protocol (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3 The OSPAR Convention (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4 The Helsinki Convention (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.5 The IMO and MARPOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 EU Directives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1 The Nitrates Directive (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2 The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3 The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.4 The Water Framework Directive (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.5 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.6 The Common Agricultural Policy (since 1962). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.7 The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 National eorts to tackle eutrophication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1 Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.2 Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.0 WHAT CAN A MUNICIPALITY DO TO TACKLE EUTROPHICATION?
16
5.0 WHAT A MUNICIPALITY CAN DO: SMALL-SCALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
17
5.1 Wastewater treatment principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 TREATMENT SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.1 Infiltration systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.2 Package Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.3 Sorting systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.4 Constructed wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
iv
Contents
Page
5.3 Research into small-scale systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.4 Good practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.4.1 Engaging the user . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
MINWA Demonstrations
25
5.4.1.1 Sand filter and P removal system installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.4.1.2 Dose-load biochemical system operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4.1.3 A village wastewater plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.4.1.4 Maintaining on-site systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4.2 The Karelia project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4.3 Coalition Clean Baltic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.4.3.1 Vadsbro case study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4.3.2 Eco-Sanitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.5.4 Nordic Innovation Centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4.5 A growing body of knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.0 WHAT A MUNICIPALITY CAN DO: RIPARIAN BUFFERS AND NATURAL
WETLANDS ON MUNICIPALITY OWNED LAND
31
6.1 Riparian buers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2 Wetland restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.0 A METHOD FOR MUNICIPALITIES
33
7.1 Identifying stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.2 System users in wastewater projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.3 Expert groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.2 Establish baseline conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.2.1 Socio-economic information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2.2 Existing infrastructure in wastewater projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2.3 Environmental conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2.4 Predictions and projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.3 Identifying the best approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.4 Implementing the project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.4.1 Costing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.4.2 Impact reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.5 Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.0 CONCLUSION
36
REFERENCES
37
APPENDIX 1- USEFUL LINKS TO FURTHER INFORMATION
42

List of Tables
Table 1: Impacts of eutrophication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2: Wastewater treatment stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3: Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 4: Wastewater treatment stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 5: Innovative small-scale wastewater treatment systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 6: Eectiveness of innovative wastewater treatment systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 7: Eectiveness of dierent onsite wastewater treatment systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 8: Vadsbro study findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 9: Wetland capacity to remove nutrients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 10: Stages to consider in undertaking a nutrient reduction project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Figures
Figure 1: Eutrophication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2: The nitrogen cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3: The phosphorus cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 4: Large-scale wastewater treatment processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Panels
Algal bloom in surface waters (WWF- Paivi Rosqvist). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Red tides (California Department of Public Health volunteer Kai Schuman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Eutrophic Beach (NOAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Satellite image of eutrophication (Sea WiFS Project) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Mortality in eutrophic water (Greenpeace) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Industrial pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Shipping pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Gulf of Mexico map (Gulf of Mexico Foundation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mississippi River drainage basin (USGS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gulf of Riga map (Wassman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Gulf of Riga drainage basin (Wassman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Gulf of Riga cross section diagram (Wassman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Septic system (USEPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mound system (Converse et al) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Sand filter (University of Minnesota Extension) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Attached growth filter (Bord Na Mona environmental products US) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Aerobic treatment (NESC West Virginia University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Sequencing batch reactor (USEPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Sorting system (Swedenviro- Mats Johansson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wetland processes (Natural Resources Canada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Subsurface flow wetland (Natural Systems International) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Free water surface wetland (Natural Systems International) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sand filter installation (Swedenviro) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Raita Environment PA 0.8 SBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Raita system in operation (Raita Environment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Plant maintenance (MINWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Pumping station installation (MINWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Septic tank (Global Dry Toilet Association of Finland). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Trickling filter (Global Dry Toilet Association of Finland). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
EcoSan system (Coalition Clean Baltic). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Filtralite synthetic bed and spray filter system (Filtralite). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Riparian diagram (Chris Hoag). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
vi

1.0 Introduction
This report has been produced to assist municipalities intending to take action to mitigate the eects of
eutrophication at a local level. Nutrients that cause eutrophication come from a number of sources and there
are dierent political actors responsible for regulating them.
Municipalities play a fundamental role in mitigating eutrophication because they understand local
circumstances, have detailed knowledge and usually have good contact with local stakeholders. Targets agreed
at international levels are translated into national and local policies, which are delivered by municipalities
and other actors appointed to protect the built and natural environment. This report seeks to provide a guide
to inform municipalities about eutrophication and methods for mitigating its eects.
Domestic wastewater flows are often discharged untreated into surface waters, having serious consequences
for human health and the natural environment. These flows are nutrient-loaded and give rise to
eutrophication of receiving waters. Whilst there are widespread eorts to improve the eectiveness of
treatment at centralised facilities, rural and isolated settlements are often overlooked and left to discharge
directly into ground and surface waters. Municipalities can take action to reduce the impacts of these remote
communities discharges by considering small-scale and on-site treatment options. The report provides an
overview of some examples of best practice, where dierent municipalities and other organisations have
implemented projects to improve small-scale wastewater treatment. These examples provide signposts for
the types of projects a municipality may consider and pave the way to understanding a methodology for
implementing projects.
Diuse nutrient pollution from agriculture makes such a significant contribution to eutrophication that it is
essential it be addressed at every level. Thus there is scope for municipalities to take action. Municipality
owned and managed land oers the opportunity to develop small-scale projects using riparian zone and
wetland projects to contribute to higher-level mitigation eorts.
The report provides an overview of causes and eects of eutrophication; various reduction targets and
mitigation agreements; an overview of small-scale wastewater treatment technology and some examples of
innovative and best practices; it explains methods that demonstrate the potential of riparian and wetland
projects, and sets out a methodology for delivering projects.

2.0 Eutrophication
Eutrophication is a primary production of plants and phytoplankton in surface waters as a result of increased
loading of nutrients and organic matter (NSTC, 2003). This overloading into marine (saltwater) and aquatic
(freshwater) environments is dramatically increased by human land uses. Dierent activities deliver a
substantial load of nutrients from sources like agricultural fertiliser run-o, untreated wastewater discharges
and industrial euents (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000). The excessive nourishment of surface waters is a global
problem that has far reaching social and economic consequences (Randall, 2003; Elofsson, 2003).
2.1 What is eutrophication?

Increased nutrient loads to surface waters raise the primary production of phytoplankton (the basis of the
food web) that impact species and the environment. When nutrient loading occurs for sustained periods it
can have serious impacts that disrupt an ecosystem balance (Cloern, 2001). Discharges of nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) have significantly increased in the 20th century because of human activities (Boesch and
Brinsfield, 2000).
Nitrates and phosphates are discharged into the environment from human and natural sources and these
nutrients alter ecosystem functions and structures.
The physical impacts of eutrophication are an indicator of how humans aect marine and aquatic
environments (Svendsen et al, 2005). Nutrients from surface run-o, leaching, percolation through soils and
direct discharges into surface and ground waters have an eect, figure 1 summarises the process. Various
marine and aquatic environments are impacted by eutrophication, with shallow temperate low-energy water
bodies particularly vulnerable since these conditions are favourable for the eutrophication process.
Figure 1 Eutrophication (HELCOM, 2009)

2.1.1 An Increase in primary production
As nutrient concentrations increase, they are transformed into organic forms through the process of N and P
fixing in aquatic plants (figures 2 and 3). In organic form nutrients can be consumed by phytoplankton, which
multiply and cause numerous problems.
Figure 2 The nitrogen cycle
Figure 3 The phosphorus cycle

Some species can take advantage of the increased primary production and others cannot adjust to the change
in natural conditions. Higher species that feed on abundant plankton can benefit whilst others decline with
limited alternative food sources. This changes species compositions that continue throughout the food web.
2.1.2 Algal blooms
Increased primary production causes more intense and frequent algal blooms, including harmful species like
cyanobacteria. These species have serious consequences for animals and human health because of their
toxicity.
Algal blooms impact on the environmental and aesthetic quality of areas damaging recreational functions,
mariculture operations and causing mortality among a number of species.

2.1.3 Increased turbidity
The higher concentration of plankton in surface waters limits the depth that light can penetrate by making the
water more murky. Submerged plant species struggle to absorb enough of the suns energy for photosynthesis,
and this impacts on species diversity through the loss of habitats and a reduction in the oxygen that would be
produced by vegetation under normal conditions.
2.1.4 Oxygen depletion
When plankton die o they sink into deeper oxygen-limited water where bacteria decompose dead specimens
and consume the already scarce supply of oxygen, having serious eects for species and communities present.
Poor oxygen conditions cause organisms to move in search of better conditions. Higher species like fish die
o, unable to inhabit aected areas. Hypoxic (low oxygen content) and anoxic (no oxygen present) conditions
are extreme modifications that occur with eutrophication (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000), which raise the
demand for oxygen for both biological (biological oxygen demand: BOD) and chemical (chemical oxygen
demand: COD) processes.
Other problems occur under depleted oxygen conditions. Bacteria seek alternative oxygen sources to
decompose plankton when there is limited dissolved oxygen and this produces hydrogen sulphide, a chemical
lethal to animals. Decomposition also releases P and N (figures 2 and 3) back into the water column, which
further contributes to eutrophic conditions.
2.1.5 A complex process
Eutrophication happens as a result of a number of chemical and biological processes that combine to create
the eects outlined above. When nutrients are loaded into marine and aquatic environments, algal blooms
occur that reduce oxygen levels, damage ecosystems and impact human and natural systems. Figure 1
illustrates the basic process of eutrophication.
2.2 How does eutrophication aect the environment?

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2009) describe the sea as a multi-functioning dynamic set
of resources with provisioning; supporting; regulating and cultural ecosystems, with life-sustaining content
like food and oxygen, and aesthetic and cultural resources like scenery, recreation and species diversity.
Eutrophication can have a far-reaching impact on the resource abundance of freshwater and marine
environments, and their value to human and natural systems.
2.2.1 Ecological impacts
Increased primary production leads to shifts in ecosystem structures and species compositions. Oxygen
depletion, toxic algal blooms and the production of lethal chemicals can have serious consequences for
ecosystems:
A loss of higher species (e.g. fish and crustaceans) that depend on stable oxygen levels, established
habitats and reliable food sources.
Shifts in other species, in search of higher oxygen levels, and total mortality of other species.
A shift under hypoxia from large slow growth species to small fast growth species.
There are related impacts to the human environment; algal blooms make areas undesirable, impacting
various human uses of marine and aquatic environments.

2.2.2 Social impacts
Unsightly waters and unpleasant smells
hinder areas aected by eutrophication
(Elofsson, 2003). Toxic algae can make
waters unsuitable for recreation,
impact species diversity, and aect
activities like fishing and bird watching.
These factors culminate into the loss
of a valuable resource that impacts
communities and visitors in aected
areas.
2.2.3 Economic impacts
The physical and social impacts
of eutrophication have economic
consequences. The damage to
recreation impacts the revenue of
aected areas with losses of visitors
and tourism.
Impacts on ecosystems reduce species numbers, which reduce catches for fishing boats impacting finfish and
shellfish operations and thus having consequences for fisheries and the communities sustained by them.
Some studies have examined these eects, Diaz and Solow (1999) investigated the ecological and economic
impacts of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, their findings suggest that there is a distinct lack of understanding
of what eects occur, which is alarming. Randall (2003) conducted similar research that indicated the impacts
on marine ecosystems with direct economic implications:
System
Area affected
(km2)
Benthic response
Benthic recovery
Fisheries
response
Louisiana Shelf
15,000
Mortality
Annual
Stressed, but still highly productive. No

reports of mortality, except jubilees.
Kattegat, SwedenDenmark
2,000
Mass mortality
Slow
Collapse of Norway Lobster, reduction

of demersal fish. Hypoxia prevents
recruitment of lobsters.
Black Sea, Northwest Shelf
20,000
Mass mortality
Annual
Loss of demersal fisheries; shift to

planktonic species.
Baltic Sea
100,000
Eliminated
None
Loss of demersal fisheries, shift to

planktonic species. Hypoxia is
bottleneck for cod recruitment.
Table 1: Impacts of eutrophication (Randall, 2003)

Randalls research summarised in table 1 shows that there are extensive impacts on fisheries that have direct
consequences for the productivity of associated industries.

2.3 Nutrient sources
Some ecosystems have a level of resilience to nutrient
enrichment to cope with seasonal variation in natural loads.
This resilience is often not robust enough to cope with the
excessive loads from human activities.
The two main streams of nutrients are from atmospheric
and land-based sources. Atmospheric pollution arises
from activities that discharge particulates into the air
leading to the deposition of nutrients in cloud, mists
and rain (precipitation). Land-based sources mobilise in
ground and surface waters as a result of point sources
like industrial waste and sewage outfalls and diuse
sources like run-o from agriculture. In the Baltic Sea the
source of 75% of N and 95% of P come from rivers and
waterborne sources (HELCOM, 2007), these are input
into water bodies from both point and diuse sources.
2.3.1 Agriculture
Nutrient enrichment in agriculture can arise from arable
and livestock operations; both N and P can be discharged
and nutrient loading can be increased through operations
like irrigation, drainage, converting wetlands and other
nutrient sinks to increase agricultural production (Boesch
and Brinsfield, 2000). Chemical fertilisers and pesticides
used in crop production can leach into watercourses
through soils, and directly from surface run-o, especially
during wet conditions. Harvests can also increase nutrient
loading when crop cover is reduced and ploughing
disturbs soils, releasing large amounts of nitrates.
The use of manure also contributes to nutrient loading.
Farms with livestock store animal waste (manure/ slurry)
and spread it onto fields as a fertiliser. Nutrients can
make their way into watercourses from inappropriate spreading methods that fail to ensure crops absorb
nutrients. Inappropriate application can result in leaching (filtering of liquids through soil layers) and run-o
into ground and surface waters.
Silage is used as a feedstock for animals and is produced by storing crops (like barley straw) often in large silos
or in pits. Structures for processing silage are often ineective at containing nitrate-loaded liquids produced
as a by-product in fermentation processes and these often end up in ground and surface waters.
2.3.2 Municipal Wastewater
Domestic wastewater discharges are a significant source of pollution that contribute to eutrophication.
Nutrients pollutants and bacteria discharged from domestic sources impact on water quality and human
health, as well as causing and contributing to eutrophic conditions (Matuska et al, 2010). In the Baltic Sea
region 30% of the N and 90% of the P from all point sources come from municipal wastewater discharges
(HELCOM, 2010).

Primary
Screening
Sedimentation
Secondary
Tertiary
Method
Coarse to fine screens,

filters, settling tanks,
skimmers
Settling tanks,
separation machinery,
filters and skimmers
Surface aerated basins; Filter

beds; biological aeration;
membrane bioreactors,
secondary sedimentation
Lagooning;
constructed wetlands,
N and P removal;
disinfection e.g.
chlorination
Purpose
Removal of separable
materials (fats, oils and
greases, solids etc) that
could block or damage
a system
Sludge settling, removal

of remaining solids, fats,
oils and greases and,
separation of sludge from
liquid content
Degradation of the biological content of sewage by the

attached and suspended
growth of bacteria
Final stage of
treatment to raise
water quality to
acceptable standard
for discharge, by
removing nutrients
and remaining
pollutants and harmful
content
Process
Settling, skimming,
scraping and filtering
Settling, skimming and

Aeration (stimulating
biological breakdown of organic matter by providing an
oxygen source for bacteria)
Filtration (providing a media
for bacteria to grow on that
wastewater can be passed
through)Settling to remove
suspended solids
Chemical precipitation
(trickling wastewater
through chemicals to
bind contaminants
e.g. P)Chemical dosing
(adding chemicals
to wastewater to
bind nutrients for
later removal as solids)
Natural processes to
remove contaminants
like denitrification by
plants and
animalsDosing
wastewater with
chemicals to kill
harmful organisms
Table 2 Wastewater treatment stages (after Ghali, 2009)

There are varying extents to how wastewater is managed in dierent countries, regions and municipalities.
Some have established infrastructure and regulatory systems requiring robust treatment whilst others have
less formal arrangements.
Various regulations have imposed requirements for eective treatment in a number of countries, with
extensive rules in place in the EU, particularly for large-scale wastewater treatment plants.
Domestic wastewater is divided into two groups, black water: that containing human waste, and grey water:
that from other domestic streams like laundry, dish washing, showers and sinks etc.
The varying methods of regulation of wastewater in dierent countries mean there are dierences in the
extent of wastewater treatment. In some countries/ regions wastewater undergoes no treatment and is
simply discharged into ground and surface waters. In order to reduce nutrient loads from wastewaters,
tertiary treatment is usually required (table 2). Wastewater treatment often excludes tertiary treatments at
both large and small-scales.

Although domestic wastewater is a point source of pollution it can also be considered as diuse since rural
dwellings and settlements with ineective or absent of wastewater treatment are not easy to identify and are
often widely dispersed over large areas. In areas with limited infrastructure and resources these discharges
can contribute significantly to eutrophication and can be dicult to manage, in the Mamonovka River Basin
shared by Poland and the Russian Kaliningrad Oblast 40% of the 9,500 population are not connected to the
sewage system (Rautio et al, 2006).
2.3.3 Industrial land-based sources
Industrial processes contribute significant loads of nutrients.
Wastewater euents and run-o from sites with poor drainage
infrastructure can increase the discharge of nutrients to ground and
surface waters. The consequences of these discharges to the
environment can be far-reaching, high in concentration of N P and
other hazardous substances they can damage freshwater and marine
environments and contribute significantly to
eutrophication.
Atmospheric pollutants from industry also contribute to eutrophication emitted during combustion processes when nitrates are emitted into
the atmosphere, and are deposited in acidic precipitation (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000).
Regulation of industrial pollution has been carried out in various countries for a number of years, and industries have to adhere to certain emission level limits. Some of the European and international regulatory
frameworks for ensuring this are outlined in section 3.
2.3.4 Transport
Transport emissions contribute to the deposition of nutrients in the
marine environment. Vehicle emissions have long been understood to
significantly pollute the environment and, through stricter control and
regulation of vehicle emissions, there have been significant changes
through improved engine eciency, cleaner fuels and the introduction
of catalytic converters to remove pollutants.
Whilst there have been improvements to reduce road vehicle pollution, other modes of transport have been less well regulated. Shipping
is predicted to contribute more pollution than all land-based sources by
2020 (EC, 2005). Low-grade fuel use, limited pollution prevention practice
and technology, and the large number of shipping operations make its pollution a significant contributor to
already high emissions. Given the importance of shipping for transporting goods and for world trade, the
impacts of its pollution could significantly increase in its contribution to eutrophication.
Shipping wastewater also contributes to eutrophication, with both black and grey waters discharged. Individual vessel capacities to eectively treat sewage vary greatly. The need for ecient reductions of N and P
content in ship wastewater has been recognised and standards set. From 2010, the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO: section 3.1.5) require considerable improvements for treating wastewater on ships, these
have been reinforced by HELCOMs proposals to ensure reductions of N to less than 10mg/L and P to less that
0.5mg/L in shipping wastewater (Voigt, 2009).

2.4 Case Studies
The causes and eects of eutrophication outlined above aect many areas, from continental shelf waters to
confined seas, estuaries and other water bodies (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000). Impacts of pollution reach
further than countries of origin, and impact more than just aesthetic quality.
2.4.1 Case Study: The Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in
the world, land-bound by the United States and Mexico
and semi-enclosed by the island of Cuba. Around 50% of
the basin is shallow water on the continental shelf. It is one
of the warmest coastal waters in the world and over 60%
of the United States land surface drains into it (USEPA,
2010) providing ideal conditions for eutrophication to
occur.
The enormous body of water provides abundant
resources for the tens of millions of people that live
on and around its coasts. Fisheries, a variety submerged
and coastal habitats, and numerous scenic areas provide
a buoyant economy that is threatened by eutrophication.
The Mississippi River basin discharges 90% of the
freshwater in the Gulf, with over 3.3 million gallons
flowing from its mouth every second (USEPA, 2010).
With such an influence, it is no surprise that the
majority of nutrients discharged are from its catchment. It has been calculated that around 7 million tonnes of nitrates from commercial fertilisers are discharged into the gulf each year (USGS,
2000). Estimates suggest that the source of 50% of nitrates are from fertilisers; 11% originate from
municipal and industrial point sources; 15% from manure and, 24% come from diuse sources like
atmospheric deposition and urban run-o (USGS, 2000). The
result of this nutrient loading is an extensive eutrophic zone
of hypoxia in spring and summer months with significant
impacts on environmental, ecological and cultural assets. Nitrate
loading has been estimated to have more than doubled in the
gulf since it was first studied in 1985 (USGS, 2000). Federal
agencies have compiled data on the causes and eects and
recognise that a holistic approach is essential to achieve
reductions (NSTC, 2003). Federal legislation sets out national
objectives; state laws and programs interpret these higherlevel laws at the regional level, and programs and initiatives are
carried out at the local level. All three tiers of legislation and action attempt an integrated approach to reverse the current eutrophic state of the gulf.
2.4.2 Case Study: The Gulf of Riga

The Gulf of Riga is an example from a European
perspective. It is a major semi-enclosed basin
connected by two sounds to the main Baltic Sea (the
Baltic Proper). It has an area of 16,300 km2 and a
volume of 424km3 (HELCOM, 2009) with two major rivers
draining into it. Early influence on nutrient loads were
from the Soviet use of chemical fertilisers and intense
livestock farming to meet export demands to the
Soviet Union. Agricultural, industrial and sewage
discharges created a heavily polluted marine
environment.
Changes have been recorded since the 1960s with
increases in both algal blooms and bottom living
organisms. The faecal content of the gulf
became so high under Soviet leadership that
swimming was banned in the interests of human
health (WWF, 2005). The 1990s saw the end of
the intensive use of chemical fertilisers and dense
livestock farming (WWF, 2005; Elofsson, 2003).
The Gulf of Riga Project was set up in the
early 1990s through a collaboration of Nordic and
Baltic scientists to establish a knowledge base on
eutrophication and toxic substances in the gulf.
Research has been ongoing and it is now
understood that there is a natural resilience to nutrient
loading, with pelagic food webs having high buering
ability to recycle nutrients, limiting algal blooms
(Wassman, 2004). However in coastal areas N levels
are twice as high as in open waters (HELCOM, 2009)
and there is still a need to continue to address nutrient
pollution. The frequency and extent of algal blooms
(cyanobacteria) is lower than that in the 1980s
and 1990s due to shifts in political administration
(HELCOM, 2009) but they still happen.
Nutrient loads and eutrophication status are moderate by comparison to some other areas in the Baltic
Sea Region, because of the high buering capacity and land use changes in recent decades. The problem of
eutrophication still remains with 40% of the catchment used for agriculture, and the main rivers discharging
these and other sources of nutrients to the Gulf of Riga continuing the eutrophication.
As well as the growing body of knowledge on eutrophication in the gulf, mitigation eorts are underway. The
ERDF-supported Project on Urban Reduction of Eutrophication (PURE) is targeting the reduction of nutrients
from wastewater discharges using the Gulf of Riga as a pilot study, alongside a host of other initiatives.
10
3.0 Policy context

There is a legacy of policies being drawn up to protect marine and aquatic environments. Policies like the
London Convention of 1972 focused on preventing dumping in marine environments, early examples like
these have shaped and influenced modern policy-making toward more comprehensive protection that
extends to cover impacts like eutrophication.
3.1 International agreements
A number of conventions and agreements have been established at an international level to preserve and
improve marine and aquatic environments.
3.1.1 The Nitrogen Oxide Protocol (1979)
The Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution aims to control and reduce the emission of
nitrogen oxide from airborne sources by setting emissions thresholds. It came into force in 1983 and is
controlled and enforced by the UNECE. Several more recent protocols have emerged as a result.
3.1.2 The Gothenburg Protocol (1999)
The UNECE Multi-eect Protocol is designed to set ceilings on harmful emissions of sulphur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and ammonia. One of the key motivations of this agreement
is to reduce eutrophication and its impacts. By setting emissions ceilings and specific limits for certain
pollutants, the aim of the convention is to reduce the area of excessive eutrophication by 57 million hectares
by 2010, an ECE working group is revising the current agreement. At the European level, this agreement is
delivered through the National Emissions Ceiling (NEC) directive.
3.1.3 The OSPAR Convention (1992)
The Oslo and Paris Conventions were combined into the international agreement for the protection of
the marine environment in the North-East Atlantic to prevent marine dumping and pollution. The OSPAR
Commission is responsible for monitoring environmental conditions in the region, ensuring the integrity
of the marine environment and regulating European standards for hazardous and radioactive substances,
biodiversity and eutrophication. It has been responsible for various reports, research and monitoring programmes in the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR have a Eutrophication Strategy to reduce N and P levels by 50%
from the 1985 levels by 2010. Recent progress evaluations indicate that these targets will only be partially
met with P reductions largely achieved but N reductions still a key challenge (OSPAR, 2010).
3.1.4 The Helsinki Convention (1992)
The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area is a comprehensive
agreement. The governing body that enacts the convention is the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM). All
countries bordering the Baltic Sea agree to work together to protect coastal, oshore and inland waters of
the Baltic and manage pollution from land-based sources. HELCOM develop policies, liaise with parties and
conduct research and monitoring of the marine environment. One of their key aims is to reduce the eects
of eutrophication.
The Baltic Sea Action Plan was set up to improve the environment of the Baltic Sea in four key
areas: eutrophication, hazardous substances; biodiversity and environmentally friendly activities
11
(SPEU, 2009). Eutrophication was addressed by aiming to achieve N and P reductions. The plan requires
signatories to develop national programmes to achieve set reductions.
The HELCOM ministerial meeting in 2010 reported that recent assessments indicate that eutrophication still
remains a major threat to Baltic Sea ecosystems (HELCOM, 2010).
HELCOM outline that there is still vast potential to achieve significant reductions through sharing knowledge
and information about best available techniques (BAT) and supporting projects like PURE. They also identify
municipal WWTPs, single dwellings, small settlements and small business wastewater discharges as potential
areas for improved reductions (HELCOM, 2010).
3.1.5 The IMO and MARPOL
The UN set up the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to develop a regulatory framework for the
shipping industry for safety, security and environmental protection.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was established by the
IMO to reduce and prevent pollution from shipping operations.
Six annexes outline pollution sources from shipping and measures to reduce them. Annex four
addresses sewage and requires any vessel over 400 gross tonnes or carrying more than 15 people travelling on
international voyages to have adequate facilities for treating and discharging sewage. Annex 6 addresses air
pollution and sets out similar controls with a technical code on nitrogen oxide emissions.
3.2 EU Directives
International cooperation to tackle the problems caused by pollution is extensive and involves a number of
parties. The examples given are a snapshot into some of the action taken at the intergovernmental level to
tackle eutrophication problems, through cooperation and setting international standards.
At the European level there are a number of policies and directives that target eutrophication. The main
policies are described but the list is not exhaustive (for a full list and explanation of the various relevant
European directives the reader is directed to the European Commission website:
www.ec.europa.eu/maritimeaairs/).
3.2.1 The Nitrates Directive (1991)
Aiming to ensure good water quality, the EU developed a directive for reducing the input of nitrates into the
aquatic environment from agriculture. The directive requires member states to develop action programmes
to minimise the use of nitrate fertilisers and move towards using less damaging practices. The directive came
into eect in 2003 and over 300 action programmes have been developed in member states.
3.2.2 The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991)
The directive seeks to manage the flow of urban wastewater from domestic and industrial sources. It requires
member states to have adequate wastewater treatment facilities for the dierent sensitivities of receiving
waters and an up to date and detailed list of catchment areas to ensure eective management. Member
states are responsible for monitoring the discharges and quality of receiving waters.
It is one of the most comprehensive directives in terms of protecting surface waters from urban and
municipal wastewater pollution (Conley et al, 2002).
12
3.2.3 The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (1998)

The IPPC was introduced to reduce the impact of polluting industrial and agricultural activities through a
permit issuing scheme. Livestock farming, metal processing industries and minerals production are some
examples covered by the directive.
In order to receive a permit for a particular operation, strict requirements have to be met. Permits are issued
to allow particular operations to occur and place the responsibility for monitoring and controlling pre-defined
emissions levels on the permit holder, with regulation carried out at the national level by appointed agencies.
3.2.4 The Water Framework Directive (2000)
The directive requires member states to develop management plans for river basins in their region
including those that cross borders, to develop baseline information and measures required to achieve good
environmental status, working with neighbouring countries where necessary. Member states were required
to develop baseline scenarios by 2004, produce management plans by 2009 for the period 2009-2015 and be
ready to implement these plans by 2012.
The WFD takes an ecosystems approach, involving all stakeholders and considering the multiple-uses
of water resources to produce more eective management plans.
3.2.5 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008)
The ecological dimension of the EU maritime policy (SPEU, 2009), the MSFD directive sets out a framework
for the EU and neighbouring non-member states to develop plans to achieve good environmental status of
EU marine waters by 2020. Devising a strategy that establishes marine regions based on geographical and
environmental conditions, the directive requires member states to define what good environmental status
is in their region, and to work with other countries to develop a set of environmental targets and monitoring
projects to achieve it.
3.2.6 The Common Agricultural Policy (since 1962)
CAP is an EU subsidy system that supports agriculture and funds its programmes. Initially it promoted
the expansion of agriculture across Europe, which led to widespread large-scale farming operations and
intensive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides that caused habitat losses, reduced vegetation cover and
increased nutrient loading. However recent reforms have revised these agendas and focused on issues
of sustainability and protection of the environment. CAP helps to mitigate eutrophication through these
broader goals. With incentives like oering green payments for farms that reduce fertiliser use and adopt
organic production methods. CAP is helping to address the issue of eutrophication by reducing the intensity
of agriculture on receivng environments.
3.2.7 The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (2009)
As more countries have joined the EU in recent years there has been raised awareness amongst policy
makers to develop a plan for the area as the EU extends east. The strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
has four key principles aimed at promoting and improving the quality of the region socially, culturally,
economicallyandenvironmentally.Sinceadoptionin2009theenvironmentalobjectiveshavebeendevelopedintoa
network of marine protected areas, targets for reducing phosphate inputs from detergents in municipal
wastewater, the provision of funding for programmes and research and, improving cross-border cooperation.
A key aspect of the strategy is to use existing and emerging national, regional and pan-Baltic strategies from
statutory and non-governmental bodies and to enhance them with support and funding.
13
3.3 National eorts to tackle eutrophication

HELCOM and OSPAR progress assessments indicate that reduction targets will only be partially met. International conventions and European policies are central to achieving sucient reductions by promoting
collaborative eorts to deal with transboundary problems. These top-tier agreements are largely delivered
through policies and programmes at the individual country level. Whilst some nations struggle to achieve
reductions, others are leading the way, developing strategies to tackle eutrophication.
3.3.1 Denmark
Danish environmental policy lends itself well to illustrate eective mitigation. Nutrient reductions were
identified as a central issue in protecting the Danish environment, and their policies reflect this (rtebjerg
et al, 2003).
Responsibilities for environmental protection rest largely with individual municipalities and counties, a
common feature of governance in Nordic countries (Katko, 2004). The responsibilities are overseen by the
Ministry of Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency (EEA, 2005). The Action Plan against
Pollution with nutrients of the Danish Aquatic Environment (the APAE), is the national plan that tackles
eutrophication, table 3 summarises the progression of the plan over time.
APAE I
APAE II
APAE III
50% N reduction target
P reductions achieved,
80% P reduction target
N discharges still a problem
Agriculture, municipal and

industrial discharges main sources
Agriculture key to addressing problem
Expand sewage plants and reduce

agricultural inputs
Establish wetlands on
agricultural land. Control manure
storage and spreading
1987
1998
Table 3 Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment Denmark
14
P and N targets met
Additional 13% N and 50% surplus P

reduction targets
Crop buffer zones, set aside land,
taxation of P use in fodder, and support
for research into fodder efficiency
2005
The three key sources of pollution identified by APAE have been mitigated to varying extents:
Industrial point sources: regulated through the Environmental Protection Act, which translates the
requirements of the IPPC directive, with 80% of industries connected to municipal treatment plants (EEA,
2005).
Municipal sources: largely mitigated through wastewater treatment improvements by the translation of
the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in the APAE and through county regional plans and municipal
wastewater plans. 90% of households are connected to municipal wastewater treatment plants, 86% of
which carryout advanced treatments (EEA, 2005).
Agriculture: still a problem area, the current APAE concentrates on nutrient discharges from agriculture,
improving research into better techniques and technologies and developing better crop and livestock
practices.
Denmark has made considerable progress in areducing nutrients to surface waters. Successes are largely
due to eective policy-making and promotion of self-governance and this is underpinned by a thorough
understanding of the problem. A Nation-wide Monitoring Programme set up in the 1990s provided data
on nutrient levels from which reduction targets were set (rtebjerg et al, 2003). Continuous monitoring
has provided a good baseline for developing eective targets and programmes (Svendsen et al, 2005) and
is also a good indicator of the eectiveness of measures taken.
The APAE in Denmark has been periodically revised and updated to deliver the most eective reductions
and is complemented by a host of other policies and legislation at national, regional and local levels. Since
developing and implementing the plan Denmark has exceeded the targets set by the Urban Wastewater
Treatment Directive.
15
3.3.2 Sweden
Swedish environmental policy has a history of innovation; driven by a collective approach that actively
engages stakeholders for eective protection and mitigation (Bouveng, 1978).
This spirit of comprehensiveness has steered national policy towards addressing environmental issues
through one main initiative. The Environmental Policy Objectives lists sixteen key areas to protect and
enhance the environment.
The hierarchy of Swedish environmental policy is similar to that of Denmark. The parliament adopts the
environmental objectives; the government oversee the implementation; the Environmental Objectives
Council (via the Swedish EPA) coordinate agencies to achieve objectives, and County Boards and
Municipalities deliver them on the ground. One of the sixteen objectives is Zero Eutrophication by
2020 to achieve good environmental status in line with the Water Framework Directive. A set of interim
targets has been drawn up to ensure success by 2020 (Swedish EPA, 2009b), which have indicated that the
target of zero eutrophication will be unlikely to have been achieved by 2020 because of the slow pace of
ecosystems to recover and the eects of transboundary pollution. Additional measures have been implemented,
including an outright ban on the use of phosphates in detergents to reduce discharges from domestic
wastewater flows (Swedish MoE, 2009).
Mitigation measures are set out under three broad headings: Ecient Energy and Land Use, Non-toxic,
Resource-saving Environmental Life Cycles and, Management of Land, Water and the Built Environment
(Swedish EPA, 2009c).
Through these strategies various agencies are involved in addressing eutrophication. Similar to other Nordic
countries Sweden tends towards self-governance with water managed by municipalities (Katko, 2004). A
number of initiatives have been established to address the problems of inadequate wastewater treatment
with collaborative eorts between various agencies.
4.0 What can a municipality do to tackle eutrophication?

Nutrients sources are dicult to identify downstream and this is an important
factor in considering what can be done to address the problem (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000). Previous
sections have detailed how policy and international strategies have been drawn up to reduce inputs from
dierent sources. Policies that strike at the heart of the problem have a significant impact in tackling
eutrophication.
Large-scale wastewater treatment plant improvements, changes in agricultural policy to influence practice,
and regulation of harmful pollutants are among the actions taken by upper tiers of governments to reduce
the flow of nutrients into marine and aquatic environments.
There is scope for municipalities to take action to further reduce nutrient flows at the local level. The
funding and support provided for national and international strategies is considerable, municipalities can apply
modest lower cost and small-scale measures within their regions to deliver improvements and considerable
reductions.
A number of initiatives are underway that seek to share knowledge and experience, pull together resources
and highlight to communities the needs and benefits of combating eutrophication and reducing nutrients.
16
5.0 What a municipality can do: small-scale wastewater treatment

Domestic wastewater flows in rural areas are often neglected when centralised treatment systems are
upgraded (Massoud, et al, 2009). This means a considerable proportion of rural homes are
contributing to the problem of eutrophication by discharging nutrient-loaded wastewater into ground and surface
waters (Swedish EPA, 2002). The explanations for inadequate treatment systems vary, but some common
reasons include the change in use of holiday homes to permanent residences that only have basic septic
systems designed for occasional use. In other regions limited resources and regulation mean there is simply no
requirement for homes to have wastewater treatment. The latter of these two problems makes the challenge
for municipalities considering improvement projects dicult, as some systems may not be suitable if they
require to be retrofitted into an existing home, however as some of the following examples show, it is
possible.
There is a growing body of expertise on small-scale treatments, with Nordic countries developing systems,
initiatives and research projects aimed at sharing and exchanging knowledge and understanding of best
available technology for small-scale systems.
Best practice examples of wastewater treatment are informed by research with an understanding that
sharing experience is as vital as knowing what systems will suit a site. A common theme in best practice
is good working partnerships, with contributions from manufacturing and supply sectors; academic
institutions; environmental agencies; non-governmental organisations and municipalities. It is this ethos that
enables successful projects, sharing a wealth of experience and knowledge.
5.1 Wastewater treatment principles

Before describing projects that demonstrate best practice, it is important to understand the
principles
that
underpin
wastewater
treatment
systems.
Any
system
deals
with
collecting, treating and disposing waste (Massoud et al, 2009). Treatment is the essential
stage for achieving nutrient reductions and three stages can be identified. Figure 4
illustrates these stages in large-scale centralised treatment systems. These basic steps can be
adapted in small-scale systems to achieve dierent nutrient reductions:
Figure 4 Large-scale wastewater treatment processes (Svenskt Vattan, 2002).
17
Primary
Screening
Sedimentation
Secondary
Tertiary
Method
Coarse to fine screens,

filters, settling tanks,
skimmers
Settling tanks,
separation machinery, filters and skimmers
Surface aerated basins;

Filter beds; biological
aeration; membrane
bioreactors,
secondary
sedimentation
Lagooning; constructed wetlands, N

and P removal; disinfection e.g.
chlorination
Purpose
Removal of separable
materials (fats, oils and
greases, solids etc) that
could block or damage
a system
Sludge settling,
removal of remaining
solids, fats, oils and
greases and,
separation of sludge
from liquid content
Degradation of the
biological content of
sewage by the
attached and
suspended growth of
bacteria
Final stage of treatment to raise

water quality to acceptable
standard for discharge, by
removing nutrients and remaining
pollutants and harmful content
Process
Settling, skimming,
Settling, skimming
and scraping and
filtering
Aeration (stimulating
biological breakdown of
organic matter by
providing an oxygen
source for bacteria)
Filtration (providing a
media for bacteria to
grow on that
wastewater can be
passed through)
Settling to remove
suspended solids
Chemical precipitation (trickling

wastewater through chemicals to
bind contaminants e.g. P) Chemical
dosing (adding chemicals to
wastewater to bind nutrients for
later removal as solids)Natural
processes to remove contaminants
like denitrification by plants and
animals Dosing
wastewater with chemicals to kill
harmful organisms
Table 4 Wastewater treatment stages (After Ghali, 2009)
5.2 Treatment systems

Small-scale and onsite treatment processes vary, some fully treat wastewater to a high standard before
discharging into the natural environment, whilst others carry out some basic primary or secondary processes
and depend on receiving environments to further treat euents.
18
5.2.1 Infiltration systems

Septic Systems
The most frequently used onsite technology; septic systems
separate solids out through filters and a settling tank. Liquid
euent is dosed into a drain field through pipes that allow
it to soak away through soils and eventually into ground
water. Some secondary treatment can occur in the sludge
in the septic tank, but nutrient-loaded euents rely on the
capacity of soils and geology for treatment before reaching
ground water.
Mound Systems
An advanced septic system that
compensates poor soil capacity by
constructing an infiltration mound,
using dierent layers of filter material
to attempt to treat euent more
eectively.
Sand Filters
Following similar principles to septic systems, sand
provides a filtration surface before discharging.
Wastewater is passed through a sand medium where
bacteria can grow to consume organic matter. Some
advanced systems use additional layers of chemicals
to remove P and others recirculate euent through
the system several times before discharging.
5.2.2 Package Plants

Package plants replicate some of the industrial-scale processes described in figure 4 at smaller scales.
They often feature unique patented components designed by manufacturers to serve a specific purpose,
these vary between systems, but all are designed to achieve higher quality euents. There are some common
processes and components used in package plants that are summarised below.
19
Aerobic treatment
Wastewater is dosed into an aeration chamber
where pumps force through air to provide oxygen
for bacterial decomposition of organic matter
and to mix wastewater. Settling removes biomass
formed by bacteria in aerated wastewater.
Anaerobic treatment
Wastewater is dosed into a tank where it is retained
to allow biological processes to occur. The tank is
made up of solid filter material that wastewater
is dosed into under anaerobic conditions, with
extensive bacterial growth on the water surface.
Dosing systems circulate wastewater in dierent
ways to achieve biological treatment. Anaerobic
conditions favour N consuming bacteria, thus
anaerobic treatment is useful for reducing N.
Attached growth filters
Filter material provides a surface for bacteria to grow on that consume organic matter in wastewater.
Submerged filters use aeration to provide aerobic conditions for bacteria; other filters use motion to
ensure oxygen for bacterial decomposition, for example, rotating filters.
Chemical Treatment
Various chemicals can be used to raise euent quality either as an additional polishing stage, or as a pretreatment. Chlorine and other disinfectant chemicals are added to kill harmful bacteria that remain in
euents as a final process. Chemical like iron ochre can be added to bind P for later removal through settling.
It can also be added as a layer in some filter systems.
20
Sequencing Batch Reactors

A process of combined biological treatment and settling in
sequence to achieve a higher euent quality. In a cycle
the processes of aeration, mixing, biological digestion and
decanting of treated euent are carried out.
A number of dierent processes can be incorporated into
a package plant to achieve a higher quality of euent. By
combining some of the processes above, secondary and
even tertiary stages of treatment can be achieved at small
scales.
Complex solutions have been developed to meet the
demands of the growing on-site treatment market as a
result of increasingly eective regulation.
5.2.3 Sorting systems

Sorting systems use an innovative approach to manage wastewater by separating black and grey water for
individual treatment.
Black water can be separated from grey water, which can be recycled for irrigation or treated accordingly.
Harmful black water can be further sorted into solid and liquid wastes, where solids can be diverted to
composting tanks and N-loaded liquids can be stored and used as a fertiliser for crops.
21

5.2.4 Constructed wetlands
Wetlands have a capacity to absorb pollutants from water and raise its quality. Natural processes can
reduce contaminants and benefit water quality, habitats and biodiversity. Constructed wetlands replicate
these natural processes to treat wastewaters. Under controlled conditions, these systems oer potential for
secondary and tertiary treatments. Some systems are used for total treatment and others as a final polishing
stage. Two main systems are used.
Subsurface flow wetlands
The subsurface method uses a gravel medium and vegetation (usually reeds) to treat wastewater. The water
level is kept below the surface of the gravel to ensure minimal exposure to humans and to limit the risk of
increasing insect populations (USEPA, 2000). Aerobic conditions around roots and water surfaces allow some
removal of N, but anoxic conditions are limiting. Tertiary treatment can be achieved with longer retention
of wastewater, aeration devices and vertical-flow systems, which raise oxygen levels for eective treatment.
P, metals and persistent organic pollutants are bound in sediments, and accumulate over time; their levels
are reduced from euent discharges but remain in the wetland system.
22

Free water surface wetlands
The second type of wetland has an open water surface with a bed of clay soil for vegetation to take root, this
vegetation shelters the water surface from the sun, limiting algal growth and reducing water turbulence from
wind. Wastewater is spread over a large area at a shallow depth, to achieve eective removal of nutrients by
oxidising N and P, adsorption in soils and removal by microbial processes and plant consumption.
5.3 Research into small-scale systems

Onsite and small-scale systems range from fully fabricated total treatment systems to basic structures that
rely on natural processes. Research plays an important role in developing an understanding of these systems
and which are best placed to deliver nutrient reductions. A number of studies have been carried out to
evaluate dierent small-scale systems.
The Swedish Delegation for Sustainable Technology carried out a project in partnership with Stockholm
Water that ran over a number of years to examine the eectiveness of dierent onsite systems. The study
looked at three types of system and compared the concentrations of nutrients and organic matter in outflows
(Qvarnstrom and Bergstrom, 2002). The study aimed to evaluate the systems to find the most hygienic, easy
to use and economical processes that did not consume excessive resources (Hellstrom and Jonsson, 2006).
Plant
Description
Biovac 5pe
Package plant with SBR, activated sludge and chemical

precipitation.
Upoclean 5pe
Biotrap
Package plant with submerged filter complimented by

chemical precipitation.
ALFA/ BAGA RVBK5ALFA MRCP
Package plant with submerged filter complimented with chemical precipitation.
Toilet EcoVac or Clever with Wost Man

Ecology filter
Storage tank for black water and treatment of grey water in small sand filter.
Toilet Dubbletten BB Innovation and

large sand filter
Urine separating toilet and storage tank for urine. Septic tank and large sand filter
for remaining sewage.
EkoTreatKemira
Large sand filter complimented with in-house chemical

precipitation.
Table 5: Innovative small-scale wastewater treatment systems (after Hellstrom and Jonsson, 2006)
23

The study was reported in academic papers as well as an information brochure. The systems examined are
summarised in table 5 and the findings in table 6, which show the percentage of reductions achieved relating
to each polluting substance.
Table 6: Eectiveness of innovative wastewater treatment systems (Hellstrom and Jonsson, 2006)
The study concluded that all systems could remove significant levels of P; the most eective being a sorting
system with sand filter and in-house chemical precipitation and it concluded that sand filters were eective
for removing organic matter (Hellstrom and Jonsson, 2006). It highlighted that package plants require
professional maintenance and technical support for eective long-term P removal and that N removal was
most eective in sorting systems.
Some package plants use passive processes that are less energy-intensive and may therefore be better suited
for use in areas where low running costs are essential. A number of plants assessed in the study use chemical
precipitation to achieve eective nutrient reductions so cost, availability and practicality of replenishing
chemicals may be an important consideration for a project.
The study is a helpful tool for deciding what system can be used for a site to achieve particular nutrient
reductions. Sorting systems often require in-house components and complex set-ups and therefore may not
be suited for retrofitting, there is research in this area beyond the scope of the manual, readers are directed
to Menzinger et al, 2010.
Other initiatives have been set up to increase the knowledge of on-site and small-scale treatments. The
MINWA project is comprised of various organisations in Finland from both the private and public sectors that
aim to promote knowledge of on-site systems.
Their work has examined existing systems and their eectiveness and involves gathering regular data on
system discharges for COD, BOD, N, P and suspended solids. This information is publicly available and intended
to provide impartial information to those considering installing a system.
One outcome of MINWAs work is the results of two studies that evaluated the eectiveness of dierent
systems, examining the quality of discharges from dierent plants (MINWA, 2009a). Table 7 summarises
these results.
Removal capacity
Organic Matter
Sequencing Batch Reactors 90%
97-98%
Sand filters
70-80%
Trickling filters
Table 7: Eectiveness of dierent onsite
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
60-90%
20-40%
60-70%
60%
0-32%
0-26%
wastewater treatment systems (after MINWA, 2009a)
The findings of the studies are interesting because they indicate the eectiveness of dierent treatment
techniques. They provide a snapshot of wider on-going research that is bringing a wealth of information to
understanding the eectiveness of on-site systems (for further information on MINWAs research, readers
are directed to: http://www.minwa.info/en/research---development).
24

5.4 Good practice
The research described provides a brief snapshot into the growing body of knowledge about small-scale and
onsite systems. A number of initiatives have been set up to develop and share knowledge on aspects of onsite
systems, including how to implement a project, likely maintenance requirements and how eective some
modern technologies are. Other projects aim directly at improving the treatment systems in a particular area.
5.4.1 Engaging the user
A number of good practice examples approach the issue of inadequate wastewater treatment by
providing demonstrations to users to transfer knowledge about eective wastewater treatment systems.
Finland passed a decree in 2003 requiring all onsite wastewater systems to include tertiary treatment
to reduce the discharge of nutrients, with any new systems installed to meet requirements and existing
systems given until 2014 to make improvements. In this light a number of work and maintenance
demonstrations were set up to communicate the technology available to home owners and system users.
MINWA Demonstrations
MINWA provided information on practical aspects of eective treatment systems. The project teamed up
with the sustainable development centre of SW Finland (Valonia) to develop a programme of exchanging
knowledge and experience of small-scale treatment to encourage positive change. A number of work and
maintenance demonstrations have been published to highlight the processes of installing, operating and
maintaining on-site systems.
5.4.1.1 Sand filter and P removal system installation
The project demonstrated how to install a wastewater treatment plant for up to 5 population equivalent (PE). It
used a septic tank, phosphorus removal unit and sand filter to treat all domestic wastewater (i.e. black and grey
waters). The septic tank and phosphorus removal unit were installed prior to the demonstration, fitting the sand
filter was the main focus. An illustrated publication, with an explanation of how it functions was produced and
is available at: www.minwa.info/en/installing---maintenance/work-demontrations). The system uses settling
and filtering for primary treatment, secondary treatment (and some nutrient removal) in the sand filter, with
additional P removal carried out as a polishing stage. Running costs are for electricity, P removal chemicals,
and for periodic sludge removal. The estimated cost of a full installation is between 8000 and 10000 .
25

5.4.1.2 Dose-load biochemical system operation
Another system demonstrated by MINWA was the Raita biochemical plant with chemical dosing. The
system is based on a two-part process. Firstly euent is dosed into a processing tank where biological
consumption and nitrification are stimulated by aerating sludge. Secondly P-binding chemicals are dosed into
secondary-treated wastewater before settling. A proportion of the sludge is separated for composting and
euent undergoes denitrification before discharging.
The Raita system is suitable for an individual household and uses electronic sensors to measure appropriate
times for aeration, dosing and sludge removal/ euent discharging. It requires a power supply for these
components and also requires maintenance for sludge removal for composting (the full demonstration can
be viewed here: www.minwa.info/en/installing---maintenance/work-demontrations).
A video was also made of the installation available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4YTk15TPw
Q&feature=player_embedded.
5.4.1.3 A village wastewater plant
MINWA demonstrated a larger treatment system. Clusters
(villages) of houses can use a single larger plant, spreading
costs, maintenance and responsibility. MINWA produced
a demonstration of what an individual house requires
to channel wastewater to a central system, and what
maintenance is required for a plant serving 10 households
with biochemical treatment (available here: www.minwa.
info/en/installing---maintenance/work-demontrations).
Pumping Station:
In a cluster system, dwellings that cannot rely on
gravity-fed sewers use pumping stations. A Valonia-led
project demonstrated how a pumping station is installed to
link up an individual dwelling to a village system. It showed the
technical requirements and construction methods required.
Village Plant Maintenance:
Treatment is carried out through three tanks: the first for
settling out solids, the second for activating sludge and
chemical precipitation and the third for denitrification
of treated euent. The demonstration highlighted the
maintenance requirements of the Goodwell system.
26

Monitoring was explained as essential for proper functioning: measuring pH and oxygen levels, examining soluble
P content in euent, and measuring sludge thickness. Periodic maintenance includes draining the primary tank
twice annually, filling the tank for chemical precipitation, and cleaning aeration plates once every 3-4 years.
5.4.1.4 Maintaining on-site systems
MINWA also commissioned a study that examined the maintenance
of on-site systems from a user perspective for an area in S.W. Finland
(Ahtiainen, 2009). It looked at existing systems in the region and
owners knowledge regarding what maintenance was required and
what responsibility the owner had. Dierent treatment technologies
were examined from infiltration systems to package plants.
The study produced useful results for consideration in implementing
a project. Package plants emerged as the most favoured system
by users because of their treatment eectiveness and minimal
maintenance requirements (Ahtiainen, 2009). A number of participants in the study were unsure about
various aspects of their systems including what maintenance was required, but voiced an interest in gaining
more information, and to find out what municipalities were doing to improve systems in their area (Ahtiainen,
2009).
A common constraint at a number of sites was poor access for sludge removal vehicles, with overgrown
vegetation hiding service points and the poor siting of systems at the time of installation making conditions
dicult for large pumping-vehicles to access (Ahtiainen, 2009).
This study is a valuable source of information on how to improve the installation of on-site systems and
for highlighting some valuable lessons. Understanding constraints and how municipalities can achieve
best results in a project are essential. Ahtiainens study illustrates that thorough planning is essential and
engagement with system users can provide better results.
5.4.2 The Karelia project
A current project is underway in the Russian Karelia region to develop safe drinking water supply and
wastewater treatment improvements for scattered settlements. As part of the Global Dry Toilet Association
of Finlands (GDT) goal to reduce the contamination of surface waters and to protect ground waters a
three-phase project has been developed as a pilot to demonstrate a method of best practice.
A key driver of the project is to install dry/ composting toilets to develop a more ecologically sound method
of sewage treatment and disposal, the emphasis being that composting toilets allow easier treatment of
grey waters. The three-phase plan at Karelia provides a useful framework for developing a project for total
water management for clusters of homes in isolated areas. The summary provided here only looks at the
wastewater treatment aspects (for a full description visit: www.huussi.net/karjala/index.html).
Phase 1: The first phase is to establish a baseline, developing

an understanding of what settlements exist in a region and,
which have sanitation and wastewater treatment facilities.
Phase 2: The second phase is an assessment of baseline
conditions to establish what villages are in most need of
improvements. Once villages are identified, sanitation and
water supply plans can be drawn up using best available
techniques identified from considering the phase 1 findings,
this can involve installing new systems and repairing/
27

upgrading existing systems.
Phase 3: The final stage is to implement plans and
identify ways of reusing waste products, for example
using sludge as a fertiliser.
The Karelia project is current, and has finished the
second phase of its plans. The findings of the first and
second audit and restoration phases indicated that
there is vast scope for improvement. No wastewater
treatment facilities are currently in operation. Most
grey and black waters are discharged to groundwaters,
with a few cesspools used and the majority of residents use basic
dry toilets that consist of a basic structure above a pit where sewage is disposed. Plans have been drawn
up to take action to develop small-scale projects, a guide to dry toilets has been published in Russian and
site specific plans have been drawn up for restoration and improvements of all aspects of wastewater
(progress on this project can be followed at: http://www.drytoilet.org/projects/karelia/index.html).
5.4.3 Coalition Clean Baltic
Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) work to protect the Baltic Sea and identify wastewater treatment as an important
area for improvement. Their eorts attempt to expose and share knowledge on best technology for sustainable
wastewater treatment and to support studies and installations for best practice.
In their work to promote eective wastewater treatment to protect the Baltic Sea, they have
commissioned work to gain an understanding of what technologies are appropriate in certain
areas, and have gathered information on best practice in Sweden, as well as providing access to a
variety of other valuable sources of information (available here: http://www.ccb.se/ccbpubl.html).
5.4.3.1 Vadsbro case study
Swedish consultancy Water Revival Systems (1999) were commissioned by CCB to undertake a study into
treatment options for the municipal wastewater of the 125 population town of Vadsbro in Sweden. It
examined six dierent options for the treatment of the towns wastewater. The study looked at cost; nutrient
reductions; recycling potential; health risks; appropriateness to local settings and maintenance requirements.
The robust assessment produced some interesting findings and some good parameters for considering an
onsite treatment system. Table 8 summarises the systems and their estimated nutrient reductions.
28
Irrigation
Chemical
precipitation
Trickling filter
and bioditch
Crop distribution rotation

system
Sand filter
Sequencing
batch reactor
Processes
Primary; Storage pond;

seasonal
irrigation to
forest
Primary;
chemical
precipitation;
evaporation and
percolation
Primary;
Recirculating
Trickling filter;
evaporation and
percolation
Primary;
Trickling filter;
Rotating
distribution to
crop land
Primary; sand
filter; Pond/
Biofilter for N
removal
Primary;
sequencing
batch reactor;
discharge
Over 95%
reduction
Over 50%
reduction
Over 50%
reduction
Over 90%
reduction
Over 50%
reduction
Undefined
Over 95%
reduction
Over 90%
reduction
Over 90%
reduction
Over 90%
reduction
Over 90%
reduction
Undefined
Table 8: Vadsbro study findings (after WRS, 1999)

The Vadsbro case study highlighted the best available technologies for implementing onsite wastewater
treatment for the village at the time of research, 1999. It is a useful study that demonstrates the necessity of
developing and considering dierent solutions and to decide what parameters are important for an eective
wastewater project.
5.4.3.2 Eco-Sanitation
The
Swedish
Eco-Sanitation
Experience (2009) was led by Coalition
Clean Baltic and described a set of
case studies of successful small-scale
wastewater treatment projects.
The report highlighted various
techniques being used in Sweden.
Sorting systems with grey water
recycling were the main type featured
in 12 case studies. They looked at
some large-scale projects for systems
that serve tens of thousands of people
as well as small-scale community
applications.
One study of interest was a collective that formed in Orhem near Stockholm, made up of around 80 residents
interested in developing sustainable wastewater practices. The project implemented source-separating
technology as part of the regeneration of the collectively managed property.
Urine is separated from solid waste and is diverted to a storage tank where it is periodically emptied for
application as a fertiliser on agricultural land. Solid waste is directed into individual composting bins that are
the responsibility of the households who dispose of waste in communal composting heaps, emptied every
five to six years for application to agricultural fields as a soil conditioner.
Grey waters are not currently treated but plans are underway to incorporate a constructed wetland into the
development.
The case study is an interesting example of how it is possible to retrofit a sorting system into an existing
structure. It demonstrates that with a motivated user group and a well-organised disposal chain,
considerable improvements can be achieved.
29

5.5.4 Nordic Innovation Centre
The Wastewater Treatment in Filter Beds project was carried out through a collaboration of Finnish,
Swedish, Norwegian and Danish experts. This collaborative project sought to test the eectiveness of
treating wastewater with an aerobic spray filter before dosing into a synthetic filter bed (filtralite) that
absorbs nutrients and other contaminants, a system that requires little maintenance and no chemicals
(Follesdal, 2005). In the four countries two pilot plants were installed to serve individual homes, and project
participants carried out continuous monitoring of the eectiveness of the plants, six reports were published
for the dierent pilot plants, they are available at: www.filtralite.com/26227/.
The monitoring indicated that the average N reductions were approximately 50% and P reductions
approximately 99% (Follesdal, 2005). It highlighted that filter material required replacing at some point in the
lifetime of the plant and that trials were ongoing for the recycling of nutrients removed from the wastewater.
The overall eectiveness of the system depended on the motivation of users. It is a useful example to
illustrate that innovative solutions that close the loop on nutrient flows from wastewater can be successful.
5.4.5 A growing body of knowledge
The MINWA demonstrations highlight various aspects of on-site systems to encourage homeowners to
improve their facilities and to develop an information resource for technologies and practice.
The Global Dry Toilet Association of Finland use a pilot study to demonstrate methods of good practice.
Coalition Clean Baltic have commissioned studies for specific settlements and have reviewed best available
technologies in Sweden, as well as providing other resources on their website. The Nordic Innovation Centre
has conducted a study into a specific technology and its eectiveness at reducing nutrients.
These examples highlight a handful of projects tackling the problem of eutrophication from small-scale wastewater
discharges. They provide detailed information on their work and the products and systems being used and they
try to promote best practice by sharing knowledge and experience. They all feature some form of collaboration,
working in partnership with environmental agencies, the private sector, municipalities and system users.
30

6.0 What a municipality can do: riparian buers and natural wetlands on
municipality owned land
Ensuring good land use practices and developing eective pollution buers will properly safeguard receiving
waters (Correll, 2005). Section 2.3.1 outlined the contribution of agricultural activities to nutrient loading;
buer zones can provide a means to reduce these nutrients (HELCOM, 2007), up to 50% can be stopped
from reaching water bodies without significantly aecting other land uses (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000).
Nutrient loading from diuse sources can range from deposition and riverbank poaching by cattle to crops
cultivated and chemically treated in close proximity to watercourses (Kilgour, 2010). Careful planning of
riparian zones and wetlands can oer low-maintenance passive solutions for municipalities aiming to mitigate
eutrophication.
6.1 Riparian buers

Strips of vegetated land between water and human land use provide a transition zone to buer pollution
(CRJC, 1998). The eect of this riparian zone is to reduce non-point sources of pollution from entering surface
waters (Hutchens, 1998). Excess P in surface water run-o is bound in soils (CRJC, 1998) and N is removed
by vegetation and bacterial processes (Rassam et al, 2006). Municipalities can use this knowledge to address
eutrophication by developing eective riparian buers in areas of land they are responsible for.
Various publications describe the dierent sections of riparian buers, their characteristics and their functions.
Two main functions of riparian buers are the capacity of soils and vegetation to retain and reduce nutrients
and, to provide a physical barrier to activities impacting watercourses.
Riparian management can be used to create a physical barrier to prevent erosional damage of riverbanks
and to reduce direct nutrient inputs to watercourses. Livestock that have access to watercourses can erode
riverbanks and their waste can be deposited directly (although they can benefit the management of an
established buer with controlled grazing). Fertiliser and pesticide-spreading machinery also deposits
nutrients directly into watercourses. Creating a buer prevents access for livestock and increases the
distance between spreading machinery and surface waters. Riparian buers can also play a more active role
by absorbing nutrients.
31

Buer zones can vary in size and characteristics. The panel above illustrates the zones of a buer:
In the toe zone where land and water intersect, the flow is usually constant through out the seasons
and vegetation reflects this, with emerging (semi-submerged) species and wetland species common.
The bank zone is an area exposed to weather extremities and is vegetated by colonizing and
herbaceous species and shrubs (Hoag, 1999).
The over bank zone is the area of land beyond the watercourse and is vegetated by established
upland shrubs.
The transitional zone is beyond this and has infrequent established shrubs and some tree species.
The upland zone is the area farthest from the watercourse and is vegetated by established tree
species.
The area available to create, improve or extend a buer will vary depending on a particular project
site. The more complete it is, the greater success there will be in removing nutrients. The Scottish
EPA (2008) have produced good practice guidance on river bank erosion and provide useful
relevant examples of riparian buers and their management within their guide accessible here:
http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/idoc.ashx?docid=1464f219-036b-48a4-ada3-3f247a7b89e5&version=-1.
Buers are most eective when planted as a continuous strip along upland watercourses where diuse
nutrients are most eciently absorbed (Correll, 2005, Rassam et al, 2006, Ugochukwu and Nukpeza, 2008).
In a municipality-led project this may not always be possible since it is unlikely that a municipality will be
responsible for the management of land along an entire upland watercourse. To achieve substantial nutrient
reductions a joined up approach is necessary. Engaging with neighbouring land managers and inviting them
to voluntarily set up buers may be an option to ensure continuity of the buer, or where this is challenging,
oering to continue the scheme voluntarily for the land manager may achieve better results, although this
will require more resources.
6.2 Wetland restoration

Natural wetlands are a useful sink for nutrients. Many have been modified or engineered out of
landscapes to increase agricultural productivity, which increases the discharge of non-point source
nutrients to surface waters (Ugochukwu and Nukpeza, 2008). Where natural features remain they can be
enhanced to maximise potential for reducing nutrients. Restoring wetlands as close to natural conditions
as possible can encourage microbial communities in soil layers. A successful wetland can intercept
pollutants, prevent sedimentation and reduce nutrient loading, with added benefits for biodiversity and
habitats. Often the type of work involved in restoring a wetland is labour-intensive but the recreation,
habitat and ecological rewards may oer some incentive for recruiting volunteers to contribute
towards a project. The Owell Woodland and Wildlife Trust provide a good introduction to wetland
restoration, as well as helpful reports, available from: http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/wetintro.htm.
32
Table 9: Natural Wetland capacity to reduce nutrients (Wetland International, 2010)

The scope for the four key processes (sedimentation; vegetation; bacterial; and soil processes) to reduce
nutrients and raise quality of discharge into receiving environments is summarised in table 9. The range
of benefits are broad; there has been considerable research and guidance on restoring natural wetlands,
characteristics will vary between countries, but for an in-depth guide to protecting and restoring natural
wetlands the reader is directed to: www.epa.gov/aboutow/owow.
7.0 A method for municipalities

So far the manual has outlined the problems caused by eutrophication and the need to take action
to mitigate them. It has raised awareness that there are a range of policies and agreements in place to
ensure the integrity of the environment. It has also outlined the potential for municipalities to consider
implementing small-scale wastewater treatment projects to reduce the flow of non-point source
pollution in rural and isolated settlements, and has highlighted the scope for additional measures
to address the flow of other non-point source nutrients on municipality owned and managed land.
The manual seeks to address eutrophication at the local-level. If successfully implemented, these
small-scale methods can feed-in to higher-level initiatives that will reduce eutrophication and
improve the quality of marine and aquatic environments.
As outlined in the introduction this manual aims to equip the user with the knowledge to apply the
accompanying checklist to implement eutrophication mitigation projects. Therefore it is necessary to explain
how a municipality should approach a project.
It is not exhaustive, rather it is a guide that covers the main bases upon which a municipality can devise a
detailed plan for a project.
The checklist is divided into four key stages that can be applied to both wastewater treatment projects
and riparian and wetland projects, it sets out how to approach a project; important initial steps; how to
implement it and how (and why) to carryout monitoring for dierent purposes.
Table 10 highlights the five key stages necessary for an eective process, once the need for a project is
established interested parties can be identified and involved in the process. Using available resources, a
robust assessment of baseline conditions and future predictions allows the project to go forward, informed
with enough knowledge to devise an eective development strategy.
The USEPA (2005) summarise the implementation of an onsite wastewater treatment project (table 10),
which is valuable for considering the types of mitigation projects suggested in previous chapters.
33

Stage
Task
1
Identify stakeholders
2
Establish baseline and projections
3
Identify best approach
4
Implement the project
5
Monitoring
Table 10: Stages to consider in undertaking a nutrient reduction project
Role
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Operation and maintenance
7.1 Identifying stakeholders

The municipality is the lead actor, pulling together all interested groups and ensuring the best and most
well informed decisions are made throughout the life of the project. As well as acting as a coordinator and
manager, the municipality must liaise with expert groups and other stakeholders.
It is the responsibility of the municipality to ensure that the benefits and justification for a project are fully
communicated to all concerned parties. It is equally as important to involve these parties in the decisionmaking process taking advantage of local knowledge wherever possible.
7.1.2 System users in wastewater projects
Property owners and tenants are end-users of a project directly involved and aected. Their role is primarily
to benefit from an improved system of wastewater treatment, but their input about water use and local
knowledge (section 5.2) can also inform the best approach.
System users can be shown methods of reducing and recycling wastewater and the municipality can
demonstrate to users how to improve habits and can provide information on the impacts of wastewater,
the types of systems being used in the project and the likely maintenance costs and requirements.
7.1.3 Expert groups
The term expert group covers a broad range of stakeholders oering dierent knowledge that can benefit
a project.
Environmental and conservation groups can help by providing information on sensitive areas and habitats
and may also have potential to direct municipalities towards additional funding sources.
In the case of wastewater treatment projects system manufacturers and installers hold detailed knowledge
about their products and their early input and communication will allow a greater understanding of the types
of system available, their costs and the nutrient reductions likely to be achieved. Planning, infrastructure and
other local government departments will be able to provide useful baseline information, including existing
infrastructure, geological and topographical data, sensitive and problem areas. Environmental agencies can
provide information on sensitive habitats and likely benefits of a particular project and will be an important
source of data for baseline information as well as being able to direct a municipality to potential sources of
funding.
Early involvement of these groups will allow a more robust and eective plan to be drawn up and will
establish lines of communication for obtaining further detail, information and support.
7.2 Establish baseline conditions

Once a steering group has been established it is necessary to gather information on the project
site so that the best available information can inform an approach to achieve the most successful
project, taking advantage of the best information available.
7.2.1 Socio-economic information
In the case of wastewater treatment projects the population using a system will determine the capacity
34

of wastewater treatment facility required, its scale, the extent of treatment processes required and likely
impacts/ benefits to the receiving environment.
The income and scope for system users to contribute to operation and maintenance costs may also be
important factors if users are expected to pay, for example for electricity to power pumps and/ or mechanical
parts of a system or for maintenance like servicing and sludge removal.
In considering riparian buers and wetlands, the scale of proposed planting, excavation and flooding areas
will have construction costs and in some instances may have an eect on the commercial productivity of
the land, therefore they should be clearly considered and weighed up against the benefits of the project.
7.2.2 Existing infrastructure in wastewater projects
In some situations projects may be identified because existing infrastructure is inadequate or obsolete. Wherever
existing systems are present, measures should be taken to examine where cost savings can be made. Property
owners and planning departments may be able to provide information on existing systems and manufacturers
and installers can provide guidance on the scope for improving existing systems to reduce nutrient discharges.
7.2.3 Environmental conditions
The most influential aspect of a project is understanding environmental conditions and it is essential for an
eective and successful approach. There are a number of factors that need to be understood in order to
identify what will be eective.
Understanding current and future land uses and wastewater treatment systems can be achieved by working
with stakeholders to gain a clear understanding of what projects will be appropriate for a particular site.
Geological features and soil characteristics will determine what wastewater treatment systems will be eective
at discharging euents and will allow an understanding of how to best design riparian zones and wetlands.
Knowledge about ground and surface water locations, flow patterns and receiving environments sensitivity
will also help to identify what projects are appropriate. Expert opinion should be sought wherever necessary
by engaging with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the best practice methods are used in all projects.
7.2.4 Predictions and projections
Population projections are useful for considering wastewater treatment projects. Where there are negative
predictions, this may have a bearing on the scale or even the need for a project. The opposite may also
have an influence, where projected increases may mean larger treatment systems are necessary to ensure
adequate capacity.
In the case of riparian and wetland projects, predicted land use changes may also influence the choice of
actions, for example where nearby developments are planned increased surface run-o may have various
impacts on projects.
Population data and projections are usually available from central government statistics from census data.
Developments planned in the nearby area can be identified by discussion with the local planning authority.
Frequent engagement with stakeholders will benefit a project and allow the best options to be identified.
7.3 Identifying the best approach

After establishing the baseline conditions and discussing various aspects with relevant stakeholders, best
practice and best available techniques for a project site can be identified. Sources of funding are essential for
the successful delivery of a project. Municipalities should draw up a list of funding sources and a list of tasks
required to apply for support at the earliest opportunity to avoid any unnecessary delays. Early dialogue with
potential funders will help in the development of a successful plan of action for receiving funds.
35

7.4 Implementing the project
Once a site has been selected and appropriate technology and techniques identified, a plan of proposed
development can be drawn up, and work can begin onsite. Constant communication should be maintained
with stakeholders to ensure a transparent and eective process.
7.4.1 Costing
Figures for project completion should be confirmed with any contractors and suppliers involved before work
begins. In the case of wastewater treatment projects system purchase, site preparation and installation,
operational and maintenance costs (e.g. desludging of primary treatment tanks) should all be confirmed and
any costs likely to be incurred by system users should be clearly communicated.
Similarly, in riparian and wetland projects all contractor costs should be confirmed. Any cost savings may
allow other projects to be undertaken and therefore every eort should be made to make savings, including
recruiting volunteers to assist with labour and planting etc.
7.4.2 Impact reductions
A plan of methods to reduce impacts of the project to users and receiving environments should be drawn
up. Disruption to neighbours, system users and habitats should be kept to minimum and information about
duration of construction works and completion dates should be made available to any concerned parties.
Disturbance to natural systems should be minimised and compensated and this can be achieved by consulting
with environmental agencies and conservation groups and using best available mitigation techniques.
7.5 Monitoring
Once a project is implemented, monitoring can be carried out to inform future projects and contribute to a
better understanding of municipality-led projects.
Environmental monitoring of the concentration of nutrients in receiving environments can be compared
with data sets prior to the project being implemented to evaluate its eectiveness. Monitoring for habitat
and biodiversity improvements can be carried out (particularly for riparian and wetland projects) to assess
additional environmental benefits.
As well as carrying out measurements of specific environmental data, interviews and discussions with users
of wastewater systems and project sites can provide information on how a project functions day-to-day,
how aesthetically pleasing it is, and if there are any other issues (e.g. unpleasant odours, over abundance of
certain plant species etc) with the system.
8.0 Conclusion
The purpose of this manual is to provide a knowledge base for municipalities to understand their role in
addressing eutrophication. Section three summarises a variety of agreements, directives and policies that seek
to do just that. Municipalities have an enacting role within a growing policy arena. By implementing legislation
and delivering higher-level objectives through regulation, management and project implementation, they
are key actors on the ground.
In order for municipalities to deliver successful projects it is essential that they are aware of current best
practice; understand the scope of what they can achieve and, have a structured approach for undertaking a
project.
The aims and objectives set out at the start of the manual define the purpose of the good practice guide.
The potential for nutrient reductions to be achieved at a local level is as great as the diverse range of projects
possible. Success can be achieved with careful planning, engagement with specialists and communities and
innovative thinking.
36

References
rtebjerg, G. Andersen, J.H. and Hansen, O.S. (Eds.) 2003. Nutrients and Eutrophication in Danish Marine
Waters: A Challenge for Science and Management. Copenhagen: National Environmental Research
Institute.
Ahtiainen, L. 2010. The maintenance of wastewater treatment systems at sparsely populated areas- case
study in the southwest of Finland. Report to MINWA project: Turku University of applied Sciences.
Boesch, D.F. and Brinsfield, R.B. 2000. Coastal Eutrophication and Agriculture: Contributions and Solutions.
In: Balazs, E. Galante, E. Lynch, J.M. Schepers, J.S. Toutant, J.P, Werner, D and Werry, P.A. Th.J. (Eds.) 2000.
Biological resource management: Connecting science and policy. Berlin: Springer
Bord Na Mna Environmental Products U.S. Incorporated. Nitrogen Reduction. Retrieved 10/10/2010 from:
http://www.bnm-us.com/nitrogen.php
Bouveng, H.O. 1978. Management of Man-made Eutrophication: The Swedish Concept. Journal of the
American Oil Chemists Society vol. 55(1) pp178-180.
Cloern, J. 2001. Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Marine Ecology
Progress Series Vol. 210. pp 223-253.
Coalition Clean Baltic 2010. The Swedish Eco-Sanitation Experience: Case studies of successful projects
implementing alternative techniques for wastewater treatment in Sweden.
Conley, D.J. Markager, S. Andersen, J. Ellermann, T. and Svendsen, L.M. 2002. Coastal Eutrophication and
the Danish National Aquatic Monitoring and Assessment Program. Estuaries. Vol. 25 (4b). pp. 848-861.
Converse J.C. and Tyler, E.J. 1987. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Using Wisconsin Mounds on Dicult Sites.
Transactions of the ASAE. Volume 30, 2. pp 362-368.
Copeland, C. 2008. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress: Cruise Ship Pollution: Background,
Laws and Regulations and Key Issues. Washington: National Council for Science and the Environment.
Correll, D.L. 2005. Principles of planning and establishment of buer zones. Ecological Engineering. vol. 24
pp 433-439.
CRJC (Connecticut River Joint Commissions) 1998. The Challenge of Erosion in the Connecticut River Valley.
Charlestown NH: CRJC
Diaz, R. and Solow, A. 1999. Ecological and economic consequences of hypoxia: Topic 2 Report for the
Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. National Ocean Service, Coastal Ocean Program.
Maryland: NOAA
Druitt, M. (Ed) 2009. The Swedish Eco-Sanitation Experience: Case studies of successful projects
implementing alternative techniques for wastewater treatment in Sweden. Uppsala Sweden: Coalition
Clean Baltic.
37

DWAF (Department of Water Aairs South Africa) 2002. National Eutrophication Monitoring Programme:
Implementation Manual. Pretoria: DWAF.
EC (European Commission) 2005 Baseline Scenarios for the Clean Air for Europe (CAF) Programme: Final
Report. Austria: IIASA
ECE (European Commission- Environment) 2010. Urban Wastewater Directive Overview. updated
03/06/2010 retrieved 21/09/2010 from: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/index_
en.html
EEA (European Environment Agency) 2005. Eectiveness of urban wastewater treatment policies in
selected countries: an EEA pilot study. EEA Report 2/2005. Luxembourg: Oce for Ocial Publications of
the European Commissions.
Elofsson, K. 2003. Cost-eective reductions of stochastic agricultural loads to the Baltic Sea. Ecological
Economics vol. 47 pp13-31.
Follesdal, M. 2005 Wastewater treatment in filter beds: Common Report from all Pilot Plants. Nordic
Innovation Project 02056: Maxit Group AB. Retrieved 28/10/2010 from:
www.nordicinnovation.net/_img/02056_wastewater_treatment_in_filter_beds_final_report.pdf
GDTA (Global Dry Toilet Association of Finland) 2008. The Karelia Project: Wastewater treatment. Retrieved
20/10/2010 from: www.huussi.net/karjala/index.html
Ghali, F.M.A. 2009. Photovoltaic Small-Scale Wastewater Treatment Project for Rural and New-Cultivated
Areas in Egypt. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology vol.53 pp897-899. retrieved
29/9/2010 from: http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v53/v53-146.pdf
Gustavson, D.M. Anderson, J.L. and Christopherson, S.H. 2002. Innovative Onsite Wastewater Treatment
Systems: Single Pass Sand Filters. University of Minnesota Extension. Retrieved 9/10/2010 from: www.
extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7672.html
HELCOM 2007. Towards a Baltic Sea unaected by Eutrophication. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting: Poland
2007. Helsinki: Helsinki Commission
HELCOM 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: An integrated thematic assessment of the eects of
nutrient enrichment in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environment Proceeding No. 115B. Helsinki: Helsinki
Commission
Hellstrom, D. and Jonsson, L. 2006. Evaluation of small on-site wastewater treatment systems. Management
of Environmental Quality. Vol. 17(6) pp728-739
Hoag, C.J. 1999. Riparian Planting Zones: View from a wetland, No. 5 (1998-1999). Interagency Riparian/
Wetland Project, Plant Materials Centre. Idaho: USDA-NRCS.
Hutchens, T. 1998. Best Management Practices for Water Quality: Riparian Buer. University of Kentucky:
Cooperative Extension Service.
38

Katko, T.S. 2004. Water Time National Context Report- Sweden. Finland: Tampere University of Technology.
Kenworthy, A. 2010. On-line Article: Shipping Pollution Must be Controlled. Retrieved 10/11/2010 from:
http://www.celsias.co.nz/article/shipping-pollution-must-be-controlled/
Kilgour, C. 2010. Out in the field. SEPA View p12. Issue 48, autumn 2010.
Leiskar, B. 2008. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: Sand Filter. Onsite Wastewater Treatment and
Reuse Fact Sheet Series. Texas: Agrilife Extension. Retrieved 12/10/2010 from: www.agrilifebookstore.org/
publications_details.cfm?whichpublication=921&orderby=pubnumber&simplesearch=l-5229&criteriastrin
g=simplesearch%3Dl%2D5229
Massoud, M., Tarhini, A. and Nasr, J. 2009. Decentralised approaches to watewater treatment and
management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management vol. 90 pp652659.
Matuska, M. Fatulova, E. Bodik, I and Zvara, R. 2010. Study of alternative solutions for wastewater
treatment in Richnava local municipality. Bratislava: Global Water Partnership.
Menzinger, F. Ziedorn, V and Peters, I. 2010. Interaction between urban forms and source separating
sanitation technologies. Chapter 8 in: Vliet, B.v. Spaargaren, G. and Oosterveer, p (eds.) 2010. Social
Perspectives on the Sanitation Challenge. London: Springer
MINWA 2009a. Wastewater Management at Sparsely Populated Areas: Eectiveness of treatment systems.
Presentation by the University of Turku Applied Sciences. Retrieved 26/10/2010 from: www.minwa.info/en/
education---training/educational-material/wastewater-treatment-eectiveness
MINWA, 2009b. Work Demonstration: Fann Biofilter and phosphorus removal unit. Retrieved 20/10/2010
from: http://www.minwa.info/en/installing---maintenance/work-demontrations
MINWA, 2009c. Work Demonstration: Raita Environment PA 0.8 Introduction. Retrieved 20/10/2010 from:
www.minwa.info/en/installing---maintenance/work-demontrations
MINWA, 2009d. Work Demonstration: Goodwell Ltd Village Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retrieved
20/10/2010 from: www.minwa.info/en/installing---maintenance/work-demontrations
NSI (Natural Systems Incorporated) 2010. Web-page article: Constructed Wetlands. Retrieved 03/10/2010
from: www.natsys-inc.com/resources/about-constructed-wetlands/
NESC (National Environmental Services Centre) 2005. Pipeline Newsletter 16(3): Small community
wastewater issues explained to the public. West Virginia Research Corporation. Retrieved 9/10/2010 from:
www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/PL_SU05.pdf
NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) 2003. An Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia and
Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. NSTC: Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
OSPAR (The Oslo and Paris Commissions) 2010. Quality Status Report 2010. London: OSPAR Commission.
Retrieved 27/9/2010 from: http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/index.html
Qvarnstrom, L. and Hellstrom, D. 2002. Evaluation of small wastewater treatment systems: A joint
development project between the Swedish Delegation for sustainable Technology and Stockholm Vatten.
39

Information Brochure: Stockholm Vatten.
Randall, C.W. 2003. Potential societal and economic impacts of wastewater nutrient removal and recycling.
Water Science and Technology Vol. 48 (1). pp 11- 17.
Rassam, D.W. Fellows, C.S. De Hayr, R. Hunter, H. and Bloesch, P. 2006. The hydrology of riparian buer
zones; two case studies in an ephemeral and a perennial stream. Journal of Hydrology vol. 325 pp 308-324.
Rautio, L.M. Westberg, V. Vilkki, B. and Pihlaja, S (Eds.) 2006. BERNET CATCH Theme Report: Public
Participation and Water Management in the Baltic Sea Region. Vaasa: West Finland Regional Environment
Centre.
Scottish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2008. Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice
Guide: Bank Protection- Rivers and Lochs. Stirling: SEPA Document WAT-SG-23
SPEU (Swedish Presidency of the European Union) 2009. The marine environment and the EU strategy for
the Baltic Sea region. SPEU: Information Leaflet. Stockholm: Ministry of the Environment.
Svendsen, L.M. Bijl, L. Van der, Boutrup, S. and Norup, B. (eds.) 2005. NOVANA: National Monitoring and
Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments. Programme Description- Part 2.
National Environmental Institute, Denmark. NERI Technical Report 537
Svenskt Vatten (Swedish Water) 2002. Facts on water supply and sanitation in Sweden. Stockholm: Svenskt
Vatten
Swedish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2002. Action Plan for keeping phosphorus in the loop.
Report 5214. Stockholm: Swedish EPA (in Swedish)
Swedish EPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) 2009a. Whats in the Sea for Me? Report 5872.
Stockholm: Swedish EPA
Swedish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2009b. Miljomal: Management of Land, Water and the
Built Environment. Environmental Objectives Secretariat. Stockholm: Swedish EPA
Swedish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 2009c. Miljomal: Zero Eutrophication. Environmental
Objectives Secretariat. Stockholm: Swedish EPA
Swedish MoE (Ministry of Environment) 2009. Phosphates in dishwasher detergents banned from 1 July
2011. Press Release 3rd March 2009. Stockholm: MoE.
Ugochukwu, C.N.C and Nukpeza, D. 2008. Ecotechnological methods as strategies to reduce eutrophication
and acidification in lakes. Environmentalist vol. 28 pp137-142.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 2000. Decentralised Systems Technology Fact
Sheet: Subsurface Flow Wetlands. EPA/832/F-00/023. Washington, DC: Oce of Water.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 2002. On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems
Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. Washington, DC: Oce of Water and Oce of Research and Development.
40

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 2005. Handbook for Managing On-site and
Clustered (Decentralised) Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA/832/B/05.001.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) 2010. General facts about the Gulf of Mexico.
updated 17/5/2010. Retrieved 28/9/2010 from: http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html
USGS (United States Geological Survey) 2000. Nitrogen in the Mississippi Basin- Estimating Sources and
Predicting Flux to the Gulf of Mexico. USGS Fact Sheet 135-00.
Voigt, M. 2009. Wastewater Treatment. Presentation to HELCOM Maritime on 24.11.2009.
Wassman, P. 2004. Pelagic eutrophication in the Gulf of Riga. Chapter 19 in: Wassman, P., Olli, K. (eds.).
2004: Drainage basin nutrient inputs and eutrophication: an integrated approach. Norway: University of
Troms Retrieved 1/10/2010 from: http://hdl.handle.net/10037/2389
WRS (Water Revival Systems) 1999. Wastewater treatment in a small village: options for upgrading.
SwedEnviro Report no. 1999:1, Uppsala, Sweden.
Wetlands International 2010. Wetlands and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH): Understanding the
linkages. Ede, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) 2005. The Gulf of Riga- Cleaner than expected. Baltic Bulletin 2/2000:
WWF. Retrieved 28/9/2010 from: http.assets.panda.org/downloads/BalticBul09.pdf
41
Appendix 1- Useful links to further information

The following table aims to direct readers to additional sources of information on the issues outlined
above, it is not exhaustive.
Link
Summary
Wastewater treatment
www.switchurbanwater.eu
An EU project on sustainable urban water and wastewater

management, this site is a good source for understanding the
principles and application of treatment
www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch25.htm
A US take on wastewater treatment technologies produced by

the Organisation of the American State, this site oers options
for cost-eective treatments
www.minwa.info
A Finnish-led project researching eectiveness of dierent

treatment systems, and promoting awareness of eective
systems. The MINWA guides feature in the report as examples
of good practice
http://www.svensktvatten.se/web/english.aspx
The Swedish Water and Wastewater Association represent

municipality interests on the subject and negotiate with other
agencies and organisations on water issues. They have produced a wealth of information, guidance and training for
on-site wastewater treatment
http://www.ccb.se/ccbpubl.html
Coalition Clean Baltic lobby for the protection of the Baltic Sea
environment. They have a useful reference section of publications relating to wastewater treatment
http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/water_publications.aspx
The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has a good

online library
ofrelevant documents on managing wastewater, along with
good practice
guidance on a number of aspects relating to water quality
Wetland and riparian projects

http://www.wetlands.org/
Wetlands International is an organisation specialising in developing wetlands to improve sanitation, the environment and
human health. They have produced useful information and a
number of reports on wetlands
http://www.snh.gov.uk/
Scottish Natural Heritage have produced valuable guidance on

wetland and
riparian management
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/
The United States EPA has produced an abundance of information on river

corridor and wetland restoration
http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/about/publicationsphp#BuersandWaterQuality
The University of North Carolina has published a wealth of

information on
riparian buers, wetlands and nutrient management
http://www.ubcwheel.eu/
The Union of Baltic Cities have a database of good practice

examples of projects that deliver sustainable development, a
number of which address eutrophication
42

DRAFT Eutrophication Good Practice Guide

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DRAFT Eutrophication Good Practice Guide

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

February

Good Practice Guide Series

Local Authorities International

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

To provide practical guidance for

To consolidate information about

To highlight the scope for

To summarise examples of best

To equip municipalities with the

Highlight the scope for achieving

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

5.3 Research into small-scale systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

2.1 What is eutrophication?

Figure 1 Eutrophication (HELCOM, 2009)

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Figure 2 The nitrogen cycle

Figure 3 The phosphorus cycle

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

2.2 How does eutrophication aect the environment?

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Stressed, but still highly productive. No

Collapse of Norway Lobster, reduction

Black Sea, Northwest Shelf

Loss of demersal fisheries; shift to

Loss of demersal fisheries, shift to

Table 1: Impacts of eutrophication (Randall, 2003)

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Coarse to fine screens,

Surface aerated basins; Filter

Sludge settling, removal

Degradation of the biological content of sewage by the

Settling, skimming and

Table 2 Wastewater treatment stages (after Ghali, 2009)

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

2.4.2 Case Study: The Gulf of Riga

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

3.0 Policy context

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

3.2.3 The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (1998)

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

3.3 National eorts to tackle eutrophication

50% N reduction target

80% P reduction target

N discharges still a problem

Agriculture, municipal and

Agriculture key to addressing problem

Expand sewage plants and reduce

Table 3 Action Plan for the Aquatic Environment Denmark

P and N targets met

Additional 13% N and 50% surplus P

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication

4.0 What can a municipality do to tackle eutrophication?

Good Practice Guide Series: Mitigating Eutrophication