Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3: Example loading output from the model One of the first activities typically completed during the restoration planning and implementation process is a more thorough evaluation of potential mitigation strategies. One tool that many groups in Pennsylvania use to support this activity is a software programme that operates in tandem with AVGWLF. More specifically, nutrient and sediment loadings derived via the use of AVGWLF can be used as input in a companion software tool called PRedICT (Pollution Reduction Impact Comparison Tool). This tool allows the user to create various ‘scenarios’ in which current landscape conditions and pollutant loads (both point and non-point) can be compared against ‘future’ conditions that reflect the use of different pollution reduction strategies (best management practices) such as agricultural and urban BMPs, stream protection activities, and upgrading of wastewater treatment systems. It includes pollutant reduction coefficients for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, and also has built-in cost information for an assortment of pollution mitigation techniques. The user specifies desired conditions in terms of such things as acres of agricultural BMPs used, number of septic systems to be converted to centralized wastewater treatment, types of plant upgrades, percentage of urban areas to be treated by wetlands and detention basins, etc. Built-in reduction coefficients and unit costs are then utilized to calculate resultant nutrient and sediment load reductions and scenario costs. Figure 4 illustrates the type of output that can be obtained for a given watershed via the use of AVGWLF and PRedICT. Shown in this figure are ‘existing’ and ‘future’ loads calculated on the basis of a suite of proposed pollution mitigation strategies. Calculations of pollutant load reductions and associated costs within PRedICT are accomplished via a series of data handling algorithms and mathematical expressions written in Visual Basic. The general approach used in most cases is to calculate load reductions for each pollutant based on the number of additional ‘units’ (e.g. acres, stream miles, per capita septic system conversions, etc.) for which the particular 59
BMP is being implemented and the appropriate pollutant reduction coefficients and unit costs specific to that BMP. These additional ‘units’ are based on the difference between ‘existing’ and ‘future’ values (e.g. acres, stream miles) specified by the user for each BMP or pollutant reduction strategy. More specific information on the usage of PRedICT is provided in Evans (2003). POST-RESTORATION EVALUATION After restoration activities have been implemented in a watershed, the success of such activities is evaluated on the basis of in-stream surveys conducted to verify if the health of the stream has improved. If no improvements are noted, additional funds are provided by the State to implement more or better corrective measures in the watershed until the desired results are achieved. This is an iterative process that may take many years to complete in significantly degraded watersheds. However, this approach is predicated on the belief that moving towards a corrective solution is better than not moving at all. To date, few restoration projects funded through the Growing Greener programme have been in place long enough to warrant re-examination of affected streams. However, limited data from some fixed water quality monitoring stations maintained by PaDEP that are located at the mouth of watersheds where mitigation measures have been taken suggests that improvements in stream health are beginning to occur. Within the next 2–5 years, PaDEP plans to begin the process of re-surveying Pennsylvania’s streams to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that have been implemented over the past few years. Figure 4: Example of predicted load reductions via combined use of AVGWLF and PRedICT 60
Page 1 and 2:
International Water Association AGR
Page 3 and 4:
2006 Conference Organising Committe
Page 5 and 6:
Theme 2: Cost-effectiveness of Best
Page 7 and 8:
Poster Presentations The Farm Soils
Page 9 and 10:
viii
Page 11 and 12:
managers need support in understand
Page 13 and 14:
During the past 20 years, it became
Page 15 and 16:
infiltration); and (4) capture, sto
Page 17 and 18: DOMINATING PARAMETERS OF IMPAIRMENT
Page 19 and 20: Using the results of the unsupervis
Page 21 and 22: Kohonen T (2001). Self-Organizing M
Page 23 and 24: WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENT
Page 25 and 26: Table 1: Modelled total annual loss
Page 27 and 28: • It should be possible to apply
Page 29 and 30: Scottish Executive against 18 measu
Page 31 and 32: REFERENCES Anthony S, Betson M, Lor
Page 33 and 34: ased on the ‘drainage basin’ in
Page 35 and 36: management practices’ (BMPs) toge
Page 37 and 38: It is envisaged that these data wil
Page 39 and 40: testing (including climate change)
Page 41 and 42: Council of the European Communities
Page 43 and 44: DECREASING THE NITROGEN SOIL SURFAC
Page 45 and 46: Table 1: Overview of the measures c
Page 47 and 48: Table 2: Costs (C), effects (E) and
Page 49 and 50: Figure 2: Combination of ‘best av
Page 51 and 52: MATERIALS AND METHODS At the 5-km 2
Page 53 and 54: REFERENCES Jordan P, Menary W, Daly
Page 55 and 56: Although the TMDL programme origina
Page 57 and 58: grassland and heather moorland, sup
Page 59 and 60: Given that the release of P from th
Page 61 and 62: to the underlying causes, and thus
Page 63 and 64: All water body use attainment infor
Page 65 and 66: indicate the possible presence of p
Page 67: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF M
Page 71 and 72: THE USE OF PONDS TO REDUCE POLLUTIO
Page 73 and 74: established pond/wetland for nutrie
Page 75 and 76: Table 1: Hydraulic load, mean water
Page 77 and 78: Comparable SS removals have been re
Page 79 and 80: Reddy GB, Hunt PG, Phillips R, Ston
Page 81 and 82: In general, the combinations of mea
Page 83 and 84: final word on the POMs selection an
Page 85 and 86: CONCLUSIONS The ERBD project team i
Page 87 and 88: Table 1: A summary of the measures
Page 89 and 90: Table 3: A summary of the represent
Page 91 and 92: cost (£'000/farm) or reduction in
Page 93 and 94: ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF MINIMISING
Page 95 and 96: spread cattle slurry in the autumn
Page 97 and 98: £25,000. The investment in trailin
Page 99 and 100: Studies on a drained clay soil at B
Page 101 and 102: REFERENCES Anon (2000). Fertiliser
Page 103 and 104: (Haygarth and Jarvis, 1999). The vo
Page 105 and 106: Application Representative farm sys
Page 107 and 108: Table 2: Modelled cost-curve for th
Page 109 and 110: ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFU
Page 111 and 112: In the absence of data on the sourc
Page 113 and 114: Magnitude of Impacts The magnitude
Page 115 and 116: D. Use relative area of farm and wh
Page 117 and 118: ADAS has developed a matrix for Def
Page 119 and 120:
Dickson JW, Edwards T, Jeffrey WA,
Page 121 and 122:
60% phosphorus and 50% nitrogen of
Page 123 and 124:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Landscape St
Page 125 and 126:
was contributed to the low vegetati
Page 127 and 128:
iological uptake in a grassed area.
Page 129 and 130:
Tim US, Jolly R and Liao HH (1995).
Page 131 and 132:
to control SS and P loads from agri
Page 133 and 134:
Total P inputs in fertilisers and m
Page 135 and 136:
Within the Teme catchment, largest
Page 137 and 138:
A RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ST
Page 139 and 140:
Environmental Monitoring The primar
Page 141 and 142:
BMP measure 1 (exclusion of stock f
Page 143 and 144:
(a) With reference to the increase
Page 145 and 146:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SAC acknowledges f
Page 147 and 148:
The Environment Sensitive Farming (
Page 149 and 150:
improved further as a result of att
Page 151 and 152:
to do more to reduce pesticide impa
Page 153 and 154:
MANAGING DIFFUSE POLLUTION FROM A F
Page 155 and 156:
turbulent air mixing. The effect th
Page 157 and 158:
Although nitrate leaching can be re
Page 159 and 160:
infiltration of water sheeting off
Page 161 and 162:
Nisbet TR, Orr H and Broadmeadow S
Page 163 and 164:
anthropogenic activities are pollut
Page 165 and 166:
monitoring is determined up front b
Page 167 and 168:
(USEPA). Nevertheless, by applying
Page 169 and 170:
• Sampling equipment •Laborator
Page 171 and 172:
Reinert RE, Knuth BA, Kamrin MA and
Page 173 and 174:
Tier 3 - Tier 3 of LMCs is planned
Page 175 and 176:
policy literature, although this is
Page 177 and 178:
Figure 1: Individual-collective spe
Page 179 and 180:
• tailoring activities to local c
Page 181 and 182:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The support of the
Page 183 and 184:
THE EFFECT OF DIFFUSE POLLUTION FRO
Page 185 and 186:
equires the Minister to designate a
Page 187 and 188:
protection and restoration, sustain
Page 189 and 190:
expensive. One-to-one contact becom
Page 191 and 192:
farmers. In England, recent policy
Page 193 and 194:
practices but, hopefully, the chang
Page 195 and 196:
A CASE STUDY: ADOPTION OF BEST MANA
Page 197 and 198:
The approaches taken by Brittany to
Page 199 and 200:
MANURE TREATMENT By January 2005, t
Page 201 and 202:
REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR THE MANAGEME
Page 203 and 204:
There are also measures that contro
Page 205 and 206:
widely recognised as needing much a
Page 207 and 208:
ploughed, of rivers and streams tha
Page 209 and 210:
is the only mechanism identified fo
Page 211 and 212:
PHOSPHORUS STORAGE IN FINE CHANNEL
Page 213 and 214:
structure and minimum level of main
Page 215 and 216:
REFERENCES May L, Place C, O’Hea
Page 217 and 218:
LOUND CATCHMENT PROJECT: WORKING WI
Page 219 and 220:
MINIMISING THE PRESSURES AND IMPACT
Page 221 and 222:
Predicting Bathing Water Quality Vi
Page 223 and 224:
Risk of illness percentages were ca
Page 225 and 226:
Table 4: Expected lifetime benefits
Page 227 and 228:
DETERMINATION OF THE VETERINARY ANT
Page 229 and 230:
Thin Layer Chromatography The sampl
Page 231 and 232:
Table 2: Regression functions and c
Page 233 and 234:
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR U
Page 235 and 236:
to land managers and agency staff t
Page 237 and 238:
stakeholders, together with their i
Page 239 and 240:
REFERENCES EC (2000). Directive 200
Page 241 and 242:
A third scenario was applied to Clu
Page 243 and 244:
Based on a detailed distribution of
Page 245 and 246:
could be misleading. The results of
Page 247 and 248:
TACKLING DIFFUSE NITRATE POLLUTION:
Page 249 and 250:
AMMONIA VOLATILISATION FROM CATTLE
Page 251 and 252:
and 27% of the soil surface at 80 m
Page 253 and 254:
FIELD TESTING OF MITIGATION OPTIONS
Page 255 and 256:
techniques can significantly reduce
Page 257 and 258:
NITRATE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATE
Page 259 and 260:
MATERIALS AND METHODS At two UK sit
Page 261 and 262:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding of this wo
Page 263 and 264:
y standard methods and fresh, end o
Page 265 and 266:
comparable to those in water draini
Page 267 and 268:
Results may be influential in deter
Page 269 and 270:
• numbers and distribution of liv
Page 271 and 272:
Using this method of classification
Page 273 and 274:
Table 5: Results of land use scenar
Page 275 and 276:
CONCLUSIONS As a decision support t
Page 277 and 278:
types. This paper reports results f
Page 279 and 280:
N Losses in Drainage Water Mean nit
Page 281 and 282:
SOIL AND CROP MANAGEMENT EFFECTS ON
Page 283 and 284:
treatments, typically 10 storm even
Page 285 and 286:
Tramline Effects In both years, obs
Page 287 and 288:
Notes 278
show all

Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?